Milton Friedman Interview: Three Categories of Freedom

[AlanCom1]

@noprofitmaxiemirung:

So, absent government intervention in failed "green schemes" and corporate subsidization - look at Solyndra case (which reminds me of fascism), how is the system unjust?

You sit on the sidelines and cry because other people do worse than you (according to you), while these people choose to party, get drunk and get laid most of the time (while not having much property). Who is happy and lives life? And who is the fool?

[AlanCom1]

@noprofitmaxiemirung:

Now regarding workers and ownership -

In a capitalist system (and unfortunately the current system is not real capitalism - I wish), there is no barrier to you doing what you want. In feudalism, you couldn't start a business, own land etc.

Looking at "wealth disparity" is a consequence of choices of these individuals. Some don't study, but to work and spend most of what they make.

Others save money, work 80-100 hours a week, start a business and become really rich.

[AlanCom1]

@noprofitmaxiemirung:

1) you claim that there are systemic and social problems in capitalism (assuming we are in capitalism - which in itself is debatable). But compare these issues with live under communism. You guys (I know you are a communist by looking at your page) killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, and now, you fool come here and play the offended victim? No food, no heat, no electricity, no access to information, not to mention the secret police - life in communism

[ErikS1975FreeState]

Being a Libertarian means your for letting people live their lives as they see fit not just economically or with guns but letting people live their lives as they see fit as long as their not hurting anyone else. Thats what separates Libertarians from the Tea Party because is just about Economic Libertarianism but not broad Social Freedom.

[mmamolina]

@ErikS1975FreeState yup. I just abhor it when people call themselves liberals yet don't stand for liberty as defined in the English language.

[noprofitmaximierung]

@ErikS1975FreeState That's great, abandoning all systemic relevancy, eh? If i am unemployed and there is a job that offers a hunger wage, then i i am forced to work for that extorting wage, or i roll over and die, that works too.

[mobilechief]

fascism can be marketed and sold with out any problem, look at the U.S. today.

[Myndir]

Any system that is dependent on the benevolence of politicians cannot be taken seriously, just like a system of prisons that is dependent on the social responsibility of prisoners.

[iCommentatez]

A benevolent dictator doesn't necessarily have to turn bad. Having people adore you because they know you run a society where they can achieve their (non-political) potential to the fullest, one where they can life a life of carefree luxury even if they don't work, all of this is an immense ego boost, almost a drug. Why would I want to end that emotional gravy train? Owning a prosperous, technologically advanced and free society as a dictator does is for me a quasi-religious/sexual feeling.

[iCommentatez]

My ideal society would be one of extreme social/civil freedom, moderate economic freedom, and little to no political freedom with my myself as the dictator, naturally. Such a society can be maintained, because most people only care about being able to eat, buy, screw and rant their idiotic ideas. They don't care as much about actually being full-fledged citizens with the ability to exercise democratic rights. The vast mass of the people will support a truly benevolent dictator.

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[LuciusSuperbus]

his mind has aged

[cloudbusterman]

Economic, civil, and political freedom are not the main types. A true free government, media, people, and/or academia can't use decision-making methods that self-defeat, puppet, put in thrall to values, entrap, usurp, stupefy, delete reason, bankrupt, export control to plutocrats sheiks, short-termists & naifs and so on.

Friedmaniasts deleted freedom by these naivetes. They didn't intend the Fall of America, but that's what it looks like with those $trillions of quasi-reparations to creditors.

[liber8me]

friedmaniasts? just because someone thinks milton's ideas work economically doesn't mean anything else they do is the result of him telling them

[Hydra773]

he said freedom to speak... and freedom to write... and freedom to uh eh uh errr uh eh// freedom of speech.

he was old then but he still has the best points.

[kmarinas86]

@Hydra773

The internet expanded those freedoms.

[D0g63rt]

The definition depends on whether you're talking politically or economically. Politically they are incompatible ideologies, and saying they are the same thing is asinine. Economically you could say they are similar in that they demand wealth from their citizens, but democracy works the same way in that respect.

[TheLivingStone7]

Actually Friedman has nothing to do with our depression.

Its because of people like SARSANCH that this world is so screwed. You know nothing about Economics or Money Markets. I'll bet you live in a borrowed house, with a borrowed car in the garage and you watch a borrowed TV on a couch you bought with borrowed money from your credit card company. YOU ARE THE REASON WE ARE IN A DEPRESSION! Earn a living instead of living with borrowed shit. THIS MAN IS A GENIUS

[sarsanch]

It's because of people like Milton Fiedman

that we are in another Great Depresion

just listening to him makes me vomit

what a sarcastic and miserable of a man,

filth of the earth!!!

[louiethegreater]

Well said sarsanch, Friedman's philosophy promotes globalism: a concept worse than all the other isms put together.

[tristramshandy3]

the reason friedman's theory fails is because it requires an informed consumer making informed choices- and we simply don't have that today.

I would gladly support his theory if we were to undergo a radical revolution in education, you know, where we actually teach americans some history and some critical thinking capability.

as things stand today, the american consumer is a brainwashed chump- nothing more.

[Americaisgreat123]

Robert L. Bartley said In general, 'the market' is smarter than the smartest of its individual participants.

It is not that individual consumers need to know what is going on, but their collective decision guide the market. You don't need to know how much meat is selling for on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in order to buy some at the grocery store or even not get ripped off. All our collective bidding lowers the prices and forces businesses to increase their efficiency.

[tristramshandy3]

Their collective decisions are controlled by billions of advertising dollars, not anything moral or ethical, which, ideally, would guide these "markets" of yours in the right direction. There is no check on corporate power and abuse- not from consumers or our paid for corporate government.

we need a fucking revolution!!!!

[Americaisgreat123]

We need a "revolution" towards a truly free market economy. About a third (and growing) of our economy is government. We should reduce that down to below 20% with a Constitutional Amendment.

For your blithering on "corporate power and abuse" and such, could you expand and provide some evidence. If you want to start sounding like Ralph Nader and Michael Moore then back up your silly notions and theory's.

[moderndesignworks]

I totally agree. Unlike others, I don't believe we need a revolution..........yet, all we have to do is require a college diploma to vote. If someone has to be qualify to be elected to an office, then you need to be qualified to vote. Otherwise, the crooks, the theivies, and the criminals will be running our large cities, states, and our country which we do now. Uneducated, uninformed are so easy to fool. Just watch "How Obama got elected".

[tristramshandy3]

I don't need to watch "how obama got elected" to understand how idiotic our voters are. They voted in the bush corporation TWICE.

Also, I've known too many college grads that couldn't find africa on a map.

I think if we want to trim the electorate down to the knowledgeable, only history, philosophy, and english majors would be allowed to vote.

You must quote three shakespeare passages before casting thou ballot!

[moderndesignworks]

Good idea!!! I will take History, Pre-med, Engineering, Business/Finance, and maybe Poli-sci. Look at UK, people are so fed up there with all the PC crap, illegal immg. They voted for UKIP, and small party, which now becomes a major 3rd party that beats the Labor party. We need a strong 3rd party here in this country. Fiscal conservative that emphasizes personal, political, and social freedom without any religious crap. Come to think of it, I am a Libertarian!

[tristramshandy3]

replace either engineering or business with either philosophy or (preferably) literature.

we want well-rounded intellectuals- not just doctors and businessmen.

thanks.

[gunman806]

What problems are you speaking of specifically?

[FrickinLaserBeam]

You are correct in your analysis of the American consumer, in general. When the willfully ignorant are taken advantage of, I don't care. The problem is not that stupid consumers are getting screwed - that is their own fault and does not affect me. The problem is that the same stupid, willfully ingnorant consumers are voting and are electing politicians - that does affect me.

[tristramshandy3]

OK, if you are not a member of the class of lemmings of which ye speak, and the implication is clear you don't think you are, then who does the enlightened, knowledgeable person vote for- corporate crook A or corporate crook B?

Or even worse, does he or she throw his or her vote away on a third party candidate that can't win because our system is closed and rigged (Ralph nader has not been allowed in a single presidential debate- and we have the nerve to call ourselves a free and open society)

[FrickinLaserBeam]

Unfortunately, you are right. I propose an alternate government theory. We all get to chose to whom to pay our taxes, depending on the services rendered. In practice, it involves moving to another country. Until then, try to get the friends, family and neighbors to engage - less apathy - regardless of which side of which isle they identify themselves with. I've started looking at New Zealand, really. I doubt any country really has it's schtick together.

[tristramshandy3]

we don't really need an alternate govt, what we need is to make ours function as it's supposed to. We need to get the corporate cash out of our elections, that is the source of the poison.

I propose taxpayer funded elections.

Remember, our reps are going to work for whoever pays for them to get elected. Right now, that's big agra, big pharma, big banks and insurance companies (don't forget defense contractors). If WE THE PEOPLE sent them to DC, maybe they'd work for us instead.

just a thought.

[FrickinLaserBeam]

To get a better functioning gov't I agree public finance would help, but to a limited degree. Even better would be to limit the power government has. When the fed gov't spends 3 trillion a year, someone is going to be chasing after it. Reduce the scope of federal government and you reduce the potential for corruption. There are few good/honest politicians and all are corruptable at some level. Keep power and control at the level of the individual.

Thanks for the exchange.

[AlanCom1]

@tristamshandy3:

you are completely wrong in your points.

What we need is

1) An educated public that understand that apart from army and justice, government intervention is actually harmful.

2) It's not politician's fault that most citizens are indoctrinated into socialism in government schools. Bad public policy stems from bad ideas that the voters have.

3) Lobbyists are so prevalent because there is no free market. On a fee market, lobbying is a waste of time

[tristramshandy3]

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I don't think that's what we need, or what is happening.

Have you even BEEN inside of a school recently? Where is this socialism being taught?

[AlanCom1]

@tristamshandy3:

another thing where you are wrong is freedom of speech in politics. I think any citizens should give any politician any amount of money at any time. It's in the First Amendment.

However, pork barelling should be illegal and there should be no contract with the government without an auction. Winners of such government contracts should not be allowed to give any money to politicians that facilitated their contracts.

More freedom of speech means bad politicians get kicked out.

[tristramshandy3]

I'm not worried about contributions from CITIZENS, I'm concerned about contributions from BUSINESS INTERESTS.

And the very idea that the right has somehow turned transnational corporations into citizens with free speech rights is a GROSS perversion of our constitution, and everything it stands for.

[AlanCom1]

@tristamshandy3:

so if companies have no free speech in political matters, I assume then that there should be no laws governing the companies, but only for the individuals working for them?

I am OK with this proposal. But this would also mean that corporate taxes should be 0%, fact that I completely agree with.

[tristramshandy3]

the whole notion of businesses having speech is insane. it's anthropomorphic and twisted.

Where does it say in the constitution that companies have speech rights, or any other rights?

Thanks in advance for your help in this matter.

[JuanVoyce]

If you don't want to pay taxes--get out of our country. You are a FrickinLeach.

[FrickinLaserBeam]

When did I say I don't want to pay taxes? Please, watch the temper. Everyone pays taxes, that is how gov't is funded. I'm self employed, I likely pay WAY more taxes than you do. That is the price I pay for being productive.

The question is: How much gov't can we afford - gov't is by definition a net drain on wealth. This SHOULD BE the debate. Then we must decide how to pay for it: A progressive income tax penalizing the rich or inflation, a progressive tax penalizing the poor. Or???

[JuanVoyce]

One who leaves the US to avoid taxes is an unpatriotic leach.  I stand by my statement.

[FrickinLaserBeam]

A leach is someone who expects something without paying for it. The term applies to the baby boomers, for example, who turned this country from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation and now want free retirement and healtch care until they die to repay them for their service. That's leaching, aka generational theft.

My proposal to leave the US, and pay taxes elsewhere to receive services elsewhere, is nothing like leaching. It is chosing a different service provider.

[JuanVoyce]

Au contraire, maggot, you received the services of the US armed forces in two wars--and now you're skipping out without paying.

[FrickinLaserBeam]

Please, watch your mouth (or fingers perhaps). Anonymity is not an excuse for lack of civility. 

Our current account deficits and the forthcoming overwhelming financial burden was not brought on by any war, recent or past. It was brought on by cowardly politicians and an apathetic and uneducated public.

I have paid my share and will continue to do so. The part I object to is the "leeches" to mention voting themselves more of my wealth so that they may remain lethargic and entitled.

[AlanCom1]

@FrickinLaserBeam:

excellent comments!

[mobilechief]

@FrickinLaserBeam Man well said I agree!

[gagothesith]

@FrickinLaserBeam "The problem is that the same stupid, willfully ingnorant consumers are voting and are electing politicians - that does affect me."

Just as your electoral choice which you think is wise affects them.

The point is not to neutralise the decisions of those whom you think are 'stupid and ignorant', or even to deprive them of those freedoms. You, they, I, even Friedman--we each have only one vote. Influence is expanded *by persuasion*.

. . .

[gagothesith]

... One million "stupid, willfully ingnorant [sic] consumers" voting and electing politicians is nothing IF those who are opposed to them are able to *persuade* others in even greater numbers.

Those whose choices lose in elections simply failed to persuade.

[jamo387]

@gagothesith How will you pull them away from their cable T.V, video games and all the rest of the opiates that have replaced religion in this country? In order to persuade, you have to get their ear and have at least a basic level of understanding. I'm afraid about half of the populace are otherwise occupied and too dim-witted to comprehend today's political landscape. Thanks to the FED and their inflation, the rest have to work 60 hours a week just to stay even keeping them occupied too.

[sdsunandfun]

Nicobolso, you are confused between inherited and hereditary

[puremilkgenius]

I think that the other freedoms come about through economic freedom. To put it shortly; once you have economic freedom you will fight for personal freedom to as you wish with what you own and political freedom to make sure you keep what you own.

[sdsunandfun]

plus you have a full belly

[nicobolso]

I think there is an important piece missing in modern liberals' theory, and that is Immanuel Kant's balance of freedoms. That makes the whole concept of "absolute freedom" utopic.

[sdsunandfun]

Obligation implies freedom?

[nicobolso]

Freedom is a relative right. All rights are. My freedom to kill you wouldn't be compatible with your freedom to live.

[sdsunandfun]

Why is it relative? Because you say so?Why d you think the Natural Law set out rules to follow as absolutes?

[nicobolso]

Rights are relative to other people's rights

[Invirtuo]

the principle of negative rights resolves that distinction

[Duckenheimer]

Freedom from coercien and violence is missing from liberals theory?

[CosmicFork]

People confuse what we have today with "Free Market Capitalism". I'm not sure how they can, except through ignorance. We have Central Economic Planning through The Federal Reserve System, and Books of Laws passed by Congress. What we have today is Corporatism. Through monetary manipulation and Corporate Dominance of the markets our country has destroyed the true free market, and the free society that goes along with it.

[CosmicFork]

Friedman was a Liar. There is no "Free Market". There may have been (at one time in this country) But not anymore! Corporations wanted a market, but not a free market. They wanted the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to fix the cost of materials and the price of finished products in the same way. Therefore, the natural tendency of the corporate system was always toward COMBINATION and CONCENTRATION. That's not a "Free Market"!

[nycistanbul]

What about spending others' time and resources for three decades to test your own ideology? There are many ways to be an economist and being a demagogue is not one of them.

[shumich]

Yeah, except when the state backs the guy w/ the most money.

[goronpaul2008]

The employee/employer relationship is always one of mutual exploitation. When your boss asks you for a favor and doesn't pay you for the time, you're being exploited. When you take an extra half hour at your lunch break and get paid for the time, you're exploiting your employer. When the balance of exploitation swings too far one way or the other, the relationship will usually naturally degrade and will result in a parting of ways. The decision to take either role is wholly yours.

[Pussychka]

True, but I'd like to elaborate on your explanation (or whatever word suits). It is one where both are simultaniously exploited. Every human relationship is like that. But it's not a matter of exploitation in the idea. Only when it goes wrong, as you say.

[Ooftyman]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Ron Paul would think you were nuts for this comment...

Acting in this way would end the relationship. Assuming freedom to enter and exit a working relationship, either party can leave the other if there is a dereliction of duty or breach of contract. This is capitalism in a nutshell. I'm sure that Ron Paul, the good Austrian that he is, is thoroughly familiar with the concept of Bastiat's Creative Destruction. Apply this concept except to the labor market.

[CosmicFork]

"The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business."(F.D.R.) I reject the premise that there is a "free-market" for ordinary working people in this country. Coercion marks the employer-employee relationship at every point. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable nor a matter of free choice. It is "take it or leave it!" Friedman is DEAD!

[Ooftyman]

This is utterly wrong. Every one of us, assuming government exists only to protect private property rights and enforce rule of law, has choices. When you go fill out an application or sign a contract, you are CHOOSING to SELL your labor. If the opportunity costs of selling your labor exceed the income you could attain from entrepreneurship, you'll take it. If not, you are CHOOSING not to. No one is forcing you to work for them.

[TheAdamTheory]

Yes! Thank you.

Friedman is much older in this video. If I had known about him when he was alive, I probably would have mourned his death lol. Ah...The cost of being young.

[losheva]

anyone is free to choose, is the capital who chooses, with the mechanisms of market capital goes  from underdeveloped areas to more developed because of the reduced risk and increased demand and therefore pay

[losheva]

workers in underdeveloped areas at first move together with the capital, but once the capital will move again, part of them are found no work and will form a reserve army of unemployed that will allow entrepreneurs capitalists provide the lowest salaries (osupply jobs> demand job ) and accomulate more capital (k.marx "the capital")

[Ooftyman]

This is utterly wrong. Marx was a fool, and he provided absolutely NO empirical basis to support his wild claims of exploitation.

If this was the case, what on God's green earth do you call investment in emerging markets? Ever heard of comparative advantage (ie Ricardo)? How about explaining Hong Kong's emergence? Yeah, 'nuff said.

[losheva]

hong kong is explained by the theory of structuralism have never heard of Prebish or Frank?, hong kong is the center of the periphery, commercial mediation center was born with income not used in the the periphery (ie underdeveloped area)...Ricardo sucks

[losheva]

friedman talking about free market, but why argues that be the supply of money must be rigid? in the free market is the demand that determines the offer, if it were otherwise the supply stiff stifle demand, and that is exactly what happens on the financial market, the supply of money is at the discretion of the monetary autorithy, friedman said to be against the authorities, but has the monetary authorities at the center of his model to adjust the inflation ...

[losheva]

regarding my phrase marx was provocative, I know that the theories of Marx were utopian, but so are those friedman, there will never be perfect competition, there is a market power by firms

[Ooftyman]

I suggest you read Friedrich Hayek's "The Meaning of Competition". Besides, Friedman never once suggested perfect competition is possible outside of static analysis.

[losheva]

any theory (neo-classical or Austrian school) based on the supply side is wrong in principle, capital goes where there is a growth rate higher, therefore a higher demand (thus a higher rate of return), mistakes the side from which you look at the outlook is not the shortage of supply that maximizes profits, but the abundance of demand, so always go where the growth rate is higher, workers attracted to the follow ... the stuff that u say I know and trust does not work ...

[Ooftyman]

Neither the monetarists NOR the Austrians are supply side only. I think you're confusing them with the short-sightedness of the demand-crazy Keynesians...

[losheva]

Thank you for the "crazy", with that word just confirms your little respect , instead to stop to theories of keynes recommend you to watch other neo Keynesian theories, such as Myrdal (Nobel prize 1974, he was perhaps a nobel prize crazy?) "theory of cumulative causation"...good luck

[losheva]

when a company makes a direct investment abroad, the local workers are not attracted by the offer of capital, but the demand for work ...

[losheva]

the growth rate determines the development, and is equivalent to the demand for capital, the capital goes to the highest rate of growth because demand is greater than supply and results in a higher return ...

[Ooftyman]

And you still don't tell me how any of this is a negative thing? Since when are pricing signals, which tell entrepreneurs which areas they can best serve their fellow man, a bad thing?

[losheva]

is not the choice of consumers in the long run will not be the consumer to decide what the best product, but the capital, the best product for the capital will be one that minimizes costs and maximizes profits for doing so will need a basin unemployed, able to provide a wage less power and thus a lower wage in order to minimize costs ...

[losheva]

technology innovation in the long term will be directed not at improving the product but the saving of labor to minimize costs, this will fuel unemployment functional minimization of costs, if unemployment increases, decreases the power of the worker, the wage decreases , decrease production costs and maximize profits

[AlanCom1]

@losheva:

you are completely wrong. Actually because capital is more scarce in poorer countries, it gets a higher rate of return. The reason why some countries are still poor is due to the complete lack of respect for property and kleptocracy. In this case, the return from capital is then stuffed in a swiss bank account instead of being reinvested.

I second Ooftyman, Marx was a complete fool.

[losheva]

capital is poorer in relation to the growth rate you see these things or you limit yourself to the elementary school? a bank convenient to transfer money where the growth rate is raised and low default risk or where the growth rate is low and the high risk of insolvency?

[AlanCom1]

@iosheva:

you got it wrong. Economic growth is not return to capital. Ludwig von Mises proved that there was no colonialism (i.e. high investment from rich european countries into poor countries) early 20 century. Actually rich countries major investors and trade partners were rich countries as themselves.

Just because a country has low or nonexistent economic growth it doesn't mean that the return to capital is small. The growth is low because rich people choose not to reinvest.

[AlanCom1]

@Iosheva:

The reason owners of capital choose not to reinvest in their country is fear of nationalization. Historically, they get 36 cents on the dollar (Mankiw, 1990)- which is a lot comparing to what GM and Chrysler bondholders got.

What can you invested in Zimbabwe? Anything. Problem is that, as western companies discovered with Venezuela and Ecuador, the tyrant of the day can change his mind and take your property away, just like that.

Would you invest there under these conditions?

[losheva]

if i wrote zimbabwe it isn't accident, zimbabwe is a repubblic, is not a tyrannic country, but there is a big problem there, pubblic debt is very high, and what does it mean? the real tyrant there is the debt, untill the grow is based on debt there is no real grow...FREE TO CHOOSE TO LIVE IN DEBT WITH MY FRIENDS BANKS (M.FRIEDMAN), public debt or private debt is the tyrant..today with -1% gdp expected in Usa , i that i 'm european don't invest in Usa, but in Usa there is not a Tyrant, maybe...

[AlanCom1]

@Iosheva:

and how did the debt get there in the first place? Did it magically appear?

The problem is that the administration in US is following the stupid european policies. Don't worry, Europe will get bankrupt too, just that you guys will be much poorer than us when that happens.

[losheva]

maybe u can tell me how debt can born, becuase u americans u are the most indebted ( privately) in the world..well now u can see...public or private, debt exist because the entire system is based on the debt..

I like your human spirit to want the misfortune of others, points out the your thickness of man ... that is zero

[AlanCom1]

@losheva:

1)typical socialist tactic to claim that I want other people's misfortune. That is false.

2) I wasn't born in the USA. I chose to move there. I was actually born in a communist country in Eastern Europe.

3) In any case you are a doctrinaire socialist, nobody will kick you out of it (except for yourself when you realize what a fool you were to think you can do good with other people's money).

[losheva]

I am highly democratic and against every kind of tyranny, including that of money ... in a democracy you have rights (freedom) but also obligations for the peaceful living together ...

[AlanCom1]

@losheva:

But isn't taking 40% of one's income tyranny? You have to work 40% of the time to pay others. That is part time slavery.

If the government is so trustworthy and it does a good job in its programs, they should tax everybody 5% of their income (to pay for army, police and justice system) and make everything else voluntary.

Want social security? Pay social security tax and get pension from govt.

Want medicare? Pay the tax and get it.

Otherwise, get it on your own from private sector.

[losheva]

if a poor person can not afford health care or social security what to do to die in a corner? if one is poor must not be discriminatory or else this means being racist that's the truth, but unfortunately the world has need of the poor as rich, if we were all rich we would all entrepreneurs and then who would the worker? Who would work physically degrading? the question is not easy, poors and riches both important for economic system, but if one is poor is certainly not a reason to kill him ...

[AlanCom1]

@losheva.

That's why insurance exists. To be able to get financial backing in case of disastrous event.

But when insurance covers 80% of your trip to the doctor (as is the case with my insurance), you don't cover against catastrophic events, but basically prepay your health care.

In USA I estimate there are at least 120 million liberals, probably more in Italy (as %). You guys can cover those who need medical care. Conservatives and libertarians can pay for their own. That's why they have jobs.

[losheva]

well you pay for private insurance and I pay taxes for public health that is the difference?, a democratic state is a state of all, even the unemployed who have not worked, because their company fails, or for any other reason and even if unemployed in need of health care, how can I pay for private insurance if I haven't a job? if not I pay my taxes because I'm sick and unemployed i can go to the hospital...

[AlanCom1]

@losheva:

How dare you claim that I am a fascist?

I am in a libertarian - I want individual economic and social freedom. The opposite is the authoritarian corner where you and your friends are (they oppose both social and economic freedom).

Also the difference between paying taxes or paying your insurance is that you have no choice not to pay taxes. You can try if you want, I am curious how fast you get to jail in Italy.

You are a fool and a waste of time.

[losheva]

you read or u are taking from the wrath of not knowing what to say? if you read, I wrote that you are not fascist, because the fascist state is a welfare state, instead, I wrote that you're a Nazi because if were not for you all disabled people could die because they are not able to fend for themselves ... ahahhaah think that someone who does not pay taxes in Italy ends up in prison? seeks to know things before saying bullshit ...

[losheva]

The Hippocratic Oath is the oath that doctors and dentists pay before starting work.

It takes its name from Hippocrates formulated it in 430 BC Oath modern

I swear that I treat every patient with equal care and commitment, regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, social status and political ideology and promoting the elimination of all forms of discrimination in the health field, you're not libertarian you are ignorant ...

[sarsanch]

AlanCom1, a Libertarian is a glorified

right winger very close to the definition of

a Fascist.Now if you add Socialist to Libertarian then we are talking about

something very different, I think that these

so called Libertarians are trying to confuse people with name calling when

in reality they are reactionaries right wingers.

[AlanCom1]

sarsanch,

you are so wrong. In fact Libertarianism and Fascism are complete opposites.

The so called Socialist Libertarians (which is like saying humane mass murderer) are in fact hard core socialist of the Pol Pot kind. They are to the left of Fascism, with the exception that they give some social freedom, but keep the repressive socialist economics.

Don't delude yourself. You are a troublemaker socialist. You guys already stole the word Liberal. We won't let you steal the word Libertarian.

[sarsanch]

Well when it comes to stealing these so call Libertarians they are nothing but

reactionaries in disguise,Mussolini and

Hitler also said they were Socialist which

they weren't and here we have a Democracy that is not, we are in trouble

don't you think?

[AlanCom1]

sarsach,

1) Nobody uses words like "reactionary" anymore - unless of course you are a hard core Marxist.

2) Mussolini and Hitler were Fascists - which is a brand of Socialism

3) We are in trouble because people don't want to live within their means. They want to tax others and give themselves benefits. From this perspective, yes, we are in trouble. Read Bastiat - on government - available online.

[sarsanch]

Repugnant Republicans are against

taxation because their greed has no limits

simply they want the "little people" to pay

their taxes,the golden goose [the workin men[a] ] has no more eggs because the banksters and the federal reserve together with evil politicians robbed them.

I'm no Marxist but our past governments

are,they sold us to China, took most of

our jobs there and left THE AMERICAN

worker to fend for themselves ,YOU and the people like you are the traitors of

the USA!!!

[AlanCom1]

sarsanch,

1) people who pay taxes are against taxation, since the government steals their money and gives it to others. People who get government checks like other people's taxation (not their own, of course).

Nobody has any responsibility to anybody else, except not to do them harm.

The government started as a way to protect citizens (army and police) and to provide basic services, like justice (enforcing contracts and punish criminals). Nothing else fits in the scope of government.

[AlanCom1]

sansarch,

The federal reserve and the Fed government is a tool to redistribute money from the rich to the poor, with the exception of some bankers who got bailed out. But this in anomaly. Usually the government steals money from those who have it and gives it to the poor who have no incentives to work (thank you, welfare state).

The problem is that the govt is spending more money and keeps the dollar artificially high. This destroys the ability to export.

[AlanCom1]

sarsanch,

The jobs "left" for four reasons:

1) the dollar was too high - and still is (thank the Fed and the federal govt for that)

2) The taxes on the productive and the corporations are too high. (thank again the redistributive actions of the Federal govt).

3) The legislation and the unions have more power, therefore any smart investor, would choose to go somewhere else. (Think GM, Michigan, OH, CA)

4) The government education in US is complete garbage ( it's much worse than 25 years ago).

[D0g63rt]

How is Fascism a brand of Socialism?

[AlanCom1]

@dogbert:

are you for real?

You have two choices: read von Mises- Socialism or Goldberg liberal fascism.

For the short answer: Socialism aims to enforce equality by stealing from the most productive.

Fascism is a subset of socialism that leaves some room to the individual while at the same time being nationalistic.

Both are collectivists ideals. People are not thinking individuals, but tools to be used by the state. Is this what you want?

[D0g63rt]

Fascism "leaves some room to the individual"? I just don't see how its a valid assumption to brand them as essentially the same thing when they're so wildly different. And that presumption is incorrect, fascism leaves less "room" to the individual in terms of legal and civil rights.

[AlanCom1]

Dogbert,

Fascism is a kind of socialism. What is so different about them?

And what kind of capital can you have under communism.

[D0g63rt]

Now you're going to drag Communism into this? You have yet to explain how Fascism and Socialism are the same thing. Just saying they are doesn't make it so. They are separate ideologies. You seem to just be lumping these ideologies together as things that "aren't Democracy", that doesn't give any insight into what they actually are though. It is valid to say that none of those are Democracy, but to say that they are the same thing because they aren't another thing is a false assumption.

[AlanCom1]

dogbert,

I didn't say that they are the same. I said that fascism is a subset of socialism. That's all.

A is included in B is not A=B. Logic?

I gave you materials. Go read some.

Fascism allows citizens more freedom than socialism. You might think fascism is worse because they are nationalists, but you didn't live under Stalin or the Khmer Rouge.

[SuaveSavant]

I'd actually argue Socialism, Marxism and Communism to be subsets of Fascism based on the actual reality of greater gov't tyranny.

[pagancornflake]

@SuaveSavant

You would argue incorrectly. Fascism subsists in corporatism, the others do not.

[St37One]

@pagancornflake

why are you changing the subject to fascism?

[pagancornflake]

@AlanCom1

And you obviously dont live under the nordic governments in modern Europe, who follow economic socialist policies, and regularly top the world HDI index, while maintaining a healthy private sector.

[liber8me]

economically socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing - in socialism the government controls the means of production. in fascism the government controls the means of production by being able to tell producers what to do, what to make and how many.

[pagancornflake]

@liber8me

" in socialism the government controls the means of production."

No, it doesn't. "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources."(Newman, Michael, 2005).

The difference you neglect to mention is pivotal to differentiating between the two. Democratic mandate is necessary to define socialism, and its absence defines fascism.

[yammyspeed13]

Both are forms of top-down government.

[St37One]

German National SOCIALIST Party

United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics

most people dont know what Fascism originally meant, so they just use it in the place of "totalitarianism".

[pagancornflake]

@St37One

The fact that the nazi government abolished the existing trade and labor unions unions in Germany 42 days after assuming legislative control dispels the myth that nazi Germany was socialist in any respect other than name. It is very simple to figure out their motive for calling themselves socialist considering the large voter base who were working class socialist proponents at the time.

[St37One]

@pagancornflake

there is a huge problem with that argument, since it assumes that genuine socialism is even possible. History has proven that it is not possible. You can only have fake socialism and malicious totalitarianism. If you want to support socialism, then you are always supporting "fake" socialism. "Fake" socialism is the real thing.

[pagancornflake]

@St37One

Nowhere do I make that assumption. Unionization of the workforce and the autonomy of those unions are a base requisite for socialism. I have no idea where you are getting "true" and "false" socialism from. History has shown nothing that would substantiate such a delineation. Social economies differ on a scale, not polarities.

[pagancornflake]

@AlanCom1

1) This is opinion, not fact.

2) Fascism is a political ideology centered around corporatist values and perspectives-the polar opposite of socialism on the economic scale. The only similarity between the two is the scope of state involvement in the economy, and even then, socialism implies a democratic mandate as a requisite of this function, and fascism does not.

3) Exactly. Speculative unfettered capitalism would be the epitomizing case to raise this concern.

[noprofitmaximierung]

@AlanCom1 Yes, because Mussolini and Hitler believed in establishing workers control over production... -_- Fascists believe that it is in humans' genes that they are great, libertarians seem to be of the opinion that people can choose to become whatever the fuck they want, ignoring all systemic and social problems in which humans in a capitalist system are subject to and the psychological effects of these problems on the human brain and social standing. Workers produce our materialwealth

[noprofitmaximierung]

@AlanCom1 ...they should own it and control it.

[magdamagda999]

sarsanch

oh, right the "reactionary" so-called "right wingers." lol!

a reactionary is simply a guy who hates socialism and tries to stand up to it. hitler hated the "reactionaries" even more then he hated the capitalists!

LOL! i love marxist jargon. it's soooo revealing!

[sarsanch]

You are definitely wrong,look at Wikipedia

for the meaning of the word "reactionary".

You should think before you speak!

[bmk2307]

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

-Michael Scott. Dunder Mifflin

[sarsanch]

Usually Wikipedia gives both points of view pro and against which is true in the

case of the word "reactionary" but it seems to me that that the "reactionary right" likes to cloak themselves on any

ideology that is convenient to them,so if you're unhappy with Wikipedia look for

the definition on a different encyclopaedia.

[liber8me]

what the hell are you talking about? libertarianism has NOTHING to do with fascism. there could not be a pair of more incompatible ideologies.

[unfad1ng]

@liber8me

well id say Stalinism and Libertarianism is more incompatible than libertariansim and fascism.

[scalp340]

@liber8me If you talk to a liberal, libertarians are "right wing" and Fascism is on the extreme "right." makes no sense to me ether.... They talk to me like I don't know were I stand, and whats what.

[2dum2getsocialism]

@scalp340 confusing the language is a classic statist tactic; the baseline for discussion should move from 100% lack of government (anarchy) to 100% government control (totalitarianism)

[noprofitmaximierung]

@liber8me Oh, that's right. Fascism is NOT the private power taking over public duties, I Forgot! -_-

[losheva]

to be poor or not to be poor ,to have or not have a job normally is not a choice of work ... not to mention then there is the hysteresis (the difficulty of finding work for those who are unemployed for a long time) ...democracy=all be equal,

to be all equal each contributes equally to the peaceful social coexistence, which requires obligations and return rights ... this is democracy, your way of thinking is self-sufficiency

[AlanCom1]

@losheva:

is it discriminatory that you can't afford a Ferrari? Or is it racist? Or is it sexist that all customers of Lamborghini are males?

And don't say that work is degrading. There is a certain wage at which people would do that work. Capisci?

Stop giving me your fascist arguments. Who said anything about killing people?

In a free society a person should fend for itself. Those who can't or don't want to, can rely on the goodness (or stupidity) of strangers.

watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4

[losheva]

be workers in a leather tannery, to be workers in a chemical plant, to be workers in a company that manufactures paint, is not Degrande? degrading the physical point of view, building roads is not degrading the physical point of view, do you think mister billion that his son is studying at Harvard have more rights than the child of a worker with minimum wage and can not afford to study? you're not fascist because your ignorance does not even know that the fascist party was a socialist party

[losheva]

as the disabled, who has Down syndrome, spastic who is born with deformities or who should die just for you? therefore unable to fend for himself? you're right you're not fascist, u are Nazist ... congratulations ...

[losheva]

no worker is discriminating be GM's worker and to be less job without anyone doing anything, because the top managers, even those who have studied at Yale and Harvard have sent the company into crisis ... however I see that you have a lot of imagination here it comes to health and social security, not to own Ferrari and Lamborghini ...

[pensword5]

The nature of democracy is" the tyranny of the few by the many".The advancements of society come from "the few" and the motivation for the few would be nullified if "the many" force wealth gained to be shared. If the wealth gained by "the few" is through purchases made by "the many" with free will, then all have benefitted. or "the many" wouldnt have bought the product  or service. So dont whine about "the few" and want to spread thier wealth out amongst "the many" or they will stop achieving.

[losheva]

You are the classic capitalist fanatic who does not understand that money is a means and not the end of human life ...

[FrickinLaserBeam]

You can opt to work for someone else . . . though you do have to work. You ability to consume is linked to your ability to produce; i.e. to work. The role of governemnt is to ensure that employers and employees both have free entry into and out of the market. When that is compromised only then can (or should perhaps) the government act.

[CosmicFork]

"The Royalists of The Economic Order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business."(F.D.R.) President Roosevelt was right when he said; "Necessitous men are NOT Free." I reject the premise that there is a "Free-Market" for ordinary workers in this country. What we have is a Coercive Market. In a coercive market the earning power of work declines, while those with economic power gain even more!

[FrickinLaserBeam]

"Necessitous men are NOT Free" is of course true. In a utopian world free of any want/need, sure everyone could be "free." In the real world, the best to be hoped for is for each individual to be able to chose how best to satisfy/balance his needs with his resources (i.e. labor, capital, etc.). Having THAT choice is the freest state man will find.

[avaition321]

Adam Smith, Jefferson, and Friedman have freed the world from oppressive self

[nicobolso]

They have indeed provided general premises that contribute to the freeing of the world from oppresive self, yet it's still a path that hasn't been walked all the way through.

[tristramshandy3]

why do the people of the USA consume half the world's anti-depressant drugs, and MOST of the world's illegal drugs?

Is this indicative of a happy, successful society?

The problem with capitalism is that it forces you to measure EVERYTHING in dollars and cents. But, if you step away from that narrow analysis, you see that sociologically, the USA ranks at the bottom of the industrialized world.

I refute your notion that we have been a success. I define success differently than you do.

[rfsamigo]

Milton Friedman is a true intellect.

[tristramshandy3]

I'll take Chomsky any day.

[AlanCom1]

@tristamshandy3: thank you for bringing up Chomsky. This proves to me that you are beyond redemption. I think it would be useful for you to look at contracts. If you understand contracts, you understand this issue.

[tristramshandy3]

I think it would be useful for you to read Shakespeare, Montaigne, Rousseau, Balzac, and a thousand other geniuses.

I have read his most famous book- freedom to choose. It's balderdash- pure fantasy.

Meanwhile, I have YET to meet a Chomsky attacker who could provide any substance. Apparently, it's just enough to say the name Chomsky and you have scored rhetorical points.

What a sad state of discourse we have in the usa.