So apply this thinking to the modern Left and their self-professed moral high ground. Add to that a nice smattering of dehumanization and we have a genocide in our near future.
Gilly Gil democrats just struck down a bill to save born babies for the second time in as many years, last week. It was a bill to save babies that live through abortions and are born. democrats literally voted to continue to allow born babies to be thrown into trash bags.
Capitalism, socialism, communism all use the point of a gun to coerce their people into compliance. Nature is the economic system if we pollute the ecosystem beyond the carrying capacity the externalities and inability to manage them will most certainly cause collapse. Additionally, in the world today there are no pure capitalist systems, no pure communist systems, and there is certainly no actual free market so the capitalists would like you to believe in the illusion of a free market.
If we had a libertarian society, we would not outlaw socialism. If you get together and run a socialist system. That's fine. As long as nobody forces you into it. - Ron Paul th-cam.com/video/4-w6ZUWV4qE/w-d-xo.html Capitalism is a necessary condition of freedom but not a sufficient condition of freedom. - Milton Friedman on good will
As Thomas Sowell has said, conservative principles can stand up against more opposition because they don't pretend to have the perfect solutions to every problem. The conservative ideology is that man is flawed from day one and that society should find the best possible trade offs, which in many cases may be choosing a horrible option over an even worse option. A liberal's ideology is more concerned with trying to create their vision of a perfect world and despite failing repeatedly over the course of history, they keep believing that those failures occurred because systems like socialism were simply not implemented correctly, and not because man is flawed.
+Rebecca Marino "Well put?", really?!! And you mock me by sarcastically meaning that my comment is inadequate to counter the logic of Friedman? It is not my comment that is inadequate to change your mind, it is your 'formed' mind that is lacking adequacy in intelligence. I can only show you the door, you have to walk through it, all you have to do is trace origins of fame and limelight on friedman. It was the business community going berserk back in the 60s due to the growing left propaganda in the schools and colleges(by propaganda, I mean it in its original meaning not in the negative sense). Then follow the history of political economy, the global system is more complex and convoluted at the present time than in history but it is not as complex as Friedman or Hayek wants you to think it is. when you open your wardrobe or use your electronics, think about the enslaving form of production managed by the global merchant capitalists -whom we admire-, is it a fair system of production and consumption? Don't fall of the reactionary crap and confine yourself into thinking that the oppression is an outcome of state enforcement, boundaries and regulations, it is not! It is the natural course of the Capital. Human progression depends on progressive thinking not backward thinking.
Another un informed Bernie type follower which I call GOM's (Givers of Misinformation) . Friedman was a Libertarian (vast difference from a liberal) and worked under the Reagan administration.So know my young "Feel the bern - GOM" Friedman was far from a liberal . You're welcome ! Love to educate uninformed libs.
george george What a fucking baby. You spout a bunch of false claims and respond, “future posts ignored” like an insolent toddler shouting and sticking his fingers in his ears. Good riddance.
Dr. Friedman: "The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions" Who could possibly doubt this? Only people absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions. Just a few minutes of contemplation reveals the power and truth of Dr. Friedman's assertion. Examples abound.
I like Friedman and I think he is right in a big picture sort of way. But you can still disagree with a few of his proposals. For example:- 1) He suggested to abolish the Fed. With the benefit of hindsight, I think the Fed can do a lot of good as well. 2) He believes the market can take care of most human needs. I happen to think that what we perceive as human rights, healthcare, education and the like, the government has a role to play. The market is efficient but it doesn't guarantee to provide for all.
Bernie's economic policies would help the US economy immensely. The middle class in the US has been severely marginalized, progressive economic policies are vital to the short term and long term health of the economy.
+Christopher Simmons The type of democratic-socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders is not congruent to the type of socialism that was practiced by the Soviet Union. Bernie's plan includes raising taxes and offering more government services to the public, but in no way, shape, or form calls for a centralized command economy.
+DrPolitiks Seems like giving the federal government more money and more control of the economy/services as Sanders proposed, is more centralized command of the economy. Might not be total control, but it's one more step towards it.
Владимир Ленин Not totally correct. He did work some and he also worked as a College professor. At any rate he wan't your typical left wing free loader.
Владимир Ленин You have it backwards, left wingers don't work, so they don't pay taxes. The so called right wingers are the people who have values and integrity. They believe in working for a living and not subsidizing the lazy socialists. It's the right that creates jobs. Obviously you've been fed a lot of communist propaganda to spew this kind of Socialist BS rhetoric.
+Lawrence Dolha I agree with you last post but I wouldn't say that he was a right winger. I would say that he was in the middle of a circle that the left and the right want to use against us. ie. socialists and fascists. I feel that the true calling for us all is to recognize that we do need one another without regulation to the extreme of either ideology. Just my 2 cents, peace brother.
I happen to enjoy Dr.Freidman wish I learnt this in my 20 and I have been reading political science for more than 30 years and Friedman is exactly right on all counts
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
C.S Lewis went to my highschool so he's always been in the background of my mind. I'm not religious myself and this is the usual context people have presented to me. Would you recommend any of his books that involve minimal religiosity?
Capitalism is freedom to succeed. Everyone can succeed in capitalism and that's the whole beauty of it. If you want to spend your days on a couch watching TV, then I believe you that socialism is the best for you.
Hr. Kontrolminister Why? I have worked for a minimum wage and I am working for 2 hours per day for 5x the average paycheck. If I believed in socialism, I'd still be working 8-10 hours per day for a minimum wage.
I really wish more people in the UK thinking of voting for Corbyn again would listen to what people like Friedman have to say about socialism. Hopefully it would do its part to stop a great calamity from happening.
You will know more than I on corbyn's policies, but everything i heard and read about corbyn leads me to believe he's a decent, reasonable person with a pacifist nature. Although i disagree on socialism, i have only heard him try to persuade rather force his beliefs on others.
The problem with Britain is the same problem the world is having. The entire world is suffering by the hand of a few Rothschild types that wants global government. The end to nationstates, the are central planning to covertly produce one world government in which they will rule. Friedman apparently agrees with them.
+Ted Sparks (Nerdy TWILBRY) I'm pretty sure he's just a naturalist. As for the "some people use Atheism as a religion", who? Do you even know what religion is?
+NoctisAugustus I don't know about religion. But I used the word as implying theistic historicism. Why did I mention Hegel and Marx? This is Critical Rationalism vs Scientism Yes, Dawkins knows. He mentioned Karl Popper with some slight criticism of Popper and his associate (Actually, Popper was a member of Mont Pelerin Society) in the book The Devil's Chaplain. And Friedrich A. von Hayek is friend with Popper. Also, Dawkins is just left-wing with structural rationalism.
Ted Sparks I can't comment on that, I've only watched a few videos of his speeches and him debating religious people so I don't know much about him. However from what I've seen he seems to be very rational and, like myself, holds a very naturalist view of the world. I don't know about him being left wing, I haven't seen him speak about politics or economics. He seems more apolitical to me.
ah yes, capitalism totally isn't using force by lobbying against working-class people interest such as higher wages, deregulate industry by lobbying, artificially creating scarcity of jobs and army of unemployed people because otherwise the workers would argue for more rights without risk of being homeless. TOTALLY NOT FORCED.
This is exactly why I try to tell my socialist friends that Jesus was NOT a socialist. Never. . Nowhere near it. Jesus encouraged and exhorted people to give, to have compassion and show love and care for others. That was the sum of the law: to love God, and to love others as you love yourself. Not once, however, did He FORCE IT. He spoke of the virtues of giving, but because God is by nature a giver. He encourage the act of giving and giving liberally; however, He never forced it. He left it in the hands of those who wanted to follow it, and when those people did, they did it WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AND TIME.
+lee brondum Good question. Certain Jews in the temple were selling sacrifices. That was not what God commanded. The house of God is supposed to be a house of prayer and worship, and they were turning it into a marketplace for profit. Jesus could not abide by that. That was the temple of God and was a place designated specifically for prayer and worship. John 2:16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!"
+Aaron Beauchamp so he was against profits then and why are they putting in subways at some mega churches if Jesus went in and kicked out all the salesman
lee brondum No, He was not against profits. Markets and marketplaces are not a sin. Using the house of God, the temple, to produce money and profit was a sin. As for mega churches, I agree with you, and those pastors of those churches will have to make an account for their actions....but mega churches were not the topic of discussion here.
Man... if only videos like this could be trending on Twitter and TH-cam... and be shown on cable news today. Thanks @AndrewYang for introducing this guy to my life.
The truth resonates. The initial introduction is off putting because its not what you've been told throughout most of your adult life. Most of us were brainwashed as children into believing our prosperity was the result of state intervention. This only makes sense when you consider who it is your teachers are actually working for.
This is a unique video in that it shows Friedman, a self-described consequentialist, taking a Kantian position on libertarianism. He does a great job of analyzing historical examples as well.
"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperations and try to do go by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs good intentions." - Milton Friedman. Whem climate activist say Ban all Plastic, and all. Etc
@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend He's not a liberal. He's a libertarian, "libertarian with a lower-case L, Republican with an upper-case R" he says in an interview. He's also mentioned a couple of times how the word "liberal" was hijacked by lefties, "who are liberal because they like to spend other people's money liberally," or something along those lines.
You know this principle works as much on an interpersonal level as much as an economic level. The easiest way to tell if someone is a bad person, is if the insist vehemently that they are a good person. Because a truly good person is someone who doesn't try to do (their view) of good, but makes great effort to avoid doing bad (which is far more universal in nature).
The greatest form of charity is not charity at all, but providing an opportunity for employment to an individual. Because in work there is dignity and a measure of independence. In charity there is nobility for the charitable but no dignity for the recipient and no independence.
Bernie Sanders would learn much from what MIlton Friedman said in the first part of this clip: the fundamental value is, not to force them to do good,but respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow man.
Actually, that Quote sounds more in Line to Something Donald Trump and Republicans need to learn "respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow man." if you listen to the full Video an ALtrighter like you may endup disliking this man because you would find that he would be considered an SJW/Woke by modern standards.
Absolute genius. I wish I could hear Milton Friedman talk in today's world. I shape my beliefs upon his teaching because I have never had a moment where I can say I've disagreed.
If Friedman talked today, he wouldn't look like a genius at all. Ideas evolve over time and so do peoples understanding of socio-economic theories such as socialism. People who would call themselves socialist no longer think that it's a good idea to centralize the economy governed by the government (The executive powers). Instead, they have finally read the theory of Karl Marx who pioneered the idea of socialism/communism after becoming famous from his very well done critique of capitalism. The idea of socialism is actually thriving even in America. Communities are coming together and forming worker cooperatives where everyone has ownership of their own labor because they also are part owner of the company. What socialist today would like to see, is the workers market becoming free to chose between socialism and capitalism. Right now the market favors capitalism far too much with these major corporations that have monopolized and nationalized market they pertain to, so there is no way for socialism to viably compete. However, if those major corporations were restructured effectively to worker cooperatives, I can easily seeing socialism winning out against capitalism easily because nobody would want to work for someone when they can instead work with them and get paid much better because they actually own their own labor rather than someone else owning it.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C.S. Lewis
Any and all socialist programs throughout history is enforced through coersion. The key difference between the two extremes, is on the one hand, you have every individual making their own choices. On the other hand you got a few people making choices for everyone. Which person has a fuller understanding of each individual's situation; the individual itself, or the authority that has to keep track of a thousand individuals?
as an Venezuelan man I can say with total confidence that most of us (if not all) hate this damn socialism and everything related to it.. so I don't get your joke but I suppose you're funny guy.. well your country is full of comedians I can't blame you indeed..
The funniest part about this is that capitalism itself requires force to function. For instance you cannot have property without widespread social agreement, and it would be limited to zero-value without widespread participation of other people. Also libertarians seem to think they have a monopoly on the defining matters of what constitutes force. Please explain to me how I would "be free" under a Randian society when I and others clearly disagree with all it's premises?
Libertarians do not need to redefine words, I think everybody understands what "force" means. Libtns simply recognize the difference between _initiation_ of force and _retaliatory_ force. The Non-Agression Principle simply says initiation is bad, but retaliation is justified. Libtn society would protect individual freedom (using the _retaliatory_ force of Common Law). I guess you would "be free" to not exercise your freedom, but I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe you could become your own slave, or imprison yourself. It seems extreme to be that much against individual freedom.
If a prisoner is locked in cell and let to starve, would his death be the result of force? No more than an indigent veteran who dies of hypothermia when his heat is shut off for nonpayment. When the religious convictions of a parent permit a child to die for lack of medical treatment that is not an example of force either. When a retiree must choose between food shelter or paying for a prescription upon which her life depends, that situation does not involve force either. Friedman's rhetorical sophistry in this case asks us to a adopt a highly restrictive vocabulary to justify very loose generalizations and even weaker conclusions. If we consider the possibility of force being applied by other than direct physical means, the term might encompass a larger set of meanings for instance; violence leverage, advantage, power, control, domination, or conflict. There are many means of controlling others that are contextual and involve limits to opportunity or other means of constricting the available choices to one's advantage at an others expense where inequality might be said to generate force and tilt or even predetermine the outcome of a negotiation or conflict.
Mike Blain "Libtns simply recognize the difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force." In a lot of cases they don't. For example they view private property i.e. the absentee ownership of production were one party enforces their exclusive claim to the industry we all rely on to sustain ourselves largely as use of force in defense. They also tend to not understand how business owners excluding people from economic action and thus forcing them into deprivation by not serving people because they are black or something similar is not use of force in defense, but rather the initiation. Another area they have the two confused many times is when employers set the rules of a business from the top down for employees excluding the employees from power over their work and alienating them from their own profession. Like, common, that's initiating force, seriously. I could go on and on btw.
redandblackrevolutionary I could not understand some of your sentences, but it sounds like you are saying racism is initiation of force, which is correct. But I'm not sure how business structure has anything to do with "force", business associations (employment, customers, etc) are all voluntary. It sounds like you have remembered some comment by one idiot, and then presenting that as "Libtns all believe...". Not very solid argument.
Mike Blain Could you point out what you feel you don't understand? No choice one makes ever can be categorized as voluntary. The laws of nature always influence our choices and thus we make decisions without influence from outside coercion. Employment under capitalism is dictated property relations that naturally advantage some and disadvantage others and thus not the result of free choice or constructed upon free-associations of people.
the facts show that socialism has either failed in the past or is failing. Things get worse and worse even in US - thanks for the left and their socialist policies. brainwashed idiots.
I would believe Friedman if I was 12 years old. If socialism is a myth, free market economy supported with good legal system is even greater legend. I know much better now about both socialism and capitalism. In the core of the problems is political organized crime, and the perpetual need to ventilate this corrupted life on earth with revolutions. It is not a matter of philosophy, it is a matter of physics and biology. Masses are extremely frustrated with their lives, and rich, small, corrupted elite use political spins, combined with brute force, do imperial wars, and then it will come with fascism on large scale, turning whole world in one big concentration camp. Large part of the world already is. Socialism may be this or that, but marxist-leninist social theories are very informative body of work about existence on this planet. Why USA supports corrupted and exploiting regimes all over the world, and wage wars only on those who are against her interests? Because USA is exploiting imperial fascist state in it's core. That is a fact, liberalism is just a nice make-up!
"In the core of the problems is political organized crime, and the perpetual need to ventilate this corrupted life on earth with revolutions." Kind of like the Russian Revolution? Like who backed them? And who was against the backer's interests? I leave it to you to find out. Marx talked out of his ass and Lenin spoke of useful idiots with adoration and the both of them hailed dictatorships and one of them ruled one. To consider Marx and Lenin informative is to admit to being just as self-deceiving as they were. Sure, they can point at the world's problems, like anybody else, but a snake oil salesman is still a snake oil salesman. One cannot just blare out "Religion is the opiate of the masses" whilst imitating the oldest religious archetype known to the masses and not be a hypocrite asshole. Indeed, the ventilation you spoke of is true. That whole corrupted remark is, ironically, a corruption of your otherwise objective statement. As for your last couple of sentences, I suggest you stop pushing loaded questions and statements. Of course, the U.S.A. has been a country, a Union, with Imperialist and Fascist elements taking it over. That's not Capitalism or Liberalism, which still exists within the U.S.. It's insane dualism that allows for all of these isms to coexist within the same system. It's the global superpowers and the international banking cartels, with the help of the Federal Reserve which Friedman was against, that get away with this piracy of the world and instigate conflicts. FYI, Communism is all about giving the world a global concentration camp.
Everything he is saying fits correctly on current capitalist society, as few rich people decides what’s good for people without asking people and then enforcing them indirectly through society by instilling them as social values. ✌️✌️
Socialism is a force, rigth. A democratic force, in the interest of the producing/working class. Capitalsm is a force too. A force in the interest of the capitalist entrepreneur and in the interest of maximizing profits, at the costs of the benefits of the labourer. So both capitalism and socialism are forces, but altogether different forces, as socialism works in the interest of the labouring majority, and capitalism works in the interest of the minority of capitalist entrepreneurs, and those depending on capitalist profits. Capitalism is a dictatorship of the minority.
Friedman is not saying socialism is "a force", but that it requires force from government to implement it. In contrast, laissez faire capitalist economy is built entirely from voluntary contracts and free competition (needing no force from government), and works in the interests of consumers more than businesses. What we have now is mixed economy (capitalism blended with significant state interference). That is more in the interests of the minority you mentioned (businesses, lobbyists, party contributors, etc). They get the most benefit of state interference.
It sounds like he's arguing against even the workplace by saying: (at time 1:54) "As I see it, the fundamental value and relations among people is to respect the dignity and individuality of fellow men. To treat your fellow man, not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but to treat him as a person with his own values and his own rights - a person to be persuaded, not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed. That seems to be a fundamental value in social relations." I agree, which is why wage labor (ie: the idea that people are merely tools of production) is force. Employees are not seen as people with values, ideas of their own, etc. Employees are treated merely as means to an end, a means of producing and profiting FOR the business owner and not WITH. Employees have no power in the workplace, unless granted by the owner. The owner has a monopoly on proposal and vetoing power, the employees have none. Therefore, wage labor (ie: the commodification of the human being to be rented for profit) is force. Thoughts?
There's no force involved. No one is forcing the employee to work there. If the employee thinks that they can do better elsewhere, they are free to leave.
DavidJHilt I'm not saying it's "physical" force. I'm specifically referring to the quote, and how he says the use of a person "as an object to be manipulated for your purpose" (ie: wage labor) is not entailed in "respecting the dignity and individuality of fellow men" (ie: liberty). Yes, employer's aren't "physically forcing" employees to do anything, but employees are viewed as merely tools of production; there's nothing you could disagree with that, since that's (by definition) Capitalism and the characteristic of wage labor. We could argue details and what constitutes as "physical force", but not all force is physical, nor is an outcome desirable merely because it was arrived at via "voluntary" means.
Leo Riveron if you want the best production out of those people (work force) , you must treat them well. If you don't your business will fail or won't be as successful. Capitalism makes everyone selfish, which is a good thing. The employer wants better employees, so he pays them more or treats them better, gives them more time off, etc. True capitalism, let's the employee choose where he wants to work, with no minimum wage, the employee can make as much or as little as he wants. In a pure capitalistic economy, the employee benefits because all the choices are his. If he wants to self educate or get a standard university education, or do on the job training. Capitalism benefits everyone but in capitalism, everyone is responsible for their actions or non actions. People hate being responsible, that's why many hate capitalism.
dak9554 I don't think you're considering the fact that many workers in the US don't have the luxury of being able to switch a job they don't like. Some have to take more than 1 job just to make end's meet. Saying that business's are somehow structurally incentivized to be kind to workers is not only highly shortsighted, it is completely dishonest.... Why, then, do we see strike after strike of workers dissatisfied with their business's decisions?? Clearly they don't have that option. It seems more accurate to say that selfishness only works for a few people and not the majority.
Leo Riveron As a former skilled labor employee, I had the choice of many companies, none of which I liked, so I started my own. That is the beauty of capitalism, you are responsible for you. You determine what you're worth. No company could pay me what I wanted, now I get paid 3-4 times what I originally wanted because I started my own business. The people that surround me ALL came from dirt poor backgrounds ( we are all first-generation immigrants from the former Soviet Union.) But most of us are lower-middle class to upper-middle class due to capitalism. We gained skills and knowledge to let us be useful to the market and then we got paid well for the services we provided. The people that strike, are usually unskilled workers who think that they DESERVE more. Or Unions who are dishonest about their intentions. (I had a lot of dealings with unions and they are not people that want to advance the company/nation. They just want to be paid more and more. They don't want to try to get more skills to get paid more, theu just want to be paid more for what they already know. Just because sone people strike, doesnt mean that they are correct to do so. A lot of strikes are immoral and harmful to local economies. I live in Seattle and the port slow downs on the West Coast are ruining a lot of business, including mine. Goolge the affects of the West Coast slow down.
I believe this to the core of my being: "the fundamental value is not to do good to others as you see they are good, its not to force them to do good. As [I] see it the fundamental value in relations among people is to respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow men. To treat your fellow man not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but to treat him as a person with his own values and his own rights. A person to be persuaded, not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed." So simple, yet so profoundly philosphical and important to realize, whether you're on the left or the right, or just a human in general.
That's great, i'm glad that there are people out there who supply you and others with information & goods which you can learn from, i'm also happy about the fact that you decided to put in effort to learn something. These are the basic freedoms of which i speak, none of this needs a forceful element or a strictly profit driven situation to exist. It's hard for a society to remain uncorrupted but it is possible, if it is full of responsible citizens who only elect the wise&freedom cherishing ones
Free market allows for cooperatives (communist-style market subjects). Communist states do not allow for joint stock companies. How many people participate in cooperatives and which cooperatives have resulted in major inventions e.g. the transistor?
The last election was the first one in which I was old enough to vote. Watching a bit of television and hearing people talk about the election, no party i was made aware of appealed to me enough for me to vote for them, I realize now that was a mistake and I should have done my research. Even though I dislike democracy I ought to atleast try and make the best of it.
5:07-5:39 reminds me of this quote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”-C.S. Lewis
There is a deeper ethical point here. Friedman says “How do you do good with somebody else’s money unless you take it away from them?”; the same could be re-phrased as “How do you good with someone else’s values unless you take it away from them (in the sense of, take away their agency)?” Socialism with ethics and morality is called moral policing.
I believe in maximum freedom for each individual to determine their own path. No dictators or autocrats. Someone has to be in charge of the government, but hopefully someone who shares these values and isn't a phony.
A perfect example of someone being replaced with people with bad intentions is the police chief in Ottawa, Canada in Feb 2022 to deal with the peaceful protesters with force and violence.
I love this video. It shows he doesn't understand what socialism is. He's good on economics, the science that follows the money even if its concentrated in the hands of few and therefore don't portrait an accurate picture of the group being studied. Sentence after sentence, when he lays the good side of capitalism, it is also used by pro socialists thinkers, when he talks about force and state being the core of socialism, he shows the true nature of his comments: not an interest in true, but an interest in destroying socialism, even if distorted descriptions are needed. Talk about an amoral person.
I prefer the term "Social Democracy" when discussing an economic system that leans to the left of the political spectrum. Friedman has never attempted to explain the success of Social Democracies such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or even that of the left-of-centre Germany. He paints any economic system other than the fear and greed-driven supposedly free market type as a virtual dictatorship. How he can, after the 2007-8 economic meltdown that was engineered by the big lending institutions and cost the public billions of dollars and massive job losses, still continue to spout his flawed theories is beyond my understanding.
Hans-Juergen KIRSTEIN Sweden only really boomed in the 70's. Now Sweden is turning against Socialism.Taxes have fallen and markets have liberealized. So using Sweden is a poor excuse
How can he continue to spout his flawed theories after the 2007-2008 economic meltdown? It's beyond my understanding too! I would love to know, considering he DIED in 2006!
If you were to read his books, as opposed to trolling for 6 minute pieces, you would read his response to "Social Democracy", in which he specifically talks about. So, to your point that Friedman was just so stupid...well actually, he was smart enough to see in to the future and see what liberals would do to try to make Socialism sound more appealing.
I believe whether or not something is bad for you, it's up to you to decide if that outhweighs the reasons to go ahead anyway. It should not be decided by government decree, or anyone else, it should be your choice.
What is a free market example? In a free market economy, the law of supply and demand, rather than a central government, regulates production and labor. ... For example, while the U.S. allows companies to set prices, and workers negotiate wages, the government establishes parameters, such as minimum wages and antitrust laws, that must be followed.
A corporation which as stated earlier is a legally registered entity by the state, can have a single owner or multiple owners. A single owner of a corporation is different from sole proprietorship just to note.
Giancarlo Pace Explain to you that no one has ever been beaten to death with a dollar bill, while millions have been killed by the state with _weapons_? BULLSHIT. You already know the difference. All you're doing is telling the world you can't cope with negotiation, that force is the only language you understand.
If you stay factual and objective, and keep a calm tone, we will both profit much more from the discussion. I guess it is easy to understand what "private tiranny" means, absolute power corrupts absolutely, like both Milton Friedman and I like to quote from Lord Acton. But I think that this is also true for economical power, which allow, for examples, corporations to lobby much more effectively, corrupt, control the media and so on. And this is also why "free market" never existed, I suspect.
Giancarlo Pace Of course I can stay factual and objective. Naturally, this precludes any discussion of "private tyrannies" since these are neither factual nor objective. On the other hand, it is _factual and objective_ to observe that the United States military budget is ~700 BILLION dollars per year. It is also factual and objective to observe that anyone that refuses to pay for it will be jailed. It is also factual and objective to observe that the United States recently invaded Iraq and killed 100's of thousands of people. Now, if YOU want to be factual and objective, start by discussing the _weapons_ of the State and how they use them to control the populace.
Dear jeffiek , if you deny the existence of tyrannies that exert economical power, like big corporations polluting, bribing, exploiting and so on, your point weakens seriously. I do not defend that states do not commit crimes, and I totally agree with you that what US army did in Iraq is disgusting. My point is that what makes power acceptable, is not being private versus being exerted by a state, which is an institution made by humans just like a company. The difference is being balanced versus being completely out of control by external forces.
With what do you buy guns? Who produces them? Why? There are evident relations between things and processes which you struggle to acknowledge. Do not insult please, I am not doing it, I want to understand if you have a point that I still did not get. By insulting, you only convince everybody who reads that you don't.
I get what you're saying, it's just that for a young man raised in the a white upper-middle class environment, Chomsky and Paul were two influential men who helped me unlearn and understand the world for what it really is. I'm not accepting any contradictions here, I just feel that if legitimate progress is to be made, unions on thought must first be made to help people understand what is real: That we are all human beings and that ideologies, faiths, and cultures only divide us.
Quotes can be taken out of context. I'll just give you names. Adam Smith (writer of the wealth of nations), Jean-Basptie Say (french economist), David Ricardo, F. A. Hayek, Carl Menger, Eugene Bohm-Bawek, Ludwig Von-Mises, and Milton Friedman. Were all well known economists who were pro capitalism. Even John Maynard Keynes agreed with most of what these economists wrote, even though he's often used as an argument for socialism.
"Sincerity is also a much overated virtue. Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what's good for you and by Heaven is going to make you do it whether you like it or not. " ~ Milton Friedman He's referring to political zealotry, leading to mass fanatacism, justification of use of force and ultimately tyranny, just like in Nazi Germany. For modern examples of teetering on the brink See: The current occupier of The White House - Creepy/Sleepy Joe, The Soviet Of California and the entire post-modernist (D) party...
"400 years ago, they didn't have free market counter parts." You missed the point. 400 years ago was the greatest period of innovation up to that time. Whatever innovation was going on was happening within the context of whatever economic system they had. Should they have attributed their innovation solely to their economic system? And if they did, would they be justified in doing so?
I enjoy some of Friedman's views, and in particular...this and his quote about freedom being the quality leading to higher equality than force. I may not be compatable with everything about him, but no question there is truth in his Thoreau quote that does make sense of the morality of individual liberty as it is intended...a voluntary society is a fair society.
It isn't, depending on the type of tax. However, a progressive based income tax system is. Also, a income tax generally is designed to create socialized benefits, although not always the case. Example, was civil war Lincoln created a income tax system (which was unconstitutional but done due to martial powers Lincoln had). The design for the income tax was to pay for the war. However, the income tax designed under Wilson, also unconstitutional, was designed for wealth redistribution in banking.
Prosperity and happiness are not the result of force and coercion. We have yet to ever see real freedom on this planet, but once we do, we will see multiplication of prosperity and happiness.
Don't you think that since we were able t visualize and create this nation that we would also be able to visualize and create an even better arrangement, especially since we've taken this grand step toward that? Because so many of us are raised in force and coercion, we are primed to think that this is the only way society can operate. The non-aggression principle of ethics requires that no person aggress against another, that no person tax another, force someone to do something, or otherwise impose our will onto others. As it is now, our government, and every other government, is imposing its will onto people, taxing them, and forcing them to do things. This is the fundamental nature of all governments. A free society would be one in which people would have expectation to live harmoniously and would be accountable to one another to be peaceful and civil, but would no person or entity would have power to control other people, take money from them, impose ideas on them, or anything that violates the non-aggression principle of ethics. Milton was an advocate for peaceful, ethical living. He wanted to influence the generations that would be able to make these societal improvements into norms within our entire world.
There's a huge difference between private ownership in the sense of personal ownership of a thing that you use or possess of your own labor, and private ownership in the sense of capitalist ownership of the earth and resources and what others produce by their labor, who must obey the authority of the owner to produce anything.
I would say that the individual rights to personal property are universal in all cultures and economic theories and not being challenged by anyone, aside from certain religious groups that preach the virtue of poverty. Private property is very different, when a "farm owner" has other people working the farm, he has no basis to claim that it is his and his alone, and when the entire community needs it, what right does he have to destroy it, except violently enforced property fictions?
I can't tell if that comment was a response to me because for some reason on this video it doesn't say who it was in reply to or have a (Show the comment) button to click, however none of what you said has anything to do with socialism. Taxing you to fund a fire station isn't socialism, it's a typical social function of the state. A socialist community could handle this in many ways, taxation could be used but the major difference is that you'd be voting on it.
The value of a commodity is decided by the person who wants and uses the commodity, the value in material terms can be calculated by material cost, in terms of energy and material resources, without the use of money. What money really represents, is a limiting human activity in the absence of currency. Everything that is done with the exchange of money could be done without the exchange of money, this was illustrated by Anarchist Syndicates, and by nationalized industries during the World Wars.
Examples of Capitalism in a sentence. Under the system of capitalism, goods and services are created and distributed by private enterprises. Socialism differs from capitalism because in socialism the government controls industry and production. In capitalism the market sets the terms of supply and demand.
Monopolies only exist because of force. Once a company has reached its equilibrium peak efficiency, it cannot grow any larger without extinguishing fair competition, and the means of achieving that end is via government force or mafia force.
I couldn't structure the sentence properly due to characters limit. Indirect government services like the fire station is something that we have to pay for. Since, we indirectly use the service d2d. I have not said that this is a form of socialism. Direct gov't services like SS or NSH ( not NSA) is a form of Socialism, since we pay for services that we may or may not use. Also, with a gov't providing direct services like subsidized HC, it does have a large control over the means of production
Hi LP, I am trying to find a quote of Friedman's. He says something about charity etc. being conducted by organisations and churches in a free society, rather than government. If you can find something similar from any other respectable economist that would also be helpful.
Also, to you 2nd point. The state using tax revenue to pay for its activities is nothing new. This is a system that has been used with free-market societies, since the dawn of civilization. However, what has changed recently with the government activities are government services that we may or may not use, but still have to pay for. This includes tax subsidies, healthcare subsidies, social security etc. These can be viewed as direct government services. Although I cannot remember the exact term
Voluntary exchange sounds wonderful, but many laissez faire don't understand that it is still a force that can be negative as you pointed out. It is simply a social force as is socialism with involuntary force. Neither are a solution rather material to build a solution from.
The presentation of his arguments flow logically, they are easy-to-understand, and pretty much impossible to avoid, but we have to recognize the era in which these talks were given. The context provided the highest believed in truth within that world and I thank him for telling it like it is as it has provided us with a level surface to stand on almost forty years later within a undoubtedly different planet. He also fails to recognize another reality, possibly because it was not recognized by enough people back then or the knowledge didn't necessarily apply to them, but his arguments lack the logical finalization of his own thought process. He claims socialism is the use of force, which is factually impossible to ignore as yes, but he doesn't mention that any use of force monopolized as a or through a political mafia is illegitimate because it rests on defiling the virtues of self-ownership, self-determination, and the nonaggression principle. Socialism is pure and total belief in statism (monopolistic force), capitalism is low to moderate belief in statism but pure belief in the production of ever-rising economic growth despite a possible lack of ability to maintain or wholehearted lack of interest among the people who create and interact with and supply the industries we find in our world. Capitalism fundamentally requires the free market, but it is not just the free market. There is a level of added feudalism though it remains financially impossible for the heads of labor to choke freedom out of people. With states, however, this is ultimately the inevitable conclusion.
"In capitalism, this is self regulatory." Then why are those who work the hardest, those who are paid the least, while those who paid the most from which to feast, those who do not ever work but merely rule over the labor of others?
Your idea that traffic cannot be regulated in anarchism is very correct. There are actually many things that anarchism can't deal with that needs a State. Look up Public Goods on Google. Other such things are the military, justice system including things that structure a market and allow it to function (institutions) like property rights, transparent bankrupcy procedures, contract enforcement, commercial dispute settlement etc. etc.
"The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions." -- Milton Friedman
IE: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
@@geniusmchaggis "All good girls go th-cam.com/video/-PZsSWwc9xA/w-d-xo.html to hell."
So apply this thinking to the modern Left and their self-professed moral high ground. Add to that a nice smattering of dehumanization and we have a genocide in our near future.
Gilly Gil democrats just struck down a bill to save born babies for the second time in as many years, last week. It was a bill to save babies that live through abortions and are born. democrats literally voted to continue to allow born babies to be thrown into trash bags.
Capitalism, socialism, communism all use the point of a gun to coerce their people into compliance. Nature is the economic system if we pollute the ecosystem beyond the carrying capacity the externalities and inability to manage them will most certainly cause collapse. Additionally, in the world today there are no pure capitalist systems, no pure communist systems, and there is certainly no actual free market so the capitalists would like you to believe in the illusion of a free market.
this guy argues so well his old school arguments take down new school ideas.
Truth is timeless.
It amazes me how pertinent this guys discussions are some 30-40 years later. He fucking nails it every damn time it just blows my mind.
FindingFreedom In the scope of human history, liberty is new.
If we had a libertarian society, we would not outlaw socialism. If you get together and run a socialist system. That's fine. As long as nobody forces you into it. - Ron Paul
th-cam.com/video/4-w6ZUWV4qE/w-d-xo.html
Capitalism is a necessary condition of freedom but not a sufficient condition of freedom. - Milton Friedman on good will
''this guy''
As Thomas Sowell has said, conservative principles can stand up against more opposition because they don't pretend to have the perfect solutions to every problem. The conservative ideology is that man is flawed from day one and that society should find the best possible trade offs, which in many cases may be choosing a horrible option over an even worse option. A liberal's ideology is more concerned with trying to create their vision of a perfect world and despite failing repeatedly over the course of history, they keep believing that those failures occurred because systems like socialism were simply not implemented correctly, and not because man is flawed.
Well put.
+Rebecca Marino "Well put?", really?!! And you mock me by sarcastically meaning that my comment is inadequate to counter the logic of Friedman? It is not my comment that is inadequate to change your mind, it is your 'formed' mind that is lacking adequacy in intelligence.
I can only show you the door, you have to walk through it, all you have to do is trace origins of fame and limelight on friedman. It was the business community going berserk back in the 60s due to the growing left propaganda in the schools and colleges(by propaganda, I mean it in its original meaning not in the negative sense). Then follow the history of political economy, the global system is more complex and convoluted at the present time than in history but it is not as complex as Friedman or Hayek wants you to think it is. when you open your wardrobe or use your electronics, think about the enslaving form of production managed by the global merchant capitalists -whom we admire-, is it a fair system of production and consumption? Don't fall of the reactionary crap and confine yourself into thinking that the oppression is an outcome of state enforcement, boundaries and regulations, it is not! It is the natural course of the Capital. Human progression depends on progressive thinking not backward thinking.
+MusicIsLife except milton is a radical liberal, not a conservative... in fact he's a radical utopian, quite the antithesis of conservatism.
+Carol Danvers, you are a libertarian. Welcome to the club!
Another un informed Bernie type follower which I call GOM's (Givers of Misinformation) . Friedman was a Libertarian (vast difference from a liberal) and worked under the Reagan administration.So know my young "Feel the bern - GOM" Friedman was far from a liberal . You're welcome ! Love to educate uninformed libs.
A quote from England, “Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money”
Not quite, because you can just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing like we Americans do. Exhibit A: Donald Trump, the fake conservative.
george george I’m a proud capitalist, moron. I just don’t like running massive deficits.
george george What a fucking baby. You spout a bunch of false claims and respond, “future posts ignored” like an insolent toddler shouting and sticking his fingers in his ears. Good riddance.
Imperialism works until you run out of African countries.
@george george you are the moron. Trump is incompetant.
Dr. Friedman:
"The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions"
Who could possibly doubt this? Only people absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions. Just a few minutes of contemplation reveals the power and truth of Dr. Friedman's assertion. Examples abound.
Absolutely David, but let's bring it home for a second - Is the same rule not true for those that follow after Friedman?
Did you just say "Absolutely"?
I like Friedman and I think he is right in a big picture sort of way. But you can still disagree with a few of his proposals.
For example:-
1) He suggested to abolish the Fed. With the benefit of hindsight, I think the Fed can do a lot of good as well.
2) He believes the market can take care of most human needs. I happen to think that what we perceive as human rights, healthcare, education and the like, the government has a role to play.
The market is efficient but it doesn't guarantee to provide for all.
Is food a right? Government doesn't play a role with that.
The more pure one thinks his intentions are, the less constrained he will be in measures to achieve his end. So yes, absolutely.
"You have to look at the outcome. Whenever you use force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions." I love this man.
Looking for Milton clips to send to all my friends who think voting for Bernie in 2016 is even a marginally reasonable idea.
+Christopher Simmons Haha, me too, except in Canada it is the New Democratic Party.
EVIL wrapped in promises.
+Christopher Simmons Check out Bill Whittle, all of his videos are great.
Bernie's economic policies would help the US economy immensely. The middle class in the US has been severely marginalized, progressive economic policies are vital to the short term and long term health of the economy.
+Christopher Simmons
The type of democratic-socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders is not congruent to the type of socialism that was practiced by the Soviet Union. Bernie's plan includes raising taxes and offering more government services to the public, but in no way, shape, or form calls for a centralized command economy.
+DrPolitiks Seems like giving the federal government more money and more control of the economy/services as Sanders proposed, is more centralized command of the economy. Might not be total control, but it's one more step towards it.
Man I love Milton. He presents his arguments in such a simple but eloquent manner. There is lots to learn from him.
This country was lucky to have such a man as milton Friedman
Excellent Presentation by one of the wisest men who ever lived!
+Lawrence Dolha HE IS DEAD
xfa xdfa Meant one of the men who ever lived. OK, I screwed up. Fixed it.
Владимир Ленин Not totally correct. He did work some and he also worked as a College professor. At any rate he wan't your typical left wing free loader.
Владимир Ленин You have it backwards, left wingers don't work, so they don't pay taxes. The so called right wingers are the people who have values and integrity. They believe in working for a living and not subsidizing the lazy socialists. It's the right that creates jobs. Obviously you've been fed a lot of communist propaganda to spew this kind of Socialist BS rhetoric.
+Lawrence Dolha I agree with you last post but I wouldn't say that he was a right winger. I would say that he was in the middle of a circle that the left and the right want to use against us. ie. socialists and fascists. I feel that the true calling for us all is to recognize that we do need one another without regulation to the extreme of either ideology. Just my 2 cents, peace brother.
It is sad that this kind of talk would be banned at most colleges today.
That's no saying much these days.
I happen to enjoy Dr.Freidman wish I learnt this in my 20 and I have been reading political science for more than 30 years and Friedman is exactly right on all counts
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- C.S. Lewis
nicely put!
LMAO . . . love the screen name . . . brilliant !
I will live under neither.
Beautifully said.
C.S Lewis went to my highschool so he's always been in the background of my mind.
I'm not religious myself and this is the usual context people have presented to me. Would you recommend any of his books that involve minimal religiosity?
I wish Friedman’s teachings were taught in public schools
Capitalism is freedom to succeed. Everyone can succeed in capitalism and that's the whole beauty of it. If you want to spend your days on a couch watching TV, then I believe you that socialism is the best for you.
FRiKiJDM Minor problem. What TV set?
+FRiKiJDM
Your opinion is very nuanced!
Hr. Kontrolminister Why? I have worked for a minimum wage and I am working for 2 hours per day for 5x the average paycheck. If I believed in socialism, I'd still be working 8-10 hours per day for a minimum wage.
You need to get educated.
Hr. Kontrolminister And you need to start working.
The most concise, pointed, summation of the self-defeating nature of socialism.
I really wish more people in the UK thinking of voting for Corbyn again would listen to what people like Friedman have to say about socialism. Hopefully it would do its part to stop a great calamity from happening.
Corbyn is a fucking dunce
You will know more than I on corbyn's policies, but everything i heard and read about corbyn leads me to believe he's a decent, reasonable person with a pacifist nature. Although i disagree on socialism, i have only heard him try to persuade rather force his beliefs on others.
Corbyn will make UK a Sviet Socialist Republic(?) Of England and Wales.
Those damn Remainers...
The problem with Britain is the same problem the world is having. The entire world is suffering by the hand of a few Rothschild types that wants global government. The end to nationstates, the are central planning to covertly produce one world government in which they will rule. Friedman apparently agrees with them.
I'm Atheist, but what Milton Friedman says here is basically my religion.
Atheism isn't a religion.
+Sir Humphrey some people use Atheism as a religion like Dawkins. Dawkins is an Hegelian Marxist.
+Ted Sparks (Nerdy TWILBRY)
I'm pretty sure he's just a naturalist. As for the "some people use Atheism as a religion", who? Do you even know what religion is?
+NoctisAugustus I don't know about religion. But I used the word as implying theistic historicism. Why did I mention Hegel and Marx?
This is Critical Rationalism vs Scientism
Yes, Dawkins knows. He mentioned Karl Popper with some slight criticism of Popper and his associate (Actually, Popper was a member of Mont Pelerin Society) in the book The Devil's Chaplain.
And Friedrich A. von Hayek is friend with Popper.
Also, Dawkins is just left-wing with structural rationalism.
Ted Sparks
I can't comment on that, I've only watched a few videos of his speeches and him debating religious people so I don't know much about him. However from what I've seen he seems to be very rational and, like myself, holds a very naturalist view of the world.
I don't know about him being left wing, I haven't seen him speak about politics or economics. He seems more apolitical to me.
“When trying to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions” - Milton Friedman
force =)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ah yes, capitalism totally isn't using force by lobbying against working-class people interest such as higher wages, deregulate industry by lobbying, artificially creating scarcity of jobs and army of unemployed people because otherwise the workers would argue for more rights without risk of being homeless.
TOTALLY NOT FORCED.
This is exactly why I try to tell my socialist friends that Jesus was NOT a socialist. Never. . Nowhere near it.
Jesus encouraged and exhorted people to give, to have compassion and show love and care for others. That was the sum of the law: to love God, and to love others as you love yourself.
Not once, however, did He FORCE IT. He spoke of the virtues of giving, but because God is by nature a giver. He encourage the act of giving and giving liberally; however, He never forced it. He left it in the hands of those who wanted to follow it, and when those people did, they did it WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AND TIME.
+Aaron Beauchamp Yeah no force, just eternal damnation in a fire pit if you don't.
What about the time he went to the temple and people were selling stuff and he destroyed there stalls and threw them out
+lee brondum Good question.
Certain Jews in the temple were selling sacrifices. That was not what God commanded. The house of God is supposed to be a house of prayer and worship, and they were turning it into a marketplace for profit. Jesus could not abide by that.
That was the temple of God and was a place designated specifically for prayer and worship.
John 2:16
To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!"
+Aaron Beauchamp so he was against profits then and why are they putting in subways at some mega churches if Jesus went in and kicked out all the salesman
lee brondum No, He was not against profits. Markets and marketplaces are not a sin.
Using the house of God, the temple, to produce money and profit was a sin.
As for mega churches, I agree with you, and those pastors of those churches will have to make an account for their actions....but mega churches were not the topic of discussion here.
We would have a much healthier society if Mr. Friedman's wisdom was spread into the mainstream.
Love Friedman...a man of reason.
How enlightening it is to be able to listen to an intellectual titan and moral philosopher.
100%
Have you checked out Thomas Sowell?
Dr. Friedman was a national human treasure.......his wisdom is sorely missed in these United States.
That talk personifies the prime minister of Canada today. I grieve for the lack of intelligence in Canada.
"The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions"
Milton Friedman
Man... if only videos like this could be trending on Twitter and TH-cam... and be shown on cable news today. Thanks @AndrewYang for introducing this guy to my life.
Sounds like he is talking about Obamacare.
Thomas Evans bro you are responding to a 6 year old comment...
@@penisbutthole1720 Why not?
I disliked Friedman at first, but now I can't stop listening to him.
The truth resonates. The initial introduction is off putting because its not what you've been told throughout most of your adult life. Most of us were brainwashed as children into believing our prosperity was the result of state intervention. This only makes sense when you consider who it is your teachers are actually working for.
Same here
This is a unique video in that it shows Friedman, a self-described consequentialist, taking a Kantian position on libertarianism. He does a great job of analyzing historical examples as well.
"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperations and try to do go by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs good intentions." - Milton Friedman.
Whem climate activist say Ban all Plastic, and all. Etc
Leneen.
JohnNada80 damn, you got there literally two years before me
Layneen*
Wow Liberal trolls are in full force on this page. Video must have hit a raw nerve.
BUT HE IS A WHITE MALE!!!!!!
Aaron B. I don't see any
Friedman is a liberal. Says it all the time. You are talking about progressives
@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend THANK YOU
@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend He's not a liberal. He's a libertarian, "libertarian with a lower-case L, Republican with an upper-case R" he says in an interview. He's also mentioned a couple of times how the word "liberal" was hijacked by lefties, "who are liberal because they like to spend other people's money liberally," or something along those lines.
He’s a rare wise man
Very recommendable! Where is the Milton Friedman of our days?
1) Thomas Sowell is also coming of age 2) Thomas Sowell is very good, but Milton Friedman is in a different league
Thomas Sowell
@@jimhughes1070 Sowell is great, but no substitute for Friedman nor Hayek nor von Mises
You know this principle works as much on an interpersonal level as much as an economic level. The easiest way to tell if someone is a bad person, is if the insist vehemently that they are a good person. Because a truly good person is someone who doesn't try to do (their view) of good, but makes great effort to avoid doing bad (which is far more universal in nature).
St. Judes Childrens hospital operates off 80-90 percent donations, delivers great healthcare for children
The greatest form of charity is not charity at all, but providing an opportunity for employment to an individual. Because in work there is dignity and a measure of independence. In charity there is nobility for the charitable but no dignity for the recipient and no independence.
Made possible by people who have the financial freedom to donate, which socialism would most certainly not allow
Bernie Sanders would learn much from what MIlton Friedman said in the first part of this clip: the fundamental value is, not to force them to do good,but respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow man.
Actually, that Quote sounds more in Line to Something Donald Trump and Republicans need to learn "respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow man." if you listen to the full Video an ALtrighter like you may endup disliking this man because you would find that he would be considered an SJW/Woke by modern standards.
Bernie Sanders doesn't learn.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Absolute genius. I wish I could hear Milton Friedman talk in today's world. I shape my beliefs upon his teaching because I have never had a moment where I can say I've disagreed.
If Friedman talked today, he wouldn't look like a genius at all. Ideas evolve over time and so do peoples understanding of socio-economic theories such as socialism. People who would call themselves socialist no longer think that it's a good idea to centralize the economy governed by the government (The executive powers). Instead, they have finally read the theory of Karl Marx who pioneered the idea of socialism/communism after becoming famous from his very well done critique of capitalism. The idea of socialism is actually thriving even in America. Communities are coming together and forming worker cooperatives where everyone has ownership of their own labor because they also are part owner of the company. What socialist today would like to see, is the workers market becoming free to chose between socialism and capitalism. Right now the market favors capitalism far too much with these major corporations that have monopolized and nationalized market they pertain to, so there is no way for socialism to viably compete. However, if those major corporations were restructured effectively to worker cooperatives, I can easily seeing socialism winning out against capitalism easily because nobody would want to work for someone when they can instead work with them and get paid much better because they actually own their own labor rather than someone else owning it.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis
Government is force period...if you are forcing anyone to fund your opinions , or beliefs at the barrel of a gun, or a cage ...you are a wrongdoer....
At 5:00 is where he describes Obama and his ideology perfectly
Any and all socialist programs throughout history is enforced through coersion. The key difference between the two extremes, is on the one hand, you have every individual making their own choices. On the other hand you got a few people making choices for everyone. Which person has a fuller understanding of each individual's situation; the individual itself, or the authority that has to keep track of a thousand individuals?
All philosophers, who find
Some favourite system to their mind,
In every point to make it fit,
Will force all nature to submit.
--Jonathan Swift
I went out to socialize yesterday evening.
Is he talking about alexandria ocasio cortez?
This needs to be broadcast on all major TV networks around the world. It might make people wake up and think!
The state would collapse if everyone waked up, i hope this day comes in the future.
So True.
A few Venezuelans and Russians seem to have clicked the thumbs down button 😂
as an Venezuelan man I can say with total confidence that most of us (if not all) hate this damn socialism and everything related to it.. so I don't get your joke but I suppose you're funny guy.. well your country is full of comedians I can't blame you indeed..
The funniest part about this is that capitalism itself requires force to function. For instance you cannot have property without widespread social agreement, and it would be limited to zero-value without widespread participation of other people.
Also libertarians seem to think they have a monopoly on the defining matters of what constitutes force. Please explain to me how I would "be free" under a Randian society when I and others clearly disagree with all it's premises?
Libertarians do not need to redefine words, I think everybody understands what "force" means. Libtns simply recognize the difference between _initiation_ of force and _retaliatory_ force. The Non-Agression Principle simply says initiation is bad, but retaliation is justified.
Libtn society would protect individual freedom (using the _retaliatory_ force of Common Law). I guess you would "be free" to not exercise your freedom, but I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe you could become your own slave, or imprison yourself. It seems extreme to be that much against individual freedom.
If a prisoner is locked in cell and let to starve, would his death be the result of force? No more than an indigent veteran who dies of hypothermia when his heat is shut off for nonpayment. When the religious convictions of a parent permit a child to die for lack of medical treatment that is not an example of force either. When a retiree must choose between food shelter or paying for a prescription upon which her life depends, that situation does not involve force either. Friedman's rhetorical sophistry in this case asks us to a adopt a highly restrictive vocabulary to justify very loose generalizations and even weaker conclusions. If we consider the possibility of force being applied by other than direct physical means, the term might encompass a larger set of meanings for instance; violence leverage, advantage, power, control, domination, or conflict. There are many means of controlling others that are contextual and involve limits to opportunity or other means of constricting the available choices to one's advantage at an others expense where inequality might be said to generate force and tilt or even predetermine the outcome of a negotiation or conflict.
Mike Blain "Libtns simply recognize the difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force."
In a lot of cases they don't. For example they view private property i.e. the absentee ownership of production were one party enforces their exclusive claim to the industry we all rely on to sustain ourselves largely as use of force in defense.
They also tend to not understand how business owners excluding people from economic action and thus forcing them into deprivation by not serving people because they are black or something similar is not use of force in defense, but rather the initiation.
Another area they have the two confused many times is when employers set the rules of a business from the top down for employees excluding the employees from power over their work and alienating them from their own profession. Like, common, that's initiating force, seriously.
I could go on and on btw.
redandblackrevolutionary
I could not understand some of your sentences, but it sounds like you are saying racism is initiation of force, which is correct. But I'm not sure how business structure has anything to do with "force", business associations (employment, customers, etc) are all voluntary.
It sounds like you have remembered some comment by one idiot, and then presenting that as "Libtns all believe...". Not very solid argument.
Mike Blain
Could you point out what you feel you don't understand?
No choice one makes ever can be categorized as voluntary. The laws of nature always influence our choices and thus we make decisions without influence from outside coercion.
Employment under capitalism is dictated property relations that naturally advantage some and disadvantage others and thus not the result of free choice or constructed upon free-associations of people.
Leave all of the people alone who do not break laws.This is how the individual becomes secure in their life.The government does not understand this.
174 lazy people dislike this video
+Jackie Price capitalism is consensual sex and socialism is rape
the facts show that socialism has either failed in the past or is failing.
Things get worse and worse even in US - thanks for the left and their socialist policies. brainwashed idiots.
Hey Bernie, watch this video...
TAXES ARE THEFT.
Socialism is force, but so is crony capitalism. Free market capitalism is the best way.....
I would believe Friedman if I was 12 years old. If socialism is a myth, free market economy supported with good legal system is even greater legend. I know much better now about both socialism and capitalism. In the core of the problems is political organized crime, and the perpetual need to ventilate this corrupted life on earth with revolutions. It is not a matter of philosophy, it is a matter of physics and biology. Masses are extremely frustrated with their lives, and rich, small, corrupted elite use political spins, combined with brute force, do imperial wars, and then it will come with fascism on large scale, turning whole world in one big concentration camp. Large part of the world already is. Socialism may be this or that, but marxist-leninist social theories are very informative body of work about existence on this planet. Why USA supports corrupted and exploiting regimes all over the world, and wage wars only on those who are against her interests? Because USA is exploiting imperial fascist state in it's core. That is a fact, liberalism is just a nice make-up!
"In the core of the problems is political organized crime, and the perpetual need to ventilate this corrupted life on earth with revolutions."
Kind of like the Russian Revolution? Like who backed them? And who was against the backer's interests? I leave it to you to find out.
Marx talked out of his ass and Lenin spoke of useful idiots with adoration and the both of them hailed dictatorships and one of them ruled one. To consider Marx and Lenin informative is to admit to being just as self-deceiving as they were. Sure, they can point at the world's problems, like anybody else, but a snake oil salesman is still a snake oil salesman. One cannot just blare out "Religion is the opiate of the masses" whilst imitating the oldest religious archetype known to the masses and not be a hypocrite asshole.
Indeed, the ventilation you spoke of is true. That whole corrupted remark is, ironically, a corruption of your otherwise objective statement.
As for your last couple of sentences, I suggest you stop pushing loaded questions and statements. Of course, the U.S.A. has been a country, a Union, with Imperialist and Fascist elements taking it over. That's not Capitalism or Liberalism, which still exists within the U.S.. It's insane dualism that allows for all of these isms to coexist within the same system.
It's the global superpowers and the international banking cartels, with the help of the Federal Reserve which Friedman was against, that get away with this piracy of the world and instigate conflicts.
FYI, Communism is all about giving the world a global concentration camp.
Spoken like a true 99%er
Everything he is saying fits correctly on current capitalist society, as few rich people decides what’s good for people without asking people and then enforcing them indirectly through society by instilling them as social values. ✌️✌️
?? 😎
That's why you have the freedom to not buy from the oppressive capitalists, friend.
@@sarahtonein7996freedom is illusionary. Everything you need owned by them so essentially there is no freedom at all.
Socialism is a force, rigth. A democratic force, in the interest of the producing/working class. Capitalsm is a force too. A force in the interest of the capitalist entrepreneur and in the interest of maximizing profits, at the costs of the benefits of the labourer. So both capitalism and socialism are forces, but altogether different forces, as socialism works in the interest of the labouring majority, and capitalism works in the interest of the minority of capitalist entrepreneurs, and those depending on capitalist profits. Capitalism is a dictatorship of the minority.
Friedman is not saying socialism is "a force", but that it requires force from government to implement it.
In contrast, laissez faire capitalist economy is built entirely from voluntary contracts and free competition (needing no force from government), and works in the interests of consumers more than businesses.
What we have now is mixed economy (capitalism blended with significant state interference). That is more in the interests of the minority you mentioned (businesses, lobbyists, party contributors, etc). They get the most benefit of state interference.
It sounds like he's arguing against even the workplace by saying:
(at time 1:54)
"As I see it, the fundamental value and relations among people is to respect the dignity and individuality of fellow men. To treat your fellow man, not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but to treat him as a person with his own values and his own rights - a person to be persuaded, not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed. That seems to be a fundamental value in social relations."
I agree, which is why wage labor (ie: the idea that people are merely tools of production) is force. Employees are not seen as people with values, ideas of their own, etc. Employees are treated merely as means to an end, a means of producing and profiting FOR the business owner and not WITH. Employees have no power in the workplace, unless granted by the owner. The owner has a monopoly on proposal and vetoing power, the employees have none.
Therefore, wage labor (ie: the commodification of the human being to be rented for profit) is force.
Thoughts?
There's no force involved. No one is forcing the employee to work there. If the employee thinks that they can do better elsewhere, they are free to leave.
DavidJHilt I'm not saying it's "physical" force. I'm specifically referring to the quote, and how he says the use of a person "as an object to be manipulated for your purpose" (ie: wage labor) is not entailed in "respecting the dignity and individuality of fellow men" (ie: liberty).
Yes, employer's aren't "physically forcing" employees to do anything, but employees are viewed as merely tools of production; there's nothing you could disagree with that, since that's (by definition) Capitalism and the characteristic of wage labor. We could argue details and what constitutes as "physical force", but not all force is physical, nor is an outcome desirable merely because it was arrived at via "voluntary" means.
Leo Riveron if you want the best production out of those people (work force) , you must treat them well. If you don't your business will fail or won't be as successful. Capitalism makes everyone selfish, which is a good thing. The employer wants better employees, so he pays them more or treats them better, gives them more time off, etc. True capitalism, let's the employee choose where he wants to work, with no minimum wage, the employee can make as much or as little as he wants. In a pure capitalistic economy, the employee benefits because all the choices are his. If he wants to self educate or get a standard university education, or do on the job training. Capitalism benefits everyone but in capitalism, everyone is responsible for their actions or non actions. People hate being responsible, that's why many hate capitalism.
dak9554
I don't think you're considering the fact that many workers in the US don't have the luxury of being able to switch a job they don't like. Some have to take more than 1 job just to make end's meet.
Saying that business's are somehow structurally incentivized to be kind to workers is not only highly shortsighted, it is completely dishonest.... Why, then, do we see strike after strike of workers dissatisfied with their business's decisions?? Clearly they don't have that option.
It seems more accurate to say that selfishness only works for a few people and not the majority.
Leo Riveron As a former skilled labor employee, I had the choice of many companies, none of which I liked, so I started my own. That is the beauty of capitalism, you are responsible for you. You determine what you're worth. No company could pay me what I wanted, now I get paid 3-4 times what I originally wanted because I started my own business.
The people that surround me ALL came from dirt poor backgrounds ( we are all first-generation immigrants from the former Soviet Union.) But most of us are lower-middle class to upper-middle class due to capitalism. We gained skills and knowledge to let us be useful to the market and then we got paid well for the services we provided.
The people that strike, are usually unskilled workers who think that they DESERVE more. Or Unions who are dishonest about their intentions. (I had a lot of dealings with unions and they are not people that want to advance the company/nation. They just want to be paid more and more. They don't want to try to get more skills to get paid more, theu just want to be paid more for what they already know. Just because sone people strike, doesnt mean that they are correct to do so. A lot of strikes are immoral and harmful to local economies. I live in Seattle and the port slow downs on the West Coast are ruining a lot of business, including mine. Goolge the affects of the West Coast slow down.
I believe this to the core of my being: "the fundamental value is not to do good to others as you see they are good, its not to force them to do good. As [I] see it the fundamental value in relations among people is to respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow men. To treat your fellow man not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but to treat him as a person with his own values and his own rights. A person to be persuaded, not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed." So simple, yet so profoundly philosphical and important to realize, whether you're on the left or the right, or just a human in general.
The intro music was awesome. Didnt expect it be so groovey.
That's great, i'm glad that there are people out there who supply you and others with information & goods which you can learn from, i'm also happy about the fact that you decided to put in effort to learn something. These are the basic freedoms of which i speak, none of this needs a forceful element or a strictly profit driven situation to exist. It's hard for a society to remain uncorrupted but it is possible, if it is full of responsible citizens who only elect the wise&freedom cherishing ones
A beautiful human being, he wasn't just a great American he was a great ambassador of humanity for the world.
Free market allows for cooperatives (communist-style market subjects). Communist states do not allow for joint stock companies. How many people participate in cooperatives and which cooperatives have resulted in major inventions e.g. the transistor?
The last election was the first one in which I was old enough to vote. Watching a bit of television and hearing people talk about the election, no party i was made aware of appealed to me enough for me to vote for them, I realize now that was a mistake and I should have done my research. Even though I dislike democracy I ought to atleast try and make the best of it.
5:07-5:39 reminds me of this quote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”-C.S. Lewis
There is a deeper ethical point here. Friedman says “How do you do good with somebody else’s money unless you take it away from them?”; the same could be re-phrased as “How do you good with someone else’s values unless you take it away from them (in the sense of, take away their agency)?” Socialism with ethics and morality is called moral policing.
I believe in maximum freedom for each individual to determine their own path. No dictators or autocrats. Someone has to be in charge of the government, but hopefully someone who shares these values and isn't a phony.
A perfect example of someone being replaced with people with bad intentions is the police chief in Ottawa, Canada in Feb 2022 to deal with the peaceful protesters with force and violence.
I love this video. It shows he doesn't understand what socialism is. He's good on economics, the science that follows the money even if its concentrated in the hands of few and therefore don't portrait an accurate picture of the group being studied. Sentence after sentence, when he lays the good side of capitalism, it is also used by pro socialists thinkers, when he talks about force and state being the core of socialism, he shows the true nature of his comments: not an interest in true, but an interest in destroying socialism, even if distorted descriptions are needed. Talk about an amoral person.
I prefer the term "Social Democracy" when discussing an economic system that leans to the left of the political spectrum. Friedman has never attempted to explain the success of Social Democracies such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or even that of the left-of-centre Germany. He paints any economic system other than the fear and greed-driven supposedly free market type as a virtual dictatorship. How he can, after the 2007-8 economic meltdown that was engineered by the big lending institutions and cost the public billions of dollars and massive job losses, still continue to spout his flawed theories is beyond my understanding.
Hans-Juergen KIRSTEIN Sweden only really boomed in the 70's. Now Sweden is turning against Socialism.Taxes have fallen and markets have liberealized. So using Sweden is a poor excuse
Liberalized
How can he continue to spout his flawed theories after the 2007-2008 economic meltdown? It's beyond my understanding too! I would love to know, considering he DIED in 2006!
If you were to read his books, as opposed to trolling for 6 minute pieces, you would read his response to "Social Democracy", in which he specifically talks about. So, to your point that Friedman was just so stupid...well actually, he was smart enough to see in to the future and see what liberals would do to try to make Socialism sound more appealing.
I appreciate the lack of the words
"Destroyed", "CRUSHED", "SCHOOLED", etc in your video titles. Good stuff 👌
This man thinks so clearly. He should be taught in schools more.
I believe whether or not something is bad for you, it's up to you to decide if that outhweighs the reasons to go ahead anyway. It should not be decided by government decree, or anyone else, it should be your choice.
What is a free market example?
In a free market economy, the law of supply and demand, rather than a central government, regulates production and labor. ... For example, while the U.S. allows companies to set prices, and workers negotiate wages, the government establishes parameters, such as minimum wages and antitrust laws, that must be followed.
A corporation which as stated earlier is a legally registered entity by the state, can have a single owner or multiple owners. A single owner of a corporation is different from sole proprietorship just to note.
A true liberal. Thank you Mr Friedman.
4:45 is the key to Socialism/Communism. The true-believers always get deposed by those who seek to abuse their power to maximum potential.
Unbelievable, every American should be given the opportunity to be shown this video. Especially in today’s time.
I agree with every word. Still, somebody has to explain to me why private tiranny, exerted through economical force, is better than state tiranny.
Giancarlo Pace Explain to you that no one has ever been beaten to death with a dollar bill, while millions have been killed by the state with _weapons_? BULLSHIT. You already know the difference.
All you're doing is telling the world you can't cope with negotiation, that force is the only language you understand.
If you stay factual and objective, and keep a calm tone, we will both profit much more from the discussion. I guess it is easy to understand what "private tiranny" means, absolute power corrupts absolutely, like both Milton Friedman and I like to quote from Lord Acton. But I think that this is also true for economical power, which allow, for examples, corporations to lobby much more effectively, corrupt, control the media and so on. And this is also why "free market" never existed, I suspect.
Giancarlo Pace
Of course I can stay factual and objective. Naturally, this precludes any discussion of "private tyrannies" since these are neither factual nor objective.
On the other hand, it is _factual and objective_ to observe that the United States military budget is ~700 BILLION dollars per year. It is also factual and objective to observe that anyone that refuses to pay for it will be jailed.
It is also factual and objective to observe that the United States recently invaded Iraq and killed 100's of thousands of people.
Now, if YOU want to be factual and objective, start by discussing the _weapons_ of the State and how they use them to control the populace.
Dear jeffiek , if you deny the existence of tyrannies that exert economical power, like big corporations polluting, bribing, exploiting and so on, your point weakens seriously. I do not defend that states do not commit crimes, and I totally agree with you that what US army did in Iraq is disgusting. My point is that what makes power acceptable, is not being private versus being exerted by a state, which is an institution made by humans just like a company. The difference is being balanced versus being completely out of control by external forces.
With what do you buy guns? Who produces them? Why? There are evident relations between things and processes which you struggle to acknowledge. Do not insult please, I am not doing it, I want to understand if you have a point that I still did not get. By insulting, you only convince everybody who reads that you don't.
I get what you're saying, it's just that for a young man raised in the a white upper-middle class environment, Chomsky and Paul were two influential men who helped me unlearn and understand the world for what it really is.
I'm not accepting any contradictions here, I just feel that if legitimate progress is to be made, unions on thought must first be made to help people understand what is real: That we are all human beings and that ideologies, faiths, and cultures only divide us.
Quotes can be taken out of context. I'll just give you names. Adam Smith (writer of the wealth of nations), Jean-Basptie Say (french economist), David Ricardo, F. A. Hayek, Carl Menger, Eugene Bohm-Bawek, Ludwig Von-Mises, and Milton Friedman. Were all well known economists who were pro capitalism. Even John Maynard Keynes agreed with most of what these economists wrote, even though he's often used as an argument for socialism.
"Sincerity is also a much overated virtue. Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what's good for you and by Heaven is going to make you do it whether you like it or not. " ~ Milton Friedman
He's referring to political zealotry, leading to mass fanatacism, justification of use of force and ultimately tyranny, just like in Nazi Germany.
For modern examples of teetering on the brink See: The current occupier of The White House - Creepy/Sleepy Joe, The Soviet Of California and the entire post-modernist (D) party...
"400 years ago, they didn't have free market counter parts."
You missed the point.
400 years ago was the greatest period of innovation up to that time. Whatever innovation was going on was happening within the context of whatever economic system they had.
Should they have attributed their innovation solely to their economic system? And if they did, would they be justified in doing so?
I enjoy some of Friedman's views, and in particular...this and his quote about freedom being the quality leading to higher equality than force. I may not be compatable with everything about him, but no question there is truth in his Thoreau quote that does make sense of the morality of individual liberty as it is intended...a voluntary society is a fair society.
It isn't, depending on the type of tax. However, a progressive based income tax system is. Also, a income tax generally is designed to create socialized benefits, although not always the case. Example, was civil war Lincoln created a income tax system (which was unconstitutional but done due to martial powers Lincoln had). The design for the income tax was to pay for the war. However, the income tax designed under Wilson, also unconstitutional, was designed for wealth redistribution in banking.
Prosperity and happiness are not the result of force and coercion. We have yet to ever see real freedom on this planet, but once we do, we will see multiplication of prosperity and happiness.
Speaking of planets. Let us know when you get back from Utopia
Don't you think that since we were able t visualize and create this nation that we would also be able to visualize and create an even better arrangement, especially since we've taken this grand step toward that? Because so many of us are raised in force and coercion, we are primed to think that this is the only way society can operate. The non-aggression principle of ethics requires that no person aggress against another, that no person tax another, force someone to do something, or otherwise impose our will onto others. As it is now, our government, and every other government, is imposing its will onto people, taxing them, and forcing them to do things. This is the fundamental nature of all governments. A free society would be one in which people would have expectation to live harmoniously and would be accountable to one another to be peaceful and civil, but would no person or entity would have power to control other people, take money from them, impose ideas on them, or anything that violates the non-aggression principle of ethics. Milton was an advocate for peaceful, ethical living. He wanted to influence the generations that would be able to make these societal improvements into norms within our entire world.
Clearwheel Well said
There's a huge difference between private ownership in the sense of personal ownership of a thing that you use or possess of your own labor, and private ownership in the sense of capitalist ownership of the earth and resources and what others produce by their labor, who must obey the authority of the owner to produce anything.
I would say that the individual rights to personal property are universal in all cultures and economic theories and not being challenged by anyone, aside from certain religious groups that preach the virtue of poverty.
Private property is very different, when a "farm owner" has other people working the farm, he has no basis to claim that it is his and his alone, and when the entire community needs it, what right does he have to destroy it, except violently enforced property fictions?
I can't tell if that comment was a response to me because for some reason on this video it doesn't say who it was in reply to or have a (Show the comment) button to click, however none of what you said has anything to do with socialism.
Taxing you to fund a fire station isn't socialism, it's a typical social function of the state. A socialist community could handle this in many ways, taxation could be used but the major difference is that you'd be voting on it.
The value of a commodity is decided by the person who wants and uses the commodity, the value in material terms can be calculated by material cost, in terms of energy and material resources, without the use of money.
What money really represents, is a limiting human activity in the absence of currency. Everything that is done with the exchange of money could be done without the exchange of money, this was illustrated by Anarchist Syndicates, and by nationalized industries during the World Wars.
Examples of Capitalism in a sentence. Under the system of capitalism, goods and services are created and distributed by private enterprises. Socialism differs from capitalism because in socialism the government controls industry and production. In capitalism the market sets the terms of supply and demand.
Monopolies only exist because of force. Once a company has reached its equilibrium peak efficiency, it cannot grow any larger without extinguishing fair competition, and the means of achieving that end is via government force or mafia force.
I couldn't structure the sentence properly due to characters limit. Indirect government services like the fire station is something that we have to pay for. Since, we indirectly use the service d2d. I have not said that this is a form of socialism. Direct gov't services like SS or NSH ( not NSA) is a form of Socialism, since we pay for services that we may or may not use. Also, with a gov't providing direct services like subsidized HC, it does have a large control over the means of production
Hi LP, I am trying to find a quote of Friedman's. He says something about charity etc. being conducted by organisations and churches in a free society, rather than government. If you can find something similar from any other respectable economist that would also be helpful.
Also, to you 2nd point. The state using tax revenue to pay for its activities is nothing new. This is a system that has been used with free-market societies, since the dawn of civilization. However, what has changed recently with the government activities are government services that we may or may not use, but still have to pay for. This includes tax subsidies, healthcare subsidies, social security etc. These can be viewed as direct government services. Although I cannot remember the exact term
Voluntary exchange sounds wonderful, but many laissez faire don't understand that it is still a force that can be negative as you pointed out. It is simply a social force as is socialism with involuntary force. Neither are a solution rather material to build a solution from.
The presentation of his arguments flow logically, they are easy-to-understand, and pretty much impossible to avoid, but we have to recognize the era in which these talks were given. The context provided the highest believed in truth within that world and I thank him for telling it like it is as it has provided us with a level surface to stand on almost forty years later within a undoubtedly different planet.
He also fails to recognize another reality, possibly because it was not recognized by enough people back then or the knowledge didn't necessarily apply to them, but his arguments lack the logical finalization of his own thought process. He claims socialism is the use of force, which is factually impossible to ignore as yes, but he doesn't mention that any use of force monopolized as a or through a political mafia is illegitimate because it rests on defiling the virtues of self-ownership, self-determination, and the nonaggression principle. Socialism is pure and total belief in statism (monopolistic force), capitalism is low to moderate belief in statism but pure belief in the production of ever-rising economic growth despite a possible lack of ability to maintain or wholehearted lack of interest among the people who create and interact with and supply the industries we find in our world. Capitalism fundamentally requires the free market, but it is not just the free market. There is a level of added feudalism though it remains financially impossible for the heads of labor to choke freedom out of people. With states, however, this is ultimately the inevitable conclusion.
"In capitalism, this is self regulatory."
Then why are those who work the hardest, those who are paid the least, while those who paid the most from which to feast, those who do not ever work but merely rule over the labor of others?
Your idea that traffic cannot be regulated in anarchism is very correct. There are actually many things that anarchism can't deal with that needs a State. Look up Public Goods on Google. Other such things are the military, justice system including things that structure a market and allow it to function (institutions) like property rights, transparent bankrupcy procedures, contract enforcement, commercial dispute settlement etc. etc.