I once used to be a Chomskyite. Then I read about Monetarism in Economics A-Level and read up on Friedman, and his arguments were pretty much an epiphany for me.
Now this was the best public appearance he ever did. Thank you for this! The argument of the foreign car companies was superb in that if the american cars sucked gas, were unsafe, dangerous to others and so forth, and the imported cars did, you don't destroy the incentive to change the american cars to become safer, efficient, economical, cheaper. Because if you forbid the imports you would have the makers saying "customers have no choice, why would we change?"
Look at Donahue's body language during the introduction; at the moment preceding the guest's entrance he lowers his head as he raises his hand, effectively expressing his elemental discredit of his guest. Take a look and see this powerful statement Donahue makes with his body clearly foreshadowing his bias in the coming interview. I wonder if he thought he was being polite.
+neverknows best - Very wise choice. Now I'm just sitting here, hoping and praying you're a young person that chose Milton Friedman as their "hero" and not a typical Hollywood celebrity whose reasoning ability has been obstructed by their "self" esteem.
Yes, I wish people could see by banning these things it drives the price up and it makes it profitable for criminals to sell. It also forces people hooked on the stuff go out and "Find" the money they need to buy it. The same thing happened during prohibition.
I totally disagree with Donahue's politics but I admire the civil tone of his interviews and his apparent ability to listen and try to understand the point Milton is making. Same with his interviews of Ayn Rand etc, also posted on youtube.
Generally having an unsafe car means its unsafe to you. Having less airbags etc. hurts the driver of the car not the person he gets into an accident with. Milton Friedman would support laws that would prevent car features that would hurt others. He just said he would want parents to be prosecuted if their disregard for safety hurt a child. Milton Friedman is right about economics. Countries like Estonia and the Czechs modeled their economy after his book and they boomed after the Cold War era
I think he was making it simple for presentation purposes. Heroin falls in the same category. It is not ultimately illegal because it harms the addict - it is illegal because of the harm addicts do to others. His writings clarify where and when it is applicable as to whether there is more damage done to others with heroin being illegal or legal.
The world mostly runs and thrives on people pursuing their own self Interest,which benefits us all. The examples I would give our our founding fathers when fighting off the yolk of a foreign tyrant,in creating our republic. Thomas Alva Edison in the pursuit of his love of Science and Invention, gave us the light bulb! Bill Gates in his creation of software, which has changed the way we live. Just a few of the free thinkers who have contributed so much in their pursuit of self Interest!!!! Michael Paul Padilla
***** The thing is gene most people don't seem to get is the fact that we do not have a Free Market Economy, such as what Adam Smith and Milton Friedman Advocated ! We have a Government Controlled Economy,in which the Government Picks winners and losers! As far as Capitalism goes,give me a system in which Capitalist endeavor to make money,as opposed to a system in which the central control takes my money,it always results in corrupted central control. Freedom Gene!
@dragan221 Donahue's body language at the end of the introduction set anything but a civil tone. During the interview he was even less subtle. Is civility defined only by a lack of violence?
Using force does not mean I as an individual will keep you from doing something. It means that the government through the police on pain of imprisonment or fine can force you to do something. People think in terms of individualism, rather than the state. Donahue didn't seem to understand the difference between a state actor and an individual when talking about suicide prevention. We use to throw people in jail for attempting to commit suicide. It's a slippery slope but Milton is right.
I hate the baby argument. Everyone who wants a thing inevitably brings up a baby in their argument. The fact is that not everything can be framed in terms of infants. It's an argument made of opportunity, not consistency. By the same measure I could take everything from them and reduce them to the life of an infant with their own argument. Not everyone has an infant. Not everyone remains an infant. You cannot therefore frame everything in terms of "What about a baby?"
There is a problem in that a good deal of, what is often labelled, the right's ideas are unpalatable at first sight. For example it's not intuitive that making heroin legal is beneficial for individually and therefor for for society too.
@darwinkilledgod Thought you might like this Friedman quote: “I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'. And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”
No I don't believe in self ownership, because I don't believe that anybody can or should be owned. People are not commodities. People are living walking thinking beings. What I believe in is the right of self-determination and free will. I believe we have a right to determine our own lives and no one has the right to impose their will on us as long as we respect that for others.
+Scott Bennet I'm both a Christian and a conservative. And this gets me in trouble with my fellow Republican voters...but I believe the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. Friedman is spot on. If heroin were legalized tomorrow only people that want to use heroin will use heroin. Just like it is now despite heroin being illegal. Every time we ban something that has a demand, all we've done is create a black market. We have to realize that common sense can be "encouraged" in people, but common sense cannot be implemented via legislation. As for "weed" specifically...Marijuana is demonstratively less harmful than alcohol. I don't hear about people smoking weed then wrapping their car around a telephone pole. Nor do we hear about men smoking pot and then beating on their wives and kids. But with booze...we hear this stuff all the time. So...if the arguments for alcohol are good enough for its legal status, I think we should reconsider what we think about weed. Lastly...marijuana is no more of a "gateway drug" to other drugs than booze is. Sorry this was so long...I just felt the need to explain this. We conservatives get a bad rap. All of us aren't completely uptight. Most of us just love liberty, and people smoking weed is part of that liberty in my view.
How much is Donahue's suit? According to his ideas of what people 'should' want to buy, he could have bought a $10 suit from a thrift store that would do the same job at protecting him from elements. So using his logic he overpaid probably at least several 1000% for his suit, far more than people overpay for the car based on it's looks or the image it projects.
There is not telling how better it would. But most people expect perfection, they would like to see drugs gone and they intend to do it. Damn with the consequences
I can agree on most of his self determination except for the drug issue. The problem is that drug users (to include alcohol) do not on the whole consistently do it in a manner that it does not affect other people. It's because they are not responsible people that there have to be laws to protect others. Get them all to be responsible and I'm all for legalization.
I respect Friedman but I will have to disagree with him on the legalization of illegal drugs (esp Heroin). Unlike Alcohol, which causes a lesser damage compared to Heroin, Heroin is highly addictive and therefore, also highly destructive. I agree on the premise that I am not supposed to care (and I do not care) about the abuser, how he chooses to live his/her life. However, Heroin does not take much doses to get addicted. Sure it is not with one injection, but it isn't that many either. And not many get out of this addiction compared to alcoholism. And Alcohol, if taken moderately, does little to no harm, and would also benefit the health of the drinker, that cannot be said of Heroin. All the dealer has to do is give a curious kid a few dosage to get them hooked, and when they are hooked, when addiction begins to kick in, in order to satisfy that addiction, the abusers can be very violent and will go great length just to get another needle. Let us not forget what opium did to the Chinese. And that is a much weaker drug when compared to Heroin.
When probation ended AA started and it grew the economy and gave people an out that didn’t end in jail. Same would happen if you legalized other drugs as well.
the really sad things going on in this country is the total misunderstanding by ignorant right wing people who for whatever reason like to label people liberal , in my book liberal is someone who is tollerent of others. ignorant right wing extremism tend to be more like thugs who just want to hate anyone who see the world differently. So what it really come down to these people are very narrow minded and feel threatened by anyone with a different lifestyle that in their view threaten their culture. liberal does not mean socialist or communist, although we try to look at things from different points of view. many people on the right have label me liberal when in face I am more libertarian thinking along the lines of Dr. Friedman.
+Gary Johnson Brother, left wingers label THEMSELVES liberal. They're the ones who have changed the definition, not the right wing. Friedman himself recognized and commented on that in Capitalism and Freedom.
@tstruss912 That maybe true, but are other people more informed than the consumer himself? After all, these other people are only human, just as the consumers are, they are no all knowing god. Sure an individual doesn't always make the best possible decision for himself, sure he's not perfect, but that is not to say any other people knows any better. He is RELATIVELY the best person to decide what's best for himself.
I think Friedman overstated his voucher arguments. Come to think of it, he made a poor argument for privatizing schools as he didn't make an argument against Aristotle's statement, in that the state should be the sole provider of education in order to distribute moral character universally. What grounds his arguments if does not address The Politics?
Moral character means to have critical thinking by modern standards. In other words, it's to distribute knowledge to each and every citizen by the state providing the funds via taxation made by Aristotle 2000 years ago. And if we really want to have a free society, we need to a well-educated populous as a starting point. I also think Friedman was pretty much out of his field when he wrote that essay in Capitalism and Freedom, because in philosophy, you have to address older arguments that came before you in order to have a foundation to make an argument. Otherwise it raises questions as to how statements stand against previous ones.
@HandyMan101 I don't think so, I think he is disguising his true position very cleverly, to play the devil's advocate, so to speak. It's his job to provoke the guest and make the show interesting as the host, imagine how boring it would be, if he just agree with everything Dr Friedman says.
@xjustin523x It is hard to believe tha so many people think that HE is the devil. It kinda is irritating when you hear people say such horrible things about Friedman. Only a handful of other people have done more in modern times to advance (or at least try to save) freedom.
First off I wish as a disabled person when I put on closed caption, or in any particular TH-cam site, that the words that are displayed in close caption or actually the words that are being said by the commentators, that the actual words being said. There has not been one show that I have watched over the course of my preparation for a Masters Degree in Special Education where I have actually been able to write down each word spoken by what ever commentator is speaking, at that particular moment. And the reason why I can't understand what you're talking about, because being handicapped I need close caption. I wish that you would put your efforts into making sure that the words being produced on the screen match what the commentators are actually saying. I have a good mind to write to the Civil Rights Department Section 504 of the disabilities act, (215-656-8541) and let them know that TH-cam in all its glory has consistently neglected to manage close caption for the impaired.I do hope you take my threat seriously because as a disabled individual, I am guaranteed under the Civil Rights Act to get a fair and honest reflection in education as a normal hearing person would have. A good instance of the neglect that you have produced is when Phil Donahue introduced Milton Friedman. Instead of the words of Milton Friedman the Words came out, Norten treatment. What the hell is that? I can only say one thing by you neglecting to fix this problem will cause me to go downtown Philadelphia find my cousin who is known to go right for your jugular vein and sue the pants off you. At which point my pocket should be bulging with your money.
I find myself once again disagreeing. You do not have the right to prevent someone from dying their hair blue even though it would adversely affect his chances of success in life. You do have the right to prevent someone from killing himself because he is almost certainly mentally disturbed and so is not acting rationally and needs to be protected until he can regain his senses. This is not the same as someone who is terminally ill or in great pain who chooses to die because this is a rational decision.
How does one earn their own way in this country if the rhetoric from the right is purely anti employee...its a right to own a business, employees dont have the right to their money....you name its....if you arnt a business owner you are free to be poor and under appreciated
My solution would be to make all legal. We shouldn't rely on the government to take care of it. All they are capable of doing is instrument a few drug bust, speak a few empty promises and ignore the fact that nothing has gotten better. Only worse. Drug, among other thing, are not doubt evils, but to think you can solve it with an inefficient, corrupt, money wasting and ignorant system is the same as believing the tooth fairy exists
"The first job of govt is to protect citizens from assault from foreign enemies and from their fellow citizens." Sure. But why consider only physical assault? Exploitation is a form of assault because it is the harming of the vulnerable by the more powerful. If this is true for physical assault the same principle should apply for economic assault. Law against suicide Admittedly a rather foolish law as there can really only be a law against attempted suicide. The successful suicide bears no more lawful responsibility to the state (insurance policies notwithstanding). I'm against such a law but I would like to see mental health care available for anyone who needs not simply based on ability to pay. Drug use - legality issue There are negative externalities (negative social costs and consequences) to use of drugs now illegal. I don't agree that the drug user is completely responsible for their addiction or drug use. I assume that drug abuse (not just use) is a medical issue and not simply a lifestyle choice made by a rational actor. We either pay for and encourage treatment for abusers or suffer the social costs and consequences. I prefer the former. Portugal decriminalized personal use of drugs and is a case study for this issue.
Tethloach Kingofreason Yes, most advocates of anarchism have no historical understanding of how societies have formed the way they have and why anarchism is a utopian pipe dream. Their ideas are not taken seriously by most intellectuals but yet they need to be rebutted because they have a populist appeal that is spreading at an alarming rate. Anti government sentiment is growing -- for good reason -- and so of course, too, anarchism. They need an education.
"What are you calling exploitation by economical assault by the powerful against the vulnerable?' Any economic system, such as ours, that is manipulated by an oligarchy and not democratically regulated.
"Oligarchy is empowered by the democracy." Typical libertarian bullshit. You're confusing democracy with political process. Oligarchy is achieved through the manipulation of the political process. Obviously you don't understand what democratic institutions are. It's the lack of such institutions that enable oligarchy which is why you don't see oligarchy at the same level in Europe, Canada, Australia as you do in the US although all have similar political systems. They differ where their institutions differ.
I'm not sure about suicide, I would probably restrain them since they person attempting suicide out of stress/depression is obviously not in a good state of mind.
"If the public really wanted to buy safety rather than cosmetics it would be in the self interest of the automobile dealers to sell it. You've had some automobile sellers that have concentrated on safety and they have not done very well in the sales." Which cars is Friedman referring to (other than Checker)? Volvo is one of the safest vehicles and they sell very well. All cars made or operated in the US have to meet a standard for safety. Consumers are aware that the govt has safety standards for cars so it isn't simply a matter of consumers choosing cosmetics over safety. Are less expensive cars usually less safe than more expensive cars? Usually, yes. A Lexus is safer than a VW Bug. Many people choose the Bug over the Lexus. Why? Price? Certainly for many. Not everyone wants to pay for the cosmetics that come with a Lexus (i.e. not everyone wants to pay for the bells and whistles that amount to drive around in a living room). Because someone can't afford a pricey car and view the car not as an extension of their vanity but simply as a utility to get from A to B doesn't mean that the manufacturer should be able to skimp on safety features. Sure. Remove the bumpers and steel reinforcement in the frame and you can reduce the cost of the car. Should low income consumers have that option -- of a cheap unsafe car? And if so, should that also include low income buyers with children who are made more vulnerable by their parent's "choice" to buy the cheap, unsafe car? In the libertarian society that Friedman advocates, yes. It's "buyer beware" in a libertarian society. As I'm writing this, GM is currently recalling hundreds of thousands of vehicles due to defaults that are a risk to safety. In a libertarian society it would be up to GM if they want to recall the cars. Even if GM could be sued in a libertarian society for defects that resulted in injury or death, good luck proving your injury or death was the direct result of the car default in court against GMs lawyers. (The current injury and death figures are only a guestimate because proving an accident is due to a particular singular issue is often impossible.) Could a poor person hire good lawyers and a team of experts to help make their case? Only if the lawyers saw the case as an obvious winner and agreed to work on a consignment basis (and then take most of the monetary award from the victim). Also GM (as most companies do) makes a cost-benefit analysis for decisions to recall defective cars. Their initial decision, in the case I'm referring to, was to not recall and just pay out in court if they needed to because it was cheaper to do so. This is what is known as a transaction cost and is factored in to their business practice. As is almost always the case with Friedman, he sets up a hypothetical that is a "strawman" or relies on the ignorance of his opponent. People like Friedman are why we need govt. People are often in positions of vulnerability (without resources) or "weak agency" (lack of information) and can be taken advantage of without someone looking out for their interests -- free of charge, as a matter of decency and maintaining human dignity.
+canteluna everything you just said is highly inaccurate. the organization that grades cars on their safety is not a governmental organization, its actually private so theres that. also GM was only able to sell those cars and get away with it without getting sued and bought out is because they had government help and government bailouts where the taxpayer basically had to pay for GM's horrible engineering. Its not buyer beware in a libertarian society. the free market has plenty of ways where you can ensure the quality of a service. quality of service is better in private institutions for a reason you know. government doesnt decide the standards for various electronics devices, organizations that are privately funded like IEEE and ABET do these things, and they do it well because they arent a bunch of politicians trying to win votes, they are people selling a product that has to be of good quality and for a good price otherwise they will lose their business due to market competition. your whole argument is based on false premises. people didnt start buying volvos and all those other safe cars because of government. its because after a while people began to realize how dangerous cars were, so people started to demand safer cars in the market, therefore companies like lexus and volvo and a bunch of others started making cars that were safer so that they could compete in the market. the fact that you think businesses would just start making dangerous products for cheap money, and that you think people would actually continue to buy cheap and dangerous products really suggests that you assume people in general are so stupid that they wouldnt be able to tell that the product that they are buying is dangerous is ridiculous and literally happens nowhere in the free market. plus the government doesnt even do a good job and regulating and creating standards, just look at the EPA and the FDA. the FDA releases hundreds of products a year that they recall for being potentially fatal, its on their website! they admit to this! and your saying in a free market, there wouldnt be people that would be creating standards for medicine? i study biomedical engineering, how do you know someone like me or doctors or other people in the medicinal community wouldnt be able to create better standards than the FDA? the IEEE and ABET and the Biomedical engineering society do a pretty good job at what they do, and everything they do is voluntary, you arent forced to pay for it through taxation and bureacracy. you need to rethink your whole philosophy on government because everything you mentioned in your comment suggests that you have far too much faith in politicians and bureaucrats to deliver services and solve social problems. all they do is appeal to the majority to win elections because then they have power.
Matt Flynn "the organization that grades cars on their safety is not a governmental organization, its actually private" That is not what I said. It is your statement that is misleading. Just because there are private organizations that rate auto safety doesn't mean they are charged with creating safety criteria. It was Ralph Nadar in the mid 60s that lobbied government to create higher standards of vehicle safety. Left to their own, car companies only change when they have to. "GM was only able to sell those cars and get away with it without getting sued and bought out is because they had government help and government bailouts where the taxpayer basically had to pay for GM's horrible engineering." The government did not immunize GM from all law suits. But I won't deny GM and lots of corporations have had unfair government protections. That's not because government inherently protects corporate interests, it's because of regulatory capture which occurs when too much corporate influence is allowed in government. That is a failure of government. Above all, the institutions that matter in our government are rule of law and its various accountability mechanisms. If you want to argue that companies like GM would serve consumers better unregulated you're unaware of historical evidence to the contrary. "Its not buyer beware in a libertarian society" Yes, it is. It isn't the government that sits around dreaming up regulation for the most part. It is consumer organizations such as the one Nadar created and then lobbies the government to get the regulation realized. Businesses operate on a cost-benefit basis. If it is cheaper to make relatively dangerous cars and pay off law suits because it's cheaper, they will. These big companies don't go to court very often, they settle out of court usually, admit no wrong doing and carry on with their cost-benefit model. It's the authority of the government that forces them to operate considering more than just a cost-benefit basis. "the free market has plenty of ways where you can ensure the quality of a service." No, it doesn't have MANY ways. I've just explained above how business self regulates. And I haven't even gotten into externalities yet. "quality of service is better in private institutions for a reason you know." Better than what? Give evidence, not just opinion. "the fact that you think businesses would just start making dangerous products for cheap money, and that you think people would actually continue to buy cheap and dangerous products really suggests that you assume people in general are so stupid" No, where stupid comes from is believing that most big businesses operate on any other model than cost-benefit. The market is amoral unlike consumers. Consumers tend to trust or want to trust companies and products until proven otherwise (why else would companies spend so much on creating ads to bullshit people?). Consider all those medications advertised with umteen negative side effects that government FORCES them to list. Without that, it would be AS I SAID a BUYER BEWARE market for these drugs. And good luck to the consumer hiring lawyers and medical experts trying to trace the source of their illness and then sue big pharma companies. Also, most consumers choose products largely based on price. So without government standards, risky products would be far more available because they'd be cheaper to produce and it's the lower income that would mainly suffer from these purchases. Take the lead in gasoline issue. How did that change happen in car manufacturing? It took the government FINALLY in 1986 to outlaw lead in gas against the lobbying of automakers and gasoline refiners. So you have no idea what you're talking about. "that they wouldnt be able to tell that the product that they are buying is dangerous is ridiculous" BULLSHIT I just gave a perfect example of how people can easily be duped -- not because they're stupid but because they're ignorant and trusting. Ever try to do research on products and services now days? Companies pay people to create fake endorsements all the time. As long as money rules the day, it's hard to count on private consumer reports. But, fortunately you and Milton Friedman are in the minority. Consumers WANT the government to protect them from businesses that can't be trusted to do the right thing. What consumer hasn't been ripped off by some company and had little or no recourse? This is why Elizabeth Warren is so popular among consumers. You're just a free market ideologue who has ZERO interest in the truth.
canteluna the fact that the government can pick and choose which charges GM should face is enough evidence alone that the government is harmful when it tries to help. private organizations that provide safety standards are important because it proves that free markets desire safe products. it doesnt matter if people are easily duped, you dont have a right to steal from me in order to fund a government program in which you believe it is providing safety, when in reality it isnt and i have already proven that to you with the FDA and EPA and any other governmental organization. those government organizations dont keep us safe, all they do is serve the special interests. the fact that you arent aware of this by now is pretty damn sad. governments are meant to protect private property and contract rights and agreements, theyre not meant to regulate contracts and everything you think they should do because they dont do it. the government only creates monopolies because the regulations diminish competition. its a pretty basic concept dude. those lobbyists that you think so highly of are the very problems that all you liberal democrats cry about. the lobbyists are the ones that can buy politicians because of people like you that think governments can actually keep us safe from ourselves. without government power in the economy you have no lobbyists, there wouldnt be anything to lobby. your whole argument is again based on all kinds of false premises. plus none of what you just said matters because you do not have the right to steal from anyone else in order to protect someone else, and neither does government. and even when you try this stealing and redistributing method for providing safety, it doesnt work! oh please, do i research products? have you ever gone to school? have you studied the history of economics of the world and when america had the most prosperous economic growth, resulting in the highest living standards in the world? how bout immigration, you ever study that? you think immigrants were flooding into this country so that their businesses could be taxed and regulated how they thought, or do you think it was because there was virtually no government in the economy whatsoever and anyone could start from nothing and become middle class within a few years? how about you research the products approved by the FDA? how bout you research the methods used by the EPA? you honestly believe the government keeps us safe with their laws? they approve bad products and keep the good products from being sold with regulations! governments fuck up WAY more than the free market does. did the government mandate that apple have the best cyber security systems so that no one can hack imessages? no, it was the free market that demanded this because people realized that hacking is real and a possibility, so they trust the people at apple to provide the best cyber security because the people at apple are professionals and actually know what theyre doing. politicians do not know or care what they are doing, all they need is votes, they only make decisions based on lobbyists paying them which you seem to love so much. yes, the lobbyists and the government must have our best interest at heart spending all of our taxpayer dollars to get laws passed to diminish competition. you desperately need to go back to school and study basic mathematics, basic ethics, and basic economics. stay away from government schools too, im guessing thats why you believe what you do. of course, the government and the lobbyists are laughing at you right now, they want you believe that they are all good people looking out for us and keeping us safe all so that they can keep spending our money after they steal it from us through taxation! theyre not accountable to anyone, when they screw up nothing happens, when you take away accountability you take away the ability to provide the best possible products.
Matt Flynn "i have already proven that to you with the FDA and EPA and any other governmental organization. those government organizations dont keep us safe, all they do is serve the special interests" You've not proved shit. All you're capable of is free market propaganda. You're like every other clueless free market moron who uses regulatory capture as an example of regulatory failure. This bolsters my argument, not yours. I am capable of criticizing government.All your argument shows is that government is failing, that it's not accountable in the way it's supposed to be. Try as you do, you can't prove that there is anything inherently at fault with government, all you can do is point out where government fails. I don't disagree with that. And if you want to criticize the FDA and EPA, fine, provide specifics and I can provide counter examples. I'm sure I'd agree with much of your criticism. But to say all they do is serve special interests only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. But again, even if you were right, all that would prove is regulatory capture. If I pointed out every failure of business and concluded therefore that business was a failure no one would take such an argument seriously. That's your argument. Pathetic but I've heard it over and over. Fortunately morons like you are in a minority.
+canteluna the FDA Is too powerful no gov't agency should be able to ban a food or drugthe EPA is unnecessary we have laws against polluting enforce them
@darwinkilledgod I ain't touching that topic with a ten foot pole lol I think maybe in the future the suicidal person would thank me for stopping them from killing themselves, if they get out their depression of course.
WOW Donahue is such a puppet here... Making assumptions, and speaking for Mr Friedman on occasion. Why not ask the question and then ask again for clarification... stain....
***** i wouldnt be shy either. that man milton took every question they threw at him and he took his big swingin dick and knocked every one of those questions out of the park
***** yeah i thought you were alright but after that comment you got me thinking you might be a little soft in the head man. milton friedman is one of the greatest and most logical economists weve ever had in the last 150 years. most economists are useless fuckers because theyre keynesian, they believe in debt spending and creating credit out of thin air and propping up the stock market or other industries when they start to fail, not realizing any of these consequences. milton friedman was correct in most of his assumptions and everything hes said in his videos in terms of history and technology and standard of living is correct and you cant deny that. if your so much more useful than milton friedman id like to read your dissertation paper and i wanna read about your success as an economist or businessman that makes you so much more superior to a guy like milton friedman haha
"What the consumer really wants as judged by what he's willing to pay for." What someone really wants and what they're willing -- and ABLE -- to pay for are often two different things, Uncle Milty. "What you think he ought to want" It's so generous of Friedman to exploit the freedumb of consumers. Ever heard of "manufacturing consent"? It's one thing to say that consumers "want" something, it's another to manipulate them in to wanting something. Also, the market is not perfect. That claim is the "original sin" in classical economics. Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for proving asymmetry in markets ("weak agency" incomplete information). Story: A young kid is offered a nice shiny nickel for his dirty old dollar bill by a couple of older kids. This is how insidious exploitation is and even corrupts children. Friedman's followers are the guys with the shiny nickels just looking for an opportunity to exploit the vulnerable and then claim that "free markets" in such cases are working as intended, i.e. Someone who doesn't know any better might indeed trade the dollar for the nickel -- of their own free will. No harm, no foul in Friedman's book.
***** Societies can never be exclusively organized on a voluntary basis, that would be too ad hoc and create a "free rider" problem. All societies have laws and they are not followed on a voluntary basis. What someone pays someone else for labor is a social concern, not a private one, because the economy itself is social, not private. The economy is subject to laws that reflect the society's mores and values. PERIOD.
***** "No, its between them and ONLY them." In fact, it isn't. What you mean to say is that you wish it were a private matter. In fact, it isn't completely. There is a lot of latitude given to business in regard to pay. There is a federal min wage and other than that, the pay matter is a mostly private one. Other regulations are more important, such as work place safety and environmental impact. Real voluntary exchange between people -- requires a high degree of egalitarianism, otherwise the vulnerable have no bargaining position other than exit and since they have the right but lack the means to exit, they are exploited. There is a litany of examples for this which is why social justice is at the core of the progressive agenda. What most voluntarists mean when they talk about voluntary exchange is an arrangement that benefits the party with the most leverage. Not an enlightened or even an informed position, just a dogmatic one.
***** Condescend all you like, you've got nothing to teach anyone. Your analogy of learning to read and learning to compete in the market shows that you've not thought through your argument. My ability to read better than you does not give me a right to take advantage of your inferior reading skills. Obviously people in the market who have acquired skills and expertise have an advantage over newcomers which likely results in more competition for their skills which means higher compensation. Duh! Not a point in contention. You either misread or ignored my previous point. I am not conflating competition with exploitation. Go back and read my point again unless you prefer to argue against your own straw man. "there is no such thing as "exploitation", thats a fantasy in your brain." Clueless, dogmatic statements such as this are why most people don't you clowns seriously. "Thats like saying "hey this guy worked really hard to cure AIDS and now he is charging too much to cure aids", there is no "too much" because they fucking "cure aids"..." Wrong. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and offer me your last dollar for a drink of water, and I say, sorry, the price for water for libertarians is always a penny more than you have and you can drop dead. This is why laws about exploitation, hoarding, anti trust, etc. exist. Your point of view is why people are dying from aids who can't afford the medication.
Too simplistic. The government needs to invest in mental health and addiction issues. When people are in states of addiction or clinical depression, they are not mentally fit to make judgments based on their true value systems. They are psychologically ill and are not making rational decisions.
Friedman was a political illiterate. There is no self-ownership without democratic popular sovereignty and common ownership of a state, by individual citizens; since otherwise effective ownership of the individual, defaults to a Leviathan state. This is why today, the state can tax, conscript, compel, or otherwise coerce the individual as it pleases, by trump up "civic duties" that it claims the the individual "owes" the state, under pretext of implied absolute power over the individual, via supreme ownership OF the individual. Under self-ownership, meanwhile, the state could only tax land, and only priced on the basis of supply and demand; since land is the only thing the People of the state could OWN in common. Meanwhile, laws could only exist to stop individuals from infringing on each other's self-ownership.
Arthur F. Scaltrito Actually, property-taxes are the ONLY type that are ethical in a truly free state, since it's the only thing that the People actually own in common. So when you buy a title to land, you are simply purchasing exclusive USE of the land away from everyone else; you don't own the land ITSELF, since only the sovereign holds eminent domain, and that's the entire People. But as for public schools: they are entirely unethical, since that's a PARENT'S responsibility; it takes a village to raise an IDIOT.
+Simon Purist everything you just said is a complete lie haha you have way too much faith in politicians and cronies to steal peoples money in order to pay themselves and deliver services that could be provided by a free market. all your doing is forcing people to pay for a service based on the demands of the democratic majority, which is essentially mob rule. the 51% get to impose their morals and their will on the 49% cuz democracy. rethink your moral values because theres no way you can believe in freedom and believe in what you just said
Had to tell a secret I did every drug under the house I sure did and I enjoyed every second of it when I did it when it was time to grow up sick of it tired of it I moved on nobody should be restricted on anything that they do they are their own person no one needs laws no one needs to prevent it's their own life it's their own journey it's time that everybody understands that that's my story and I'm sticking to it
I once used to be a Chomskyite. Then I read about Monetarism in Economics A-Level and read up on Friedman, and his arguments were pretty much an epiphany for me.
So was I!
Language and Programming Channel in a similar path here, curious to know where did you end up and if you have any recommendations,
cheers!
I hate Chomsky people so much
@@saulsantana there is a book. Dying of money. Great book
chom is a commi POS.
Someone got schooled so hard, it's still rippling through time. Hat off to a great teacher, his legacy speaks for itself.
They have the same glasses but different viewpoints :)
Wow... Nailed it! Where is that kind of voice and tone today!?
Now this was the best public appearance he ever did. Thank you for this!
The argument of the foreign car companies was superb in that if the american cars sucked gas, were unsafe, dangerous to others and so forth, and the imported cars did, you don't destroy the incentive to change the american cars to become safer, efficient, economical, cheaper. Because if you forbid the imports you would have the makers saying "customers have no choice, why would we change?"
His videos make me cry. He is my hero.
Look at Donahue's body language during the introduction; at the moment preceding the guest's entrance he lowers his head as he raises his hand, effectively expressing his elemental discredit of his guest. Take a look and see this powerful statement Donahue makes with his body clearly foreshadowing his bias in the coming interview. I wonder if he thought he was being polite.
The man speaks the truth. Now in 2017 looking back, the war on drugs has cost over 1 trillion dollars with drug use still rampant and getting worst.
my new hero
+neverknows best - Very wise choice.
Now I'm just sitting here, hoping and praying you're a young person that chose Milton Friedman as their "hero" and not a typical Hollywood celebrity whose reasoning ability has been obstructed by their "self" esteem.
+Doc Holliday Me
So much truth in one video :')
One of my favorite economists
There goes my hero. See him as he goes.
Wow, Donahue read Mill's Harm principle on mainstream television? That's amazing when compared to modern programing quality.
Yes, I wish people could see by banning these things it drives the price up and it makes it profitable for criminals to sell. It also forces people hooked on the stuff go out and "Find" the money they need to buy it. The same thing happened during prohibition.
I just discovered your channel. Subscribed, thank you
I totally disagree with Donahue's politics but I admire the civil tone of his interviews and his apparent ability to listen and try to understand the point Milton is making. Same with his interviews of Ayn Rand etc, also posted on youtube.
A president we needed but never got.
So little has changed in all this time. People simply refuse to acknowledge history.
Wow, what an enlightened point of view..
Generally having an unsafe car means its unsafe to you. Having less airbags etc. hurts the driver of the car not the person he gets into an accident with. Milton Friedman would support laws that would prevent car features that would hurt others. He just said he would want parents to be prosecuted if their disregard for safety hurt a child. Milton Friedman is right about economics. Countries like Estonia and the Czechs modeled their economy after his book and they boomed after the Cold War era
I think he was making it simple for presentation purposes. Heroin falls in the same category. It is not ultimately illegal because it harms the addict - it is illegal because of the harm addicts do to others. His writings clarify where and when it is applicable as to whether there is more damage done to others with heroin being illegal or legal.
Actually Volvo did sell safety in cars successfully. Not so much now as many of their ideas like seatbelts became general practice.
you just have to love the pure logic!
The world mostly runs and thrives on people pursuing their own self Interest,which benefits us all. The examples I would give our our founding fathers when fighting off the yolk of a foreign tyrant,in creating our republic. Thomas Alva Edison in the pursuit of his love of Science and Invention, gave us the light bulb! Bill Gates in his creation of software, which has changed the way we live. Just a few of the free thinkers who have contributed so much in their pursuit of self Interest!!!! Michael Paul Padilla
***** The thing is gene most people don't seem to get is the fact that we do not have a Free Market Economy, such as what Adam Smith and Milton Friedman Advocated ! We have a Government Controlled Economy,in which the Government Picks winners and losers! As far as Capitalism goes,give me a system in which Capitalist endeavor to make money,as opposed to a system in which the central control takes my money,it always results in corrupted central control. Freedom Gene!
Governmen's action should be limited to protecting the people not running their lives.
... what scared people most about Milton, was his speed of thought combined with his "cleverness"
@dragan221 Donahue's body language at the end of the introduction set anything but a civil tone. During the interview he was even less subtle. Is civility defined only by a lack of violence?
Read Mises then and you will be blown away. Though mises is very advanced at times.
Donahue does a wonderful job of playing devil's advocate while still allowing his interviewee to speak.
Using force does not mean I as an individual will keep you from doing something. It means that the government through the police on pain of imprisonment or fine can force you to do something. People think in terms of individualism, rather than the state. Donahue didn't seem to understand the difference between a state actor and an individual when talking about suicide prevention. We use to throw people in jail for attempting to commit suicide. It's a slippery slope but Milton is right.
what is not available above ground
shall be sought under ground
OUTSTANDING!
That's so funny, today every car company tries to sell safety, and that's because that's what the market now wants. Uncle Milty right again.
I hate the baby argument. Everyone who wants a thing inevitably brings up a baby in their argument. The fact is that not everything can be framed in terms of infants. It's an argument made of opportunity, not consistency. By the same measure I could take everything from them and reduce them to the life of an infant with their own argument.
Not everyone has an infant. Not everyone remains an infant. You cannot therefore frame everything in terms of "What about a baby?"
@HandyMan101 He did it for people other than Friedman.
Can I get this episode on DVD ANYWHERE!?
There is a problem in that a good deal of, what is often labelled, the right's ideas are unpalatable at first sight. For example it's not intuitive that making heroin legal is beneficial for individually and therefor for for society too.
@darwinkilledgod Thought you might like this Friedman quote: “I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'. And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”
No I don't believe in self ownership, because I don't believe that anybody can or should be owned. People are not commodities. People are living walking thinking beings.
What I believe in is the right of self-determination and free will.
I believe we have a right to determine our own lives and no one has the right to impose their will on us as long as we respect that for others.
true libertarian
How strange, a Milty vid without the 1980's porn music intro.
Re juveniles: it's easier to acquire illegal substances than legal ones, (except in the case of Rx drugs, legally/illegally prescribed).
I have never understood why alcohol is legal and other drugs which are less dangerous are illegal.
Friedman: pro weed 🌲
+Scott Bennet I'm both a Christian and a conservative. And this gets me in trouble with my fellow Republican voters...but I believe the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. Friedman is spot on. If heroin were legalized tomorrow only people that want to use heroin will use heroin. Just like it is now despite heroin being illegal. Every time we ban something that has a demand, all we've done is create a black market. We have to realize that common sense can be "encouraged" in people, but common sense cannot be implemented via legislation.
As for "weed" specifically...Marijuana is demonstratively less harmful than alcohol. I don't hear about people smoking weed then wrapping their car around a telephone pole. Nor do we hear about men smoking pot and then beating on their wives and kids. But with booze...we hear this stuff all the time. So...if the arguments for alcohol are good enough for its legal status, I think we should reconsider what we think about weed.
Lastly...marijuana is no more of a "gateway drug" to other drugs than booze is.
Sorry this was so long...I just felt the need to explain this. We conservatives get a bad rap. All of us aren't completely uptight. Most of us just love liberty, and people smoking weed is part of that liberty in my view.
He's PRO FREEDOM!
@xjustin523x
Im glad to hear that. Have you just become libertarian or have you been that for a while? Regardless of your answer, youre awesome :D
@Jakearoo14 This whole episode is already on TH-cam. Just search "Donahue Friedman"
@xjustin523x If you like Milton Friedman, look up works of Murray Rothbard, he's more radical, consistent and thorough.
How much is Donahue's suit? According to his ideas of what people 'should' want to buy, he could have bought a $10 suit from a thrift store that would do the same job at protecting him from elements. So using his logic he overpaid probably at least several 1000% for his suit, far more than people overpay for the car based on it's looks or the image it projects.
: )
I think it's funny that their views differ on everything except their glass frames.
good vid bro, rly liked ioot
There is not telling how better it would. But most people expect perfection, they would like to see drugs gone and they intend to do it. Damn with the consequences
I can agree on most of his self determination except for the drug issue. The problem is that drug users (to include alcohol) do not on the whole consistently do it in a manner that it does not affect other people. It's because they are not responsible people that there have to be laws to protect others. Get them all to be responsible and I'm all for legalization.
I respect Friedman but I will have to disagree with him on the legalization of illegal drugs (esp Heroin). Unlike Alcohol, which causes a lesser damage compared to Heroin, Heroin is highly addictive and therefore, also highly destructive.
I agree on the premise that I am not supposed to care (and I do not care) about the abuser, how he chooses to live his/her life. However, Heroin does not take much doses to get addicted. Sure it is not with one injection, but it isn't that many either. And not many get out of this addiction compared to alcoholism. And Alcohol, if taken moderately, does little to no harm, and would also benefit the health of the drinker, that cannot be said of Heroin.
All the dealer has to do is give a curious kid a few dosage to get them hooked, and when they are hooked, when addiction begins to kick in, in order to satisfy that addiction, the abusers can be very violent and will go great length just to get another needle.
Let us not forget what opium did to the Chinese. And that is a much weaker drug when compared to Heroin.
When probation ended AA started and it grew the economy and gave people an out that didn’t end in jail. Same would happen if you legalized other drugs as well.
the really sad things going on in this country is the total misunderstanding by ignorant right wing people who for whatever reason like to label people liberal , in my book liberal is someone who is tollerent of others. ignorant right wing extremism tend to be more like thugs who just want to hate anyone who see the world differently. So what it really come down to these people are very narrow minded and feel threatened by anyone with a different lifestyle that in their view threaten their culture. liberal does not mean socialist or communist, although we try to look at things from different points of view. many people on the right have label me liberal when in face I am more libertarian thinking along the lines of Dr. Friedman.
+Gary Johnson Brother, left wingers label THEMSELVES liberal. They're the ones who have changed the definition, not the right wing. Friedman himself recognized and commented on that in Capitalism and Freedom.
+John Smith interesting, you really think so, most people are neither wholly conservative or liberal,
@HandyMan101 who, milton?
Call yourself a professor, doctor, whatever... etc. etc.. and demand your voice be heard
Dear Mr. Friedman, can you born again?
@tstruss912 That maybe true, but are other people more informed than the consumer himself? After all, these other people are only human, just as the consumers are, they are no all knowing god.
Sure an individual doesn't always make the best possible decision for himself, sure he's not perfect, but that is not to say any other people knows any better. He is RELATIVELY the best person to decide what's best for himself.
I think Friedman overstated his voucher arguments. Come to think of it, he made a poor argument for privatizing schools as he didn't make an argument against Aristotle's statement, in that the state should be the sole provider of education in order to distribute moral character universally. What grounds his arguments if does not address The Politics?
the state as distributor of moral character. hilarious!
Moral character means to have critical thinking by modern standards. In other words, it's to distribute knowledge to each and every citizen by the state providing the funds via taxation made by Aristotle 2000 years ago. And if we really want to have a free society, we need to a well-educated populous as a starting point. I also think Friedman was pretty much out of his field when he wrote that essay in Capitalism and Freedom, because in philosophy, you have to address older arguments that came before you in order to have a foundation to make an argument. Otherwise it raises questions as to how statements stand against previous ones.
@HandyMan101 I don't think so, I think he is disguising his true position very cleverly, to play the devil's advocate, so to speak. It's his job to provoke the guest and make the show interesting as the host, imagine how boring it would be, if he just agree with everything Dr Friedman says.
@xjustin523x Great to hear!
@erichaynes88 Thanks for the reference!
@xjustin523x It is hard to believe tha so many people think that HE is the devil. It kinda is irritating when you hear people say such horrible things about Friedman. Only a handful of other people have done more in modern times to advance (or at least try to save) freedom.
First off I wish as a disabled person when I put on closed caption, or in any particular TH-cam site, that the words that are displayed in close caption or actually the words that are being said by the commentators, that the actual words being said. There has not been one show that I have watched over the course of my preparation for a Masters Degree in Special Education where I have actually been able to write down each word spoken by what ever commentator is speaking, at that particular moment. And the reason why I can't understand what you're talking about, because being handicapped I need close caption. I wish that you would put your efforts into making sure that the words being produced on the screen match what the commentators are actually saying. I have a good mind to write to the Civil Rights Department Section 504 of the disabilities act, (215-656-8541) and let them know that TH-cam in all its glory has consistently neglected to manage close caption for the impaired.I do hope you take my threat seriously because as a disabled individual, I am guaranteed under the Civil Rights Act to get a fair and honest reflection in education as a normal hearing person would have. A good instance of the neglect that you have produced is when Phil Donahue introduced Milton Friedman. Instead of the words of Milton Friedman the Words came out, Norten treatment. What the hell is that? I can only say one thing by you neglecting to fix this problem will cause me to go downtown Philadelphia find my cousin who is known to go right for your jugular vein and sue the pants off you. At which point my pocket should be bulging with your money.
perhaps you should go fuck yourself with that rambling
I am truly sorry for your handicap. But TH-cam owes you nothing. No one owes you anything.
@xjustin523x I know that feeling.
I find myself once again disagreeing. You do not have the right to prevent someone from dying their hair blue even though it would adversely affect his chances of success in life. You do have the right to prevent someone from killing himself because he is almost certainly mentally disturbed and so is not acting rationally and needs to be protected until he can regain his senses. This is not the same as someone who is terminally ill or in great pain who chooses to die because this is a rational decision.
How does one earn their own way in this country if the rhetoric from the right is purely anti employee...its a right to own a business, employees dont have the right to their money....you name its....if you arnt a business owner you are free to be poor and under appreciated
Own myself? That’s not freedom!
My solution would be to make all legal. We shouldn't rely on the government to take care of it. All they are capable of doing is instrument a few drug bust, speak a few empty promises and ignore the fact that nothing has gotten better. Only worse. Drug, among other thing, are not doubt evils, but to think you can solve it with an inefficient, corrupt, money wasting and ignorant system is the same as believing the tooth fairy exists
"The first job of govt is to protect citizens from assault from foreign enemies and from their fellow citizens."
Sure. But why consider only physical assault? Exploitation is a form of assault because it is the harming of the vulnerable by the more powerful. If this is true for physical assault the same principle should apply for economic assault.
Law against suicide
Admittedly a rather foolish law as there can really only be a law against attempted suicide. The successful suicide bears no more lawful responsibility to the state (insurance policies notwithstanding). I'm against such a law but I would like to see mental health care available for anyone who needs not simply based on ability to pay.
Drug use - legality issue
There are negative externalities (negative social costs and consequences) to use of drugs now illegal. I don't agree that the drug user is completely responsible for their addiction or drug use. I assume that drug abuse (not just use) is a medical issue and not simply a lifestyle choice made by a rational actor. We either pay for and encourage treatment for abusers or suffer the social costs and consequences. I prefer the former.
Portugal decriminalized personal use of drugs and is a case study for this issue.
Tethloach Kingofreason Yes, most advocates of anarchism have no historical understanding of how societies have formed the way they have and why anarchism is a utopian pipe dream. Their ideas are not taken seriously by most intellectuals but yet they need to be rebutted because they have a populist appeal that is spreading at an alarming rate. Anti government sentiment is growing -- for good reason -- and so of course, too, anarchism. They need an education.
What are you calling exploitation by economical assault by the powerful against the vulnerable?
"What are you calling exploitation by economical assault by the powerful against the vulnerable?'
Any economic system, such as ours, that is manipulated by an oligarchy and not democratically regulated.
Oligarchy is empowered by the democracy.
"Oligarchy is empowered by the democracy."
Typical libertarian bullshit. You're confusing democracy with political process. Oligarchy is achieved through the manipulation of the political process. Obviously you don't understand what democratic institutions are. It's the lack of such institutions that enable oligarchy which is why you don't see oligarchy at the same level in Europe, Canada, Australia as you do in the US although all have similar political systems. They differ where their institutions differ.
I'm not sure about suicide, I would probably restrain them since they person attempting suicide out of stress/depression is obviously not in a good state of mind.
"If the public really wanted to buy safety rather than cosmetics it would be in the self interest of the automobile dealers to sell it. You've had some automobile sellers that have concentrated on safety and they have not done very well in the sales."
Which cars is Friedman referring to (other than Checker)? Volvo is one of the safest vehicles and they sell very well. All cars made or operated in the US have to meet a standard for safety. Consumers are aware that the govt has safety standards for cars so it isn't simply a matter of consumers choosing cosmetics over safety.
Are less expensive cars usually less safe than more expensive cars? Usually, yes. A Lexus is safer than a VW Bug. Many people choose the Bug over the Lexus. Why? Price? Certainly for many. Not everyone wants to pay for the cosmetics that come with a Lexus (i.e. not everyone wants to pay for the bells and whistles that amount to drive around in a living room). Because someone can't afford a pricey car and view the car not as an extension of their vanity but simply as a utility to get from A to B doesn't mean that the manufacturer should be able to skimp on safety features. Sure. Remove the bumpers and steel reinforcement in the frame and you can reduce the cost of the car. Should low income consumers have that option -- of a cheap unsafe car? And if so, should that also include low income buyers with children who are made more vulnerable by their parent's "choice" to buy the cheap, unsafe car? In the libertarian society that Friedman advocates, yes.
It's "buyer beware" in a libertarian society. As I'm writing this, GM is currently recalling hundreds of thousands of vehicles due to defaults that are a risk to safety. In a libertarian society it would be up to GM if they want to recall the cars. Even if GM could be sued in a libertarian society for defects that resulted in injury or death, good luck proving your injury or death was the direct result of the car default in court against GMs lawyers. (The current injury and death figures are only a guestimate because proving an accident is due to a particular singular issue is often impossible.) Could a poor person hire good lawyers and a team of experts to help make their case? Only if the lawyers saw the case as an obvious winner and agreed to work on a consignment basis (and then take most of the monetary award from the victim).
Also GM (as most companies do) makes a cost-benefit analysis for decisions to recall defective cars. Their initial decision, in the case I'm referring to, was to not recall and just pay out in court if they needed to because it was cheaper to do so. This is what is known as a transaction cost and is factored in to their business practice.
As is almost always the case with Friedman, he sets up a hypothetical that is a "strawman" or relies on the ignorance of his opponent. People like Friedman are why we need govt. People are often in positions of vulnerability (without resources) or "weak agency" (lack of information) and can be taken advantage of without someone looking out for their interests -- free of charge, as a matter of decency and maintaining human dignity.
+canteluna everything you just said is highly inaccurate. the organization that grades cars on their safety is not a governmental organization, its actually private so theres that. also GM was only able to sell those cars and get away with it without getting sued and bought out is because they had government help and government bailouts where the taxpayer basically had to pay for GM's horrible engineering. Its not buyer beware in a libertarian society. the free market has plenty of ways where you can ensure the quality of a service. quality of service is better in private institutions for a reason you know. government doesnt decide the standards for various electronics devices, organizations that are privately funded like IEEE and ABET do these things, and they do it well because they arent a bunch of politicians trying to win votes, they are people selling a product that has to be of good quality and for a good price otherwise they will lose their business due to market competition. your whole argument is based on false premises. people didnt start buying volvos and all those other safe cars because of government. its because after a while people began to realize how dangerous cars were, so people started to demand safer cars in the market, therefore companies like lexus and volvo and a bunch of others started making cars that were safer so that they could compete in the market. the fact that you think businesses would just start making dangerous products for cheap money, and that you think people would actually continue to buy cheap and dangerous products really suggests that you assume people in general are so stupid that they wouldnt be able to tell that the product that they are buying is dangerous is ridiculous and literally happens nowhere in the free market. plus the government doesnt even do a good job and regulating and creating standards, just look at the EPA and the FDA. the FDA releases hundreds of products a year that they recall for being potentially fatal, its on their website! they admit to this! and your saying in a free market, there wouldnt be people that would be creating standards for medicine? i study biomedical engineering, how do you know someone like me or doctors or other people in the medicinal community wouldnt be able to create better standards than the FDA? the IEEE and ABET and the Biomedical engineering society do a pretty good job at what they do, and everything they do is voluntary, you arent forced to pay for it through taxation and bureacracy. you need to rethink your whole philosophy on government because everything you mentioned in your comment suggests that you have far too much faith in politicians and bureaucrats to deliver services and solve social problems. all they do is appeal to the majority to win elections because then they have power.
Matt Flynn "the organization that grades cars on their safety is not a governmental organization, its actually private"
That is not what I said. It is your statement that is misleading. Just because there are private organizations that rate auto safety doesn't mean they are charged with creating safety criteria. It was Ralph Nadar in the mid 60s that lobbied government to create higher standards of vehicle safety. Left to their own, car companies only change when they have to.
"GM was only able to sell those cars and get away with it without getting sued and bought out is because they had government help and government bailouts where the taxpayer basically had to pay for GM's horrible engineering."
The government did not immunize GM from all law suits. But I won't deny GM and lots of corporations have had unfair government protections. That's not because government inherently protects corporate interests, it's because of regulatory capture which occurs when too much corporate influence is allowed in government. That is a failure of government. Above all, the institutions that matter in our government are rule of law and its various accountability mechanisms.
If you want to argue that companies like GM would serve consumers better unregulated you're unaware of historical evidence to the contrary.
"Its not buyer beware in a libertarian society"
Yes, it is. It isn't the government that sits around dreaming up regulation for the most part. It is consumer organizations such as the one Nadar created and then lobbies the government to get the regulation realized.
Businesses operate on a cost-benefit basis. If it is cheaper to make relatively dangerous cars and pay off law suits because it's cheaper, they will. These big companies don't go to court very often, they settle out of court usually, admit no wrong doing and carry on with their cost-benefit model. It's the authority of the government that forces them to operate considering more than just a cost-benefit basis.
"the free market has plenty of ways where you can ensure the quality of a service."
No, it doesn't have MANY ways. I've just explained above how business self regulates. And I haven't even gotten into externalities yet.
"quality of service is better in private institutions for a reason you know."
Better than what? Give evidence, not just opinion.
"the fact that you think businesses would just start making dangerous products for cheap money, and that you think people would actually continue to buy cheap and dangerous products really suggests that you assume people in general are so stupid"
No, where stupid comes from is believing that most big businesses operate on any other model than cost-benefit. The market is amoral unlike consumers. Consumers tend to trust or want to trust companies and products until proven otherwise (why else would companies spend so much on creating ads to bullshit people?). Consider all those medications advertised with umteen negative side effects that government FORCES them to list. Without that, it would be AS I SAID a BUYER BEWARE market for these drugs. And good luck to the consumer hiring lawyers and medical experts trying to trace the source of their illness and then sue big pharma companies. Also, most consumers choose products largely based on price. So without government standards, risky products would be far more available because they'd be cheaper to produce and it's the lower income that would mainly suffer from these purchases.
Take the lead in gasoline issue. How did that change happen in car manufacturing? It took the government FINALLY in 1986 to outlaw lead in gas against the lobbying of automakers and gasoline refiners. So you have no idea what you're talking about.
"that they wouldnt be able to tell that the product that they are buying is dangerous is ridiculous"
BULLSHIT I just gave a perfect example of how people can easily be duped -- not because they're stupid but because they're ignorant and trusting.
Ever try to do research on products and services now days? Companies pay people to create fake endorsements all the time. As long as money rules the day, it's hard to count on private consumer reports.
But, fortunately you and Milton Friedman are in the minority. Consumers WANT the government to protect them from businesses that can't be trusted to do the right thing. What consumer hasn't been ripped off by some company and had little or no recourse? This is why Elizabeth Warren is so popular among consumers.
You're just a free market ideologue who has ZERO interest in the truth.
canteluna the fact that the government can pick and choose which charges GM should face is enough evidence alone that the government is harmful when it tries to help. private organizations that provide safety standards are important because it proves that free markets desire safe products. it doesnt matter if people are easily duped, you dont have a right to steal from me in order to fund a government program in which you believe it is providing safety, when in reality it isnt and i have already proven that to you with the FDA and EPA and any other governmental organization. those government organizations dont keep us safe, all they do is serve the special interests. the fact that you arent aware of this by now is pretty damn sad. governments are meant to protect private property and contract rights and agreements, theyre not meant to regulate contracts and everything you think they should do because they dont do it. the government only creates monopolies because the regulations diminish competition. its a pretty basic concept dude. those lobbyists that you think so highly of are the very problems that all you liberal democrats cry about. the lobbyists are the ones that can buy politicians because of people like you that think governments can actually keep us safe from ourselves. without government power in the economy you have no lobbyists, there wouldnt be anything to lobby. your whole argument is again based on all kinds of false premises. plus none of what you just said matters because you do not have the right to steal from anyone else in order to protect someone else, and neither does government. and even when you try this stealing and redistributing method for providing safety, it doesnt work! oh please, do i research products? have you ever gone to school? have you studied the history of economics of the world and when america had the most prosperous economic growth, resulting in the highest living standards in the world? how bout immigration, you ever study that? you think immigrants were flooding into this country so that their businesses could be taxed and regulated how they thought, or do you think it was because there was virtually no government in the economy whatsoever and anyone could start from nothing and become middle class within a few years? how about you research the products approved by the FDA? how bout you research the methods used by the EPA? you honestly believe the government keeps us safe with their laws? they approve bad products and keep the good products from being sold with regulations! governments fuck up WAY more than the free market does. did the government mandate that apple have the best cyber security systems so that no one can hack imessages? no, it was the free market that demanded this because people realized that hacking is real and a possibility, so they trust the people at apple to provide the best cyber security because the people at apple are professionals and actually know what theyre doing. politicians do not know or care what they are doing, all they need is votes, they only make decisions based on lobbyists paying them which you seem to love so much. yes, the lobbyists and the government must have our best interest at heart spending all of our taxpayer dollars to get laws passed to diminish competition. you desperately need to go back to school and study basic mathematics, basic ethics, and basic economics. stay away from government schools too, im guessing thats why you believe what you do. of course, the government and the lobbyists are laughing at you right now, they want you believe that they are all good people looking out for us and keeping us safe all so that they can keep spending our money after they steal it from us through taxation! theyre not accountable to anyone, when they screw up nothing happens, when you take away accountability you take away the ability to provide the best possible products.
Matt Flynn "i have already proven that to you with the FDA and EPA and any other governmental organization. those government organizations dont keep us safe, all they do is serve the special interests"
You've not proved shit. All you're capable of is free market propaganda. You're like every other clueless free market moron who uses regulatory capture as an example of regulatory failure. This bolsters my argument, not yours. I am capable of criticizing government.All your argument shows is that government is failing, that it's not accountable in the way it's supposed to be. Try as you do, you can't prove that there is anything inherently at fault with government, all you can do is point out where government fails. I don't disagree with that.
And if you want to criticize the FDA and EPA, fine, provide specifics and I can provide counter examples. I'm sure I'd agree with much of your criticism. But to say all they do is serve special interests only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. But again, even if you were right, all that would prove is regulatory capture. If I pointed out every failure of business and concluded therefore that business was a failure no one would take such an argument seriously. That's your argument. Pathetic but I've heard it over and over. Fortunately morons like you are in a minority.
+canteluna the FDA Is too powerful
no gov't agency should be able to ban a food or drugthe EPA is unnecessary
we have laws against polluting
enforce them
I have to disagree with the doctor on the whole baby thing.
@darwinkilledgod I ain't touching that topic with a ten foot pole lol
I think maybe in the future the suicidal person would thank me for stopping them from killing themselves, if they get out their depression of course.
Is this interviewer really trying to frame Milton on logics? Poor guy..
seriously...
too bad he was not an anarchist, he would have been a good one!
The MELKIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD Order knows no self-interest
WOW Donahue is such a puppet here... Making assumptions, and speaking for Mr Friedman on occasion. Why not ask the question and then ask again for clarification... stain....
"Go use heroin." - Milton Friedman
On the off chance that wasn't tongue in cheek, he didn't say that.
lol... Friedman is so short...
+Frequency of Love yea thats true. when it came to economics, milton had the biggest swingin dick in town wherever he went
***** i wouldnt be shy either. that man milton took every question they threw at him and he took his big swingin dick and knocked every one of those questions out of the park
***** yeah i thought you were alright but after that comment you got me thinking you might be a little soft in the head man. milton friedman is one of the greatest and most logical economists weve ever had in the last 150 years. most economists are useless fuckers because theyre keynesian, they believe in debt spending and creating credit out of thin air and propping up the stock market or other industries when they start to fail, not realizing any of these consequences. milton friedman was correct in most of his assumptions and everything hes said in his videos in terms of history and technology and standard of living is correct and you cant deny that. if your so much more useful than milton friedman id like to read your dissertation paper and i wanna read about your success as an economist or businessman that makes you so much more superior to a guy like milton friedman haha
"What the consumer really wants as judged by what he's willing to pay for."
What someone really wants and what they're willing -- and ABLE -- to pay for are often two different things, Uncle Milty.
"What you think he ought to want"
It's so generous of Friedman to exploit the freedumb of consumers. Ever heard of "manufacturing consent"? It's one thing to say that consumers "want" something, it's another to manipulate them in to wanting something.
Also, the market is not perfect. That claim is the "original sin" in classical economics. Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for proving asymmetry in markets ("weak agency" incomplete information).
Story: A young kid is offered a nice shiny nickel for his dirty old dollar bill by a couple of older kids. This is how insidious exploitation is and even corrupts children. Friedman's followers are the guys with the shiny nickels just looking for an opportunity to exploit the vulnerable and then claim that "free markets" in such cases are working as intended, i.e. Someone who doesn't know any better might indeed trade the dollar for the nickel -- of their own free will. No harm, no foul in Friedman's book.
The nature of the exchange would be voluntary, no one made the child exchange the dollar for the nickel.
ReginaldCheevers85 Children are "weak agents" and vulnerable. Your comment shows how ignorant your definition of "voluntary" is.
***** Societies can never be exclusively organized on a voluntary basis, that would be too ad hoc and create a "free rider" problem. All societies have laws and they are not followed on a voluntary basis. What someone pays someone else for labor is a social concern, not a private one, because the economy itself is social, not private. The economy is subject to laws that reflect the society's mores and values. PERIOD.
***** "No, its between them and ONLY them."
In fact, it isn't. What you mean to say is that you wish it were a private matter. In fact, it isn't completely. There is a lot of latitude given to business in regard to pay. There is a federal min wage and other than that, the pay matter is a mostly private one. Other regulations are more important, such as work place safety and environmental impact.
Real voluntary exchange between people -- requires a high degree of egalitarianism, otherwise the vulnerable have no bargaining position other than exit and since they have the right but lack the means to exit, they are exploited. There is a litany of examples for this which is why social justice is at the core of the progressive agenda.
What most voluntarists mean when they talk about voluntary exchange is an arrangement that benefits the party with the most leverage. Not an enlightened or even an informed position, just a dogmatic one.
***** Condescend all you like, you've got nothing to teach anyone.
Your analogy of learning to read and learning to compete in the market shows that you've not thought through your argument. My ability to read better than you does not give me a right to take advantage of your inferior reading skills. Obviously people in the market who have acquired skills and expertise have an advantage over newcomers which likely results in more competition for their skills which means higher compensation. Duh! Not a point in contention. You either misread or ignored my previous point. I am not conflating competition with exploitation. Go back and read my point again unless you prefer to argue against your own straw man.
"there is no such thing as "exploitation", thats a fantasy in your brain."
Clueless, dogmatic statements such as this are why most people don't you clowns seriously.
"Thats like saying "hey this guy worked really hard to cure AIDS and now he is charging too much to cure aids", there is no "too much" because they fucking "cure aids"..."
Wrong. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and offer me your last dollar for a drink of water, and I say, sorry, the price for water for libertarians is always a penny more than you have and you can drop dead. This is why laws about exploitation, hoarding, anti trust, etc. exist. Your point of view is why people are dying from aids who can't afford the medication.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Come back after you have come out of the "Soc 101" coma and stepped into the real world of macroeconomics.
The Secular Society 🤡
Too simplistic. The government needs to invest in mental health and addiction issues. When people are in states of addiction or clinical depression, they are not mentally fit to make judgments based on their true value systems. They are psychologically ill and are not making rational decisions.
Sounds like you should start a charity
@@Rhygenix Many like to put other people's money where their mouth is.
That's the work of charities not government.
Friedman was a political illiterate. There is no self-ownership without democratic popular sovereignty and common ownership of a state, by individual citizens; since otherwise effective ownership of the individual, defaults to a Leviathan state.
This is why today, the state can tax, conscript, compel, or otherwise coerce the individual as it pleases, by trump up "civic duties" that it claims the the individual "owes" the state, under pretext of implied absolute power over the individual, via supreme ownership OF the individual.
Under self-ownership, meanwhile, the state could only tax land, and only priced on the basis of supply and demand; since land is the only thing the People of the state could OWN in common. Meanwhile, laws could only exist to stop individuals from infringing on each other's self-ownership.
If you think you own real estate, try not paying RE taxes.
REAL ESTATE OWNERS!
How many children of renters go to school on you personally ?
Arthur F. Scaltrito Actually, property-taxes are the ONLY type that are ethical in a truly free state, since it's the only thing that the People actually own in common.
So when you buy a title to land, you are simply purchasing exclusive USE of the land away from everyone else; you don't own the land ITSELF, since only the sovereign holds eminent domain, and that's the entire People.
But as for public schools: they are entirely unethical, since that's a PARENT'S responsibility; it takes a village to raise an IDIOT.
It's a penalty for owning real estate
+Simon Purist everything you just said is a complete lie haha you have way too much faith in politicians and cronies to steal peoples money in order to pay themselves and deliver services that could be provided by a free market. all your doing is forcing people to pay for a service based on the demands of the democratic majority, which is essentially mob rule. the 51% get to impose their morals and their will on the 49% cuz democracy. rethink your moral values because theres no way you can believe in freedom and believe in what you just said
The freedom you speak of allows children of illegal immigrants to attend school on me personally, and others like me.
Had to tell a secret I did every drug under the house I sure did and I enjoyed every second of it when I did it when it was time to grow up sick of it tired of it I moved on nobody should be restricted on anything that they do they are their own person no one needs laws no one needs to prevent it's their own life it's their own journey it's time that everybody understands that that's my story and I'm sticking to it