Scott Horton Interviews Mike Malloy

Scott Horton, March 24, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Talk radio host Mike Malloy discusses the weekend protests at the White House and Quantico Marine brig, against the wars and in support of Bradley Manning; the onerous process of exercising First Amendment rights – there are “free speech zones” and for some reason permits are required; Mike’s arrested for criminal trespass while peacefully assembled on public property; and why war is fundamentally anti-human.

MP3 here. (18:24)

Mike Malloy was one of the original hosts on Air America Radio. In addition to writing and producing for CNN (1984-87) and CNN-International (2000), his professional experience includes newspaper columnist and editor, writer, rock concert producer and actor. He is the only radio talk show host in America to have received the A.I.R (Achievement in Radio) Award in both Chicago and New York City, the number three and number one radio markets in the country.

Mike’s nationally-syndicated program can now be heard weeknights from 9PM – midnight ET on affiliates from coast-to-coast, border to border, across the fruited plane; and on XM Satellite and Sirius Satellite Radio as well as on live Internet streaming.

15 Responses to “Mike Malloy”

  1. Scott, your patience is amazing. How you can remain calm and say nothing when you have someone on the left blasting corporitism/fascism as capitalism amazes me. You have nerves of steel to not correct these guys when they blame the free market. It's government that enables these things, without the state, it would not happen.

  2. You live in a dream world – you have no government. Corporate controlled government is part of the predatory capitalist system resulting in fascism. Mr. Malloy is one of a very few individuals that speak and seek the truth about your marvellous empire.

  3. I admit this was years ago, but I listened to Mike Malloy quite a lot. He was very straightforward at separating facts and opinions. Being honest means he is a centrist, not “on the left”.

    Corporatism/Fascism is not Capitalism, that is correct. Government is doing wrong because it has been hijacked/subverted/infiltrated by the very rich. These very rich are using government to support their greed, not to support Capitalism.
    Indeed, the purpose of government is to provide a level playing field, but these Corporatist/Fascists want the playing field radically tilted to help themselves. In the process, they are destroying America. I do not know about Mike Malloy, but this makes ME angry!

  4. The government is a problem that is true, but the main problem is the apathy of the american people. The american people are allowing this to happen by their silence….

    Why would they even allow themselves to be put into a caged free speech zone? The youth of today are just not passionate enough. The future is in their hands and those hands are too timid.

  5. It’s your system Grigor. A system of income taxes, central banking, socialized military, nationalism… You are as confused about capitalism as most red blooded americans.

  6. It's so frustrating how misunderstood "capitalism" is. It seems like neither the left nor the right actually understand what a "free market" is. Anyways, I thank Mike for his time spent protesting the wars and the treatment of Manning. I liked how he pointed out the ridiculousness of needing a license to exercise your right to free speech. Reminds me of a recent post at lewrockwell.com: "The power to license is the power to control".

  7. I think you misunderstand grigor, as does Melloy. When libertarians speak of "capitalism," they are generally using it as a short-hand for describing their belief in free markets (100% uncontrolled and untaxed by the state)-something which we have never had. When leftists, and for that matter 99% of the republican-right, (and unfortunately even some establishment "libertarians") speak of "capitialism," they are referring to state-capitialism, or corporatism/fascism, the existing system that we and the world live under. You must remember that it is the state which claims the monopoly on the use of violence. Yes, businesses seek to expand their markets, but you must see the difference between businesses that seek to do that through the institutionalized force and favoritism of the state and those that do so through mutual, voluntary trade with people of other nations.

  8. Your views on capitalism are in synch with my own. There is indeed a great deal of confusion and the usual smoke and mirrors used by idealogues within the capitalism-bashing camp and the corporatist/fascist enclave. The problem I've seen is that people have a hard time accepting that they're being "used" when they parrot the "how bad the other side is" dialectic.

  9. The bootleggers of the 20s and early 30s were the closest things to free market capitalism that we have ever had in the US. This was a business where government had no participation except maybe to permit some to make and deleiver goods and crack down on others. Because there was no government involvement in regulating or controlling the participants and products there were some (like the Kennedy family) that made millions and were success stories of this system. At the same time there were others (like Al Capone) who took the initiative without government intervention to eliminate (by killing them) all competition. There were even others that made booze with poisonous substances, and still made pots of money. The free market works both in positive and negaticve ways. If we want a wild west society where no care is given to those who are less able to protect themselves from the Al Capones and poison peddlars, then bring on the free market. I prefer a very flawed government system that is able to protect us from the greed of the extreme free market actors.

  10. Alex refers to the prohibition era, but neglected to go even further back in time. George Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion because he himself was a major distiller, having a gristmill and distillery at Mount Vernon. What’s more, the revolutionary war was fought so colonial powers could do two things. One was to be able to tax the people of the colonies themselves and the other was to negate all of the british treaties with the native americans to facilitate westward expansion and exploitation.

  11. I must disagree with your assessment that the bootleging market of the 20s and early 30s were an example of free-markets. While there is truth to the idea that the underground or 'black'-market is essentially a free-market (no state control), it is still missing a key component of a fully free-market. To explain, it is precisely because of state-prohibition/criminalization that such industries operate in the shadows without any public/consumer accountability. It is also why such industries attract the low life thugs that it does. This can be seen most clearly today in the underground drug market. Demand remains the same while the supply is restricted to the shady people willing to risk criminal activity, thereby drastically driving up the price and generating massive profits. A free-market is strictly regulated by free and open consumer choice. Any business that poisons its customers or engages in fraud would quickly go out of business.

  12. Rick, I agree. I much prefer the term "free market" (no state involvement). I guess any conversation about these topics needs to start by clearly defining the meaning of the main terms being used.

  13. Yes I agree that most companies would go out of business, but the question is why do we have to wait for a calamity before a company loses its reputation? Why can we not have a set of minimal standards so that no deaths occur, or con men run away with all our money and the innocent consumer is left dealing with the consequences?
    Regulations in the meat packing industry began after it became known that poisonsous fillers and non-food items were being used. I enjoy the ability of going into a market and knowing that as long as I cook my food properly I am not going to die (soon afterward) from something I purchase. Why is this a major inhibition? More confidence in a product means more sales. Minimal standards equals more confidence.

  14. First let me point out that third-party regulatory standards can exist without the state. A few modern examples that come to mind might include the M.P.A.A. (movie ratings,etc.), Underwriters Laboratory, and various consumer review websites. That aside, you ask why there can't be minimal regulatory standards, or as you say "why is this a major inhibition?" Well, apply that to speech and maybe you'll understand what is wrong with it. In cases of free speech that would be referred to as 'prior restraint,' like if the government prevented a movie, book, or album from coming out because it was said to contain things that could be harmful to 'society' or could lead to riots, etc. Secondly, all such regulation intrinsically denies private property rights. Ownership implies the right of the owner to control his property. Third-party government regulation denies that ownership by saying said person must do it says he can do with that property. In other words, if that state can dictate the terms of property use, then private property is a cruel illusion. (Imagine the state dictating to you what you could do in your home, or how you had to prepare your food before serving it to your family.) Plus regulation has always been a means for crushing small-scale competition and cartelizing industry. Think a large restaurant vs a local pushing a cart full of self-made sandwiches and selling them to public. Anyway, I could go on and on, but there is plenty of great literature on the subject out there. I would recommend mises.org and/or lewrockwell.com

  15. Making a product to sell in the marketplace is not freedom of speech. It is entrepeneurship. So regulating a good is not infringing on freedom of speech. You are comparing apples to oranges. Under your logic killing someone for their goods is an infringement on the killers ability to acquire goods (property rights), but as a society we feel that doing that is not in the best interest of the marketplace. Selling inherently poisonous goods in the marketplace is the same as killing someone for their money.
    You raise property rights so high it seems that you would advocate for everyone in our country to be able to own a nuclear bomb. If the government can not regulate any property rights then what would stop someone from acquiring something that is bad for society.
    I agree with private property rights but I beleive that they must be weighed with the needs of a society. We can't have everyone doing what they want, but we can't have restrictions on everything either. I also agree that government has been used as a tool for squelching competition. But you shouldn't eliminate the positive roles of government because there are some negatives, try to fix it.

Leave a Reply