@bootiack Milton Friedman's parents were Jews. Although I agree that there are a lot of stupid points made by the others, no need to insult someone based on his ethnicity/religion
jew and irish communist governmetn bloodsuckers babbble about racism and inequality and ignore fact that private school does better job with less money
just do liike finland, I love friedman. But Some parent are sadly not able to choose which school is the best. Without mentioning that schools is a factor of creating unity in a country. Also what About state like texas, where parent don't want their son to learn about darwin evoluion. This kids should stay ignorant. I think we need to make principals as businesses. The most efficient receiving more money and each one adpating to their environment. Also an state imposed mixity,...
I am in highschool. I have gone through the public system. Children are not born trouble makers. It's the system that literally disposes of millions of minds. When I was very young, I had a huge interest in reading, learning, writing and designing. I no longer am interested in anything. I hate waking up and going to a place I know I'll have to recite things I don't care about. The SYSTEM is the fountainhead of failure and poverty.
"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." - Albert Shanker Teachers Union President
1974? And we still dealing with this issue? Now is worse thanks to teachers unions. How is possible spend so much money, more than any other country in the world and we rank number 16? Is money the solution?
friedman still thinks society works the same as in the 19th century.... sad.. and I don't know why so many friedman supporters here. You all basically believing his hypothetical economic situation will work.
@solidysnake1 are you for real? Do you understand what he is saying? The reason society doesnt work the same way is that we have decided the government has to control so much of it. The reason competition works is that suppliers must be good to survive. Right now the best use of resources, from the perspective of the school, is doing the minimum to avoid discipline while playing the bueaucratic game. But that is not the best for the students.
Wow, the whole notion of punishing everyone and blaming society for a group of parents who won't teach thier children about he value of education is rediculous. 80% of the population will get a superior education and 20% will sink and die.
This country was born with the idea that we have the ability to suceed. With that we also have the ability and the freedom to fail. THAT is what makes the USA better then everyone else. With the freedom to fail then sucess tastes so much sweeter.
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all known fields of inquiry. The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
Also, that moderator is doing a poor job in this particular debate. He normally does a good job in the other ones where you have multiple people with multiple views, but almost all of them here are against Friedman. Why do we need to hear 4 rebuttals from one side and 1 from the other each go around?
3:50 , the market always seeks profit. By virtue of that, it always seeks to employ all capital in the market. It's not going to take a portion of the market's money and deny the rest of the market. It'll just vary its services based on demand.
@brad238899 You are right. I knew about Dr. Friedman a couples months ago (I am 41) by doing some research about drug policy and watching some videos about John Stossel. Since then I been amaze by his knowledge.
"I've never yet known anybody who has tried to defend a government program who didn't say all its evils came from the fact that it wasn't big enough."
Damn Milton had a great point on food stamps. The government dare not just give people food they give them free choice. What is the difference? We have more sympathy for teachers than we do for huge companies that produce our food.
That's bull.....Milton says people can choose what they buy with food stamps.....no they don't, they MUST buy FOOD with it. Moreover, if they qualify for food stamps they don't pay taxes...they're not getting their taxes back, their getting other peoples taxes (it's called redistribution of wealth). Milton would have them starving a stupid.
No you are wrong. He said that they can buy what TYPE of food. Moreover, you can be on food stamps and pay taxes, take a look at NYC this year. Moreover, Milton never said that was a necessary condition. School vouchers is the least worst solution, not a perfect solution.
Ugh, this comment is so stupid it hurts. People chose what FOOD they want and where they want to buy it. The same way you could choose where you want to go to school with a voucher system.
so then what is the point of collecting taxes just to return it in the form of a coupon that can only be redeemed for a specific item (ie food or school). It seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. Why not just cut taxes so that the individual can spend their money on whatever they want (food, school, diapers, guns, porn, drugs, etc.). Food stamps forces you to spend money on food and school vouchers force you to spend money on school. it's not choice, it's force.
and by that you mean it's not a position that the general public would support? But do you agree that would be a better way? Stop collecting taxes and allow people to choose for themselves what they spend their money on. I'm not in school why should I pay for others to go to school? I'm not hungry why should I pay for others to eat? I should be free to choose if my children go to school or not, or eat or not. Why should I pay for those who choose not to work?
I agree to an extent, but you're asking a lot of very difficult questions that have taken books to answer - not so easy with 500 characters. If you're really curious about these questions, I recommend checking out more videos and reading a couple books on libertarianism. One of my favorite videos is "Milton Friedman on Libertarianism"
exactly, I have read a lot and watched a lot. If I'm not a victim of crime why should I pay for the police? If my house is not on fire, why should I pay for the fire department? I really don't even understand the point of the federal government and I think we'd defiantly be better off without them all they do is try and tell us what to do. Really I don't even understand the point of state and municipal government either, just a bunch of elitist trying to take our money.
Judging by your subscriptions, I'm guessing this is sarcasm, although there are anarchist who would actually agree with you. I am not an anarchist. I believe that government has a couple very specific roles to play, with a judicial system being one of them. This is needed to preserve maximum freedom for everyone. But this argument is a red herring, as police, roads and infrastructure account for so little of the national budget (I think it's around 7%).
anarchy is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion since the exact same arguments can be used against any part of the government. What does it matter what percentage of the budget it accounts for...why should we pay for it? It's not a red herring....the same argument applies for each. What gives the government the right to take away my freedoms whatever the reason?
It's a red herring because it distracts from the over barring waste of government, and focuses on the things that government does (relatively) well. It's like arguing to keep Hitler in power because he did some good things. But anyway, I don't subscribe to the "taxation is theft" argument. I believe a limited government is a necessary evil in providing maximum freedom for everyone.
But aren't you though? You don't really believe in anarchy, you're just trying to find a hole in my argument. Even if I'm wrong, it's a very common argument used by liberals to justify their large government ideas.
"So why not apply the maxim of limitations and not let them (government) do anything at all?"
Because, like I said government is a necessary evil to prevent force and fraud, that I don't believe a free market could fix.
I would never pretend that finding a hole in one argument justifies another. That's an over used fallacy. I may not believe in what I'm arguing but I didn't realize that was a prerequisite for making an argument.
but what do firefighters, and roads have to do with force and fraud? why not privatize them and allow the free market decide who gets them and who doesn't? that's the way it is with healthcare and that works ok, right?
They don't - I was just pointing out the flaw of using the things a government does relatively well, when justifying a large government.
Anyway, just to point out, our health care system is far from free-market. It's one of the most regulated markets there is, which is a major reason for the high prices. Next, I honestly don't know how privatized roads would work, but I'm sure there are some theories that have been tossed around. As for firefighters, what about the loads of volunteer stations?
But still, I feel like these are minor issues that distract from the overall argument. If I lived in a country like Hong Kong, I'd be more interested, but we're so far from that it's just a waste of time. I'm more interested in making our current system more market friendly, which requires compromising your ideals in order to reach your goal.
As I said these may be minor issues but the same argument applies. I find choosing between them arbitrary. Why should I pay for a public police force for everyone and not a private security force for my self?
The US health care system is the most privatized in the developed world and one of the most costly. But you're right,costs do tend to go up when insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to those they insure. Privatized roads are easy, no money goes to or from the public purse...a private toll road. As for firefighter, cool, let them all work for nothing...I'm fine with that. They sit around half the day anyway. my question is still...Why should I pay taxes for these things?
Hah, I'll save health care for another day, but you're way off the mark. Anyway, I've already answered the main point you're trying to make. I feel that a public police force is necessary to provide maximum freedom for everyone. I understand that other public services aren't (firefighters, roads, ect) but they only cost a tiny fraction of the budget. Sure, they're not ideal, but why waste your time with something so small when entitlement spending is half the budget and growing unsustainably?
you have said repeatedly 'a public police force (amongst other things) is necessary to provide maximum freedom for everyone.' but you haven't said HOW or WHY, or shown that that it provides 'maximum freedom'. Wouldn't my 'maximum freedom' be best served without any police force?
public services are a part of 'entitlement spending', everyone feels entitled to free fire protection and roads, why do you not include this in entitlement spending? What makes any part of the budget sustainable?
Again, you're asking a ton of complicated questions that could take books to answer. Unfortunately, this is youtube, which isn't exactly the best place for things like this, but I'll try to boil it down to its root. If you didn't have a public police force, with a set of standard laws, there would be nothing stopping one private police force from taking over, and creating its own rules. You can actually see this happening all throughout history, whenever there has been a regime change it goes
goes from anarchy to a dictatorship. You need that standard set of laws to prevent something like this from happening. It also doesn't have to be as drastic as a complete regime change; it could even be a something like slaves. Now, private security companies could work (and do) work under a system like we have now, but they would still answer to a common law. This would, in effect, limit ALL force, effectively maximizing freedom for EVERYONE.
Here you seem to concede that a private police force can work as long as the laws are the same. To share my real views on the subject. The only difference between a private bureaucracy and a public bureaucracy is that one is suppose to be accountable to private interest and one is suppose to be accountable to the public interest. I'll let you determine which is which. what would we have, if a private police force were to detain (jail) someone for a purely private interests?
I'm getting more convinced, almost daily, that a police force is a waste of money anyway. In my 40 years of life, there hasn't been one time that they provided any real service to me. My house was robbed twice, my cars stolen 3 times, car stereo 4 times and a couple of speeding tickets. In all cases the only thing they did was jot down information for my inssurance company, and I'm sure the insurrance company could have had a representitive do the same. Continued..
Now as for the entitlement spending comment,you and I both know that's bullshit.I call healthcare an entitlement because thats what it's called in America,while other things such as fire stations and roads are under public services.What you're basically saying is why are only McDs and Wendys considered fast food?I have a corner store that delivers food just as fast! Now, what makes entitlement programs unsustainable is the fact that their budgets are rapidly rising, while the tax funding is not
I don't think it bullshit. I think it's perspective. you seem to use the term 'entitlement' is a negative sense (correct me if I'm wrong). I simply think entitlement refers to those things to which people feel entitled. Although, I do believe your fast food analogy is bull. 'entitlement' is a very general term, fast food is quite specific. I do agree that underfunded programs are unsustainable, but I do not believe that means they are inherently so. There are those who want them to be.
I agree youtube is a bad place for this discussion. Could you recommend any other internet forums?
"If you didn't have a public police force, with a set of standard laws, there would be nothing stopping one private police force from taking over, and creating its own rules."
And what is the problem with that? You're saying we must have one police force so that we don't have one police force take over. But you haven't said why one is better or worse then the other.
What's worse is that in Detroit there is $52 million unaccounted for, yet Obama is giving $234 million for the Detroit school system. That makes a lot of sense! Give more money to the people who are stealing it to begin with. We are being driven off a cliff and our kids are suffering the most because they are going to have to clean up this mess when we are done. I fear for them because they are not getting the education now to learn how to fix the nation's ills.
I cannot believe how dense that guy is but I can see the fear in the faces of the public school advocates. If they had to compete they'd lose market share immediately.
It is really stunning how little confidence these people have in poor students and what's even more stunning is how close minded they are in their positions none of them are even willing to consider that perhaps what they are doing is wrong or that there is a better alternative. This is what is wrong with our public school system this stubborn refusal to consider any alternatives other than the status quo. Until this changes the public schools will not improve no matter how much is spent.
Who is the customer in the US education system? It's the parents and the children that are the customers, but these guys arguing against school vouchers (or school choice) are scared to death of competition from others. They think government is the best at telling people what they need, not letting consumers decide who to give their business to.
A voucher system increase the number of people able to go to private schools, ergo demand goes up. Shouldn't tuition also go up, negating at least some of the effect of the voucher?
The new level of competition brought into the school system because of vouchers would cause private schools to compete, thus reducing prices. If private schools "A" and "B" can do the same jobs they were doing before the vouchers either school would be foolish to raise its prices, because then everyone would go to the other school, and the school that raised its prices would not be making profit.
In theory, maybe, so long as 1) the kids being served had enough information to compare; 2) there was relatively free entry and exit into the market; 3) There were ample choices within close geographic proximity to the kids; and 4) public/private remained separate.
(2) and (3) are not usually true, with ample research support. (1) is likely not true, evidenced by the fact that the fastest-growing segment of private schools (conservative christian) is the worst performing. (4) is a pipe dream.
1) Vouchers(i.e. tax payer money) could not be used for parochial schools
2) I believe it a roll of government to demand information from industry to protect the consumer, and to maintain competition. So parents would have enough information to make those decisions
3) What do you mean "in theory" and "usually doesn't work"? How is it that free markets work for every other field for human consumption, but somehow it won't work for education? Please, give me a break.
Do you actually think that kids enter school starry eyed and brilliant, and the public system chews them up and destroys them? You don't think that poverty and lack of a good home environment makes them the way they are and the schools are then forced to work with them?
Oh, and by the way, Milton is wrong about the spending increases. Yes, more money was spent, but almost all of it went towards special ed programs. Look it up.
A school system should work towards decreasing the problems of problematic children, not dealing with them complacently. And the best way to do that is by bringing market forces into the education network. Maintaining this government monopoly would be the worst possible thing to do.
I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that schools deal with their problems complacently, and seriously question your experience in dealing with the schools you're talking about.
Schools should not bear the entire burden of overcoming inequities created by society before students ever step foot into a school because those are problems they did not create but instead respond to.
Monopolies with no profit motive have no incentive to respond to anything. Vouchers are about helping our students not our teachers unions. Give individuals the freedom of choice, and you will see satisfaction, standards and test score improve leaps and bounds as seen in Utah and Wisconsin.
The basic premise of your arguments seem to be: "People are idiots, and the government knows what's best for everybody."
Please note that I never said anything along the lines that the government should, from the top down, direct schools. On the contrary, I think the government's job is to allocate funds to those in need and realistically unable to raise money themselves, but spending the money should be locally decided.
I'd rather see more democracy in schools than a corporate model that substitutes profit motive for equal representation.
I have considerable experience studying Chicago and Pennsylvania schools, where they have experienced similar "miraculous" increases in test scores, and I can frankly say that those gains are primarily bullshit.
If you attach high stakes to any measurement you'll start seeing more people pass the bar, but it doesn't mean they actually know any more than they did before. In schools teachers respond by teaching to tests, cheating, giving more time, getting rid of the worst kids, etc.
So what your saying is: All the evidence points to school vouchers helping improve schools, better educating students, and reducing costs... but you're going to disregard that because you are to stubborn to change.
... no, if you paid attention I said that those gains are not the result of increasing knowledge or aptitude of the students but of restricting learning to an overly simplistic and flawed metric. I didn't even mention the decline in activities like art, music, shop, and any number of other activities needed for a good education.
Your statement about reducing costs is wrong when properly assessed.
fwiw, I'm done arguing with you. Your caricature about "all the evidence" sealed the deal.
"I didn't even mention the decline in activities like art, music, shop, and any number of other activities needed for a good education."
I think parents can decided what there children need for a good education rather than some Liberal elitists.
Which is precisely what vouchers do. It gives the option to the parents rather than government officials. This is something Liberals simply cannot stand.
And you claim to be "the party of the people." Psh. More like the party of the bureaucrats....
I knew a guy whose family didn't have much money but despite that chose to go to a private school rather than a public one because of the lousy standard of education he was receiving at the public school system.
The men that were against a voucher system are just dumb. What you think that giving unproductive people money for free is going to compel them to be productive? This is common sense. Giving money for unproductivity does not compel someone to be productive.
The poor people (that would be in a public school even in the freer market) have nothing to lose if the voucher system is in place. In fact, sense some kids will be leaving public schools there will be less congestion.
Milton Friedman was a brilliant economist and charismatic debater. Read his books and take them to your local school board and government representatives. God knows they need them.
I love this line "I don't think Mr.Shenker is saying that you should never use a doctor, if you have cancer, who hasn't himself have cancer" RIP Milton Friedman 1912-2006
I love the self serving school officials whose points have no validity, but they keep screaming then thinking that they will somehow convince Friedman that they are right.
government progarms massively fail and yet they claim need more money --- total expenditure on school going up and results going down
bootiack 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friendman on Education
such an annoying jew -- a retard kids is responsability of the parent not the tax payer --- nothing undone all bullshit
bootiack 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friendman on Education
@bootiack Milton Friedman's parents were Jews. Although I agree that there are a lot of stupid points made by the others, no need to insult someone based on his ethnicity/religion
nrekk 1 month ago
jew and irish communist governmetn bloodsuckers babbble about racism and inequality and ignore fact that private school does better job with less money
bootiack 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friendman on Education
just do liike finland, I love friedman. But Some parent are sadly not able to choose which school is the best. Without mentioning that schools is a factor of creating unity in a country. Also what About state like texas, where parent don't want their son to learn about darwin evoluion. This kids should stay ignorant. I think we need to make principals as businesses. The most efficient receiving more money and each one adpating to their environment. Also an state imposed mixity,...
marco77600 4 months ago
I am in highschool. I have gone through the public system. Children are not born trouble makers. It's the system that literally disposes of millions of minds. When I was very young, I had a huge interest in reading, learning, writing and designing. I no longer am interested in anything. I hate waking up and going to a place I know I'll have to recite things I don't care about. The SYSTEM is the fountainhead of failure and poverty.
MrComputergenius 4 months ago in playlist MiltonFriedman PBS Free to Choose 1980 Vol 6 of 10 Education
5:10 "DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE ROLE IN WHICH BAD SCHOOLING CREATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT HAS HAD IN CREATING POVERTY"
Amen Mr. Friedman!
molimhvalaizvoli 7 months ago
6:34 "I have to explain some economics to you" - What a windbag. RIP Milton Friedman
publicanimal 1 year ago 3
"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." - Albert Shanker Teachers Union President
brad238899 1 year ago 5
1974? And we still dealing with this issue? Now is worse thanks to teachers unions. How is possible spend so much money, more than any other country in the world and we rank number 16? Is money the solution?
omt07 1 year ago 3
Is there anybody Friedman can't shame in a debate?
blitzkrieg234 1 year ago 5
The 'youngster' not accepted to Dartmouth? Nice fake concern.
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
friedman still thinks society works the same as in the 19th century.... sad.. and I don't know why so many friedman supporters here. You all basically believing his hypothetical economic situation will work.
solidysnake1 1 year ago
@solidysnake1 are you for real? Do you understand what he is saying? The reason society doesnt work the same way is that we have decided the government has to control so much of it. The reason competition works is that suppliers must be good to survive. Right now the best use of resources, from the perspective of the school, is doing the minimum to avoid discipline while playing the bueaucratic game. But that is not the best for the students.
sabre51 1 year ago
Wow, the whole notion of punishing everyone and blaming society for a group of parents who won't teach thier children about he value of education is rediculous. 80% of the population will get a superior education and 20% will sink and die.
This country was born with the idea that we have the ability to suceed. With that we also have the ability and the freedom to fail. THAT is what makes the USA better then everyone else. With the freedom to fail then sucess tastes so much sweeter.
Mattax355 1 year ago
This guy is really great! I've only just heard about him on "Stossel" I can see where John gets his baseline.
wheelzwheela 1 year ago 3
@wheelzwheela Yeah he's awesome. Watch his videos on free trade, invisible hand...
netster007z 1 year ago
does anyone else notice how these guys have a very very hard time letting other people get a point across.
daPlumber702 1 year ago 2
That Shanker guy wanted to explain economics to Friedman! Not many people who can upstage Milton on economcs...Maybe Rothbard
no3commando 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all known fields of inquiry. The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
Google it, as a start.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Let's get other views on this and then we'll come back to you Milton! HA HA JOLLY GEWD!"
Guy gets annoying after a while.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Also, that moderator is doing a poor job in this particular debate. He normally does a good job in the other ones where you have multiple people with multiple views, but almost all of them here are against Friedman. Why do we need to hear 4 rebuttals from one side and 1 from the other each go around?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago 3
3:50 , the market always seeks profit. By virtue of that, it always seeks to employ all capital in the market. It's not going to take a portion of the market's money and deny the rest of the market. It'll just vary its services based on demand.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Man, I never knew Milton existed until he was gone. God I miss him.
brad238899 2 years ago 42
Same here... The world lost a true freedom fighter when Milton Friedman died.
themagus187 2 years ago 10
@brad238899 You are right. I knew about Dr. Friedman a couples months ago (I am 41) by doing some research about drug policy and watching some videos about John Stossel. Since then I been amaze by his knowledge.
omt07 1 year ago
these fat cats dont want change.
we need free markets and competition in education.
hyylo 2 years ago 36
"I've never yet known anybody who has tried to defend a government program who didn't say all its evils came from the fact that it wasn't big enough."
I love it
donotswallow 2 years ago
5:10
In your face Arnig!
oscarenriquez2323 2 years ago
Damn Milton had a great point on food stamps. The government dare not just give people food they give them free choice. What is the difference? We have more sympathy for teachers than we do for huge companies that produce our food.
JollyW89 2 years ago 2
That's bull.....Milton says people can choose what they buy with food stamps.....no they don't, they MUST buy FOOD with it. Moreover, if they qualify for food stamps they don't pay taxes...they're not getting their taxes back, their getting other peoples taxes (it's called redistribution of wealth). Milton would have them starving a stupid.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Comment removed
JollyW89 2 years ago
*'' ...and stupid." Is what I meant to say.
verstwo2 2 years ago
No you are wrong. He said that they can buy what TYPE of food. Moreover, you can be on food stamps and pay taxes, take a look at NYC this year. Moreover, Milton never said that was a necessary condition. School vouchers is the least worst solution, not a perfect solution.
Tuneman100 2 years ago 4
Ugh, this comment is so stupid it hurts. People chose what FOOD they want and where they want to buy it. The same way you could choose where you want to go to school with a voucher system.
donotswallow 2 years ago
so then what is the point of collecting taxes just to return it in the form of a coupon that can only be redeemed for a specific item (ie food or school). It seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. Why not just cut taxes so that the individual can spend their money on whatever they want (food, school, diapers, guns, porn, drugs, etc.). Food stamps forces you to spend money on food and school vouchers force you to spend money on school. it's not choice, it's force.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Because that's not politically viable.
donotswallow 2 years ago
and by that you mean it's not a position that the general public would support? But do you agree that would be a better way? Stop collecting taxes and allow people to choose for themselves what they spend their money on. I'm not in school why should I pay for others to go to school? I'm not hungry why should I pay for others to eat? I should be free to choose if my children go to school or not, or eat or not. Why should I pay for those who choose not to work?
verstwo2 2 years ago
I agree to an extent, but you're asking a lot of very difficult questions that have taken books to answer - not so easy with 500 characters. If you're really curious about these questions, I recommend checking out more videos and reading a couple books on libertarianism. One of my favorite videos is "Milton Friedman on Libertarianism"
donotswallow 2 years ago
exactly, I have read a lot and watched a lot. If I'm not a victim of crime why should I pay for the police? If my house is not on fire, why should I pay for the fire department? I really don't even understand the point of the federal government and I think we'd defiantly be better off without them all they do is try and tell us what to do. Really I don't even understand the point of state and municipal government either, just a bunch of elitist trying to take our money.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Judging by your subscriptions, I'm guessing this is sarcasm, although there are anarchist who would actually agree with you. I am not an anarchist. I believe that government has a couple very specific roles to play, with a judicial system being one of them. This is needed to preserve maximum freedom for everyone. But this argument is a red herring, as police, roads and infrastructure account for so little of the national budget (I think it's around 7%).
donotswallow 2 years ago
anarchy is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion since the exact same arguments can be used against any part of the government. What does it matter what percentage of the budget it accounts for...why should we pay for it? It's not a red herring....the same argument applies for each. What gives the government the right to take away my freedoms whatever the reason?
verstwo2 2 years ago
It's a red herring because it distracts from the over barring waste of government, and focuses on the things that government does (relatively) well. It's like arguing to keep Hitler in power because he did some good things. But anyway, I don't subscribe to the "taxation is theft" argument. I believe a limited government is a necessary evil in providing maximum freedom for everyone.
donotswallow 2 years ago
...except that 'waste' was not part of my argument.
"It's like arguing to keep Hitler in power because he did some good things"
Except I'm not arguing to keep the government. "I believe a limited government is a necessary evil in providing maximum freedom for everyone. "
So why not apply the maxim of limitations and not let them (government) do anything at all?
How does government taxation lead to maximum freedoms?
verstwo2 2 years ago
"Except I'm not arguing to keep the government."
But aren't you though? You don't really believe in anarchy, you're just trying to find a hole in my argument. Even if I'm wrong, it's a very common argument used by liberals to justify their large government ideas.
"So why not apply the maxim of limitations and not let them (government) do anything at all?"
Because, like I said government is a necessary evil to prevent force and fraud, that I don't believe a free market could fix.
donotswallow 2 years ago
I would never pretend that finding a hole in one argument justifies another. That's an over used fallacy. I may not believe in what I'm arguing but I didn't realize that was a prerequisite for making an argument.
but what do firefighters, and roads have to do with force and fraud? why not privatize them and allow the free market decide who gets them and who doesn't? that's the way it is with healthcare and that works ok, right?
verstwo2 2 years ago
They don't - I was just pointing out the flaw of using the things a government does relatively well, when justifying a large government.
Anyway, just to point out, our health care system is far from free-market. It's one of the most regulated markets there is, which is a major reason for the high prices. Next, I honestly don't know how privatized roads would work, but I'm sure there are some theories that have been tossed around. As for firefighters, what about the loads of volunteer stations?
donotswallow 2 years ago
But still, I feel like these are minor issues that distract from the overall argument. If I lived in a country like Hong Kong, I'd be more interested, but we're so far from that it's just a waste of time. I'm more interested in making our current system more market friendly, which requires compromising your ideals in order to reach your goal.
donotswallow 2 years ago
So which Ideals should we compromise and why?
As I said these may be minor issues but the same argument applies. I find choosing between them arbitrary. Why should I pay for a public police force for everyone and not a private security force for my self?
verstwo2 2 years ago
The US health care system is the most privatized in the developed world and one of the most costly. But you're right,costs do tend to go up when insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to those they insure. Privatized roads are easy, no money goes to or from the public purse...a private toll road. As for firefighter, cool, let them all work for nothing...I'm fine with that. They sit around half the day anyway. my question is still...Why should I pay taxes for these things?
verstwo2 2 years ago
Hah, I'll save health care for another day, but you're way off the mark. Anyway, I've already answered the main point you're trying to make. I feel that a public police force is necessary to provide maximum freedom for everyone. I understand that other public services aren't (firefighters, roads, ect) but they only cost a tiny fraction of the budget. Sure, they're not ideal, but why waste your time with something so small when entitlement spending is half the budget and growing unsustainably?
donotswallow 2 years ago
you have said repeatedly 'a public police force (amongst other things) is necessary to provide maximum freedom for everyone.' but you haven't said HOW or WHY, or shown that that it provides 'maximum freedom'. Wouldn't my 'maximum freedom' be best served without any police force?
public services are a part of 'entitlement spending', everyone feels entitled to free fire protection and roads, why do you not include this in entitlement spending? What makes any part of the budget sustainable?
verstwo2 2 years ago
Again, you're asking a ton of complicated questions that could take books to answer. Unfortunately, this is youtube, which isn't exactly the best place for things like this, but I'll try to boil it down to its root. If you didn't have a public police force, with a set of standard laws, there would be nothing stopping one private police force from taking over, and creating its own rules. You can actually see this happening all throughout history, whenever there has been a regime change it goes
donotswallow 2 years ago
goes from anarchy to a dictatorship. You need that standard set of laws to prevent something like this from happening. It also doesn't have to be as drastic as a complete regime change; it could even be a something like slaves. Now, private security companies could work (and do) work under a system like we have now, but they would still answer to a common law. This would, in effect, limit ALL force, effectively maximizing freedom for EVERYONE.
donotswallow 2 years ago
Here you seem to concede that a private police force can work as long as the laws are the same. To share my real views on the subject. The only difference between a private bureaucracy and a public bureaucracy is that one is suppose to be accountable to private interest and one is suppose to be accountable to the public interest. I'll let you determine which is which. what would we have, if a private police force were to detain (jail) someone for a purely private interests?
verstwo2 2 years ago
I'm getting more convinced, almost daily, that a police force is a waste of money anyway. In my 40 years of life, there hasn't been one time that they provided any real service to me. My house was robbed twice, my cars stolen 3 times, car stereo 4 times and a couple of speeding tickets. In all cases the only thing they did was jot down information for my inssurance company, and I'm sure the insurrance company could have had a representitive do the same. Continued..
brewerscrew 2 years ago
Now as for the entitlement spending comment,you and I both know that's bullshit.I call healthcare an entitlement because thats what it's called in America,while other things such as fire stations and roads are under public services.What you're basically saying is why are only McDs and Wendys considered fast food?I have a corner store that delivers food just as fast! Now, what makes entitlement programs unsustainable is the fact that their budgets are rapidly rising, while the tax funding is not
donotswallow 2 years ago
I don't think it bullshit. I think it's perspective. you seem to use the term 'entitlement' is a negative sense (correct me if I'm wrong). I simply think entitlement refers to those things to which people feel entitled. Although, I do believe your fast food analogy is bull. 'entitlement' is a very general term, fast food is quite specific. I do agree that underfunded programs are unsustainable, but I do not believe that means they are inherently so. There are those who want them to be.
verstwo2 2 years ago
I agree youtube is a bad place for this discussion. Could you recommend any other internet forums?
"If you didn't have a public police force, with a set of standard laws, there would be nothing stopping one private police force from taking over, and creating its own rules."
And what is the problem with that? You're saying we must have one police force so that we don't have one police force take over. But you haven't said why one is better or worse then the other.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Alright, I kinda lost track of this convo over the last couple days, and I'm not really in the mood to start it back up, but it was interesting.
donotswallow 2 years ago
yes, I enjoyed it. Youtube need a better chat forum though.
verstwo2 2 years ago
What's worse is that in Detroit there is $52 million unaccounted for, yet Obama is giving $234 million for the Detroit school system. That makes a lot of sense! Give more money to the people who are stealing it to begin with. We are being driven off a cliff and our kids are suffering the most because they are going to have to clean up this mess when we are done. I fear for them because they are not getting the education now to learn how to fix the nation's ills.
thinkingrationally 2 years ago
YEAGH OBAMA!!!
It took nearly 40 years, but, finally, the seeds planted a long time ago have reached fruition.
"If you are willing to put in a significant amount of time into Community Service, you WILL be able to attend University."
Fantastic. Obama is truly a visionary.
davidjuliowang 3 years ago
This has nothing to do with what obama is doing.
uberschaller 2 years ago 5
Shanker is a wanker.
I cannot believe how dense that guy is but I can see the fear in the faces of the public school advocates. If they had to compete they'd lose market share immediately.
blummedia 3 years ago 4
It is really stunning how little confidence these people have in poor students and what's even more stunning is how close minded they are in their positions none of them are even willing to consider that perhaps what they are doing is wrong or that there is a better alternative. This is what is wrong with our public school system this stubborn refusal to consider any alternatives other than the status quo. Until this changes the public schools will not improve no matter how much is spent.
FPENA98 3 years ago 2
I know. It's so elitist. Their entire philosophy seems to be: "People are idiots and the government knows what's best for everybody."
TimeWarp66 2 years ago 3
Who is the customer in the US education system? It's the parents and the children that are the customers, but these guys arguing against school vouchers (or school choice) are scared to death of competition from others. They think government is the best at telling people what they need, not letting consumers decide who to give their business to.
thinkingrationally 3 years ago
Oh and another question:
A voucher system increase the number of people able to go to private schools, ergo demand goes up. Shouldn't tuition also go up, negating at least some of the effect of the voucher?
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
The new level of competition brought into the school system because of vouchers would cause private schools to compete, thus reducing prices. If private schools "A" and "B" can do the same jobs they were doing before the vouchers either school would be foolish to raise its prices, because then everyone would go to the other school, and the school that raised its prices would not be making profit.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
In theory, maybe, so long as 1) the kids being served had enough information to compare; 2) there was relatively free entry and exit into the market; 3) There were ample choices within close geographic proximity to the kids; and 4) public/private remained separate.
(2) and (3) are not usually true, with ample research support. (1) is likely not true, evidenced by the fact that the fastest-growing segment of private schools (conservative christian) is the worst performing. (4) is a pipe dream.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
1) Vouchers(i.e. tax payer money) could not be used for parochial schools
2) I believe it a roll of government to demand information from industry to protect the consumer, and to maintain competition. So parents would have enough information to make those decisions
3) What do you mean "in theory" and "usually doesn't work"? How is it that free markets work for every other field for human consumption, but somehow it won't work for education? Please, give me a break.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
Hey, fanboys of Milton, I've got a question:
Do you actually think that kids enter school starry eyed and brilliant, and the public system chews them up and destroys them? You don't think that poverty and lack of a good home environment makes them the way they are and the schools are then forced to work with them?
Oh, and by the way, Milton is wrong about the spending increases. Yes, more money was spent, but almost all of it went towards special ed programs. Look it up.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
A school system should work towards decreasing the problems of problematic children, not dealing with them complacently. And the best way to do that is by bringing market forces into the education network. Maintaining this government monopoly would be the worst possible thing to do.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that schools deal with their problems complacently, and seriously question your experience in dealing with the schools you're talking about.
Schools should not bear the entire burden of overcoming inequities created by society before students ever step foot into a school because those are problems they did not create but instead respond to.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
Monopolies with no profit motive have no incentive to respond to anything. Vouchers are about helping our students not our teachers unions. Give individuals the freedom of choice, and you will see satisfaction, standards and test score improve leaps and bounds as seen in Utah and Wisconsin.
The basic premise of your arguments seem to be: "People are idiots, and the government knows what's best for everybody."
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
"the government knows what's best for everybody"
Please note that I never said anything along the lines that the government should, from the top down, direct schools. On the contrary, I think the government's job is to allocate funds to those in need and realistically unable to raise money themselves, but spending the money should be locally decided.
I'd rather see more democracy in schools than a corporate model that substitutes profit motive for equal representation.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
I have considerable experience studying Chicago and Pennsylvania schools, where they have experienced similar "miraculous" increases in test scores, and I can frankly say that those gains are primarily bullshit.
If you attach high stakes to any measurement you'll start seeing more people pass the bar, but it doesn't mean they actually know any more than they did before. In schools teachers respond by teaching to tests, cheating, giving more time, getting rid of the worst kids, etc.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
So what your saying is: All the evidence points to school vouchers helping improve schools, better educating students, and reducing costs... but you're going to disregard that because you are to stubborn to change.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
... no, if you paid attention I said that those gains are not the result of increasing knowledge or aptitude of the students but of restricting learning to an overly simplistic and flawed metric. I didn't even mention the decline in activities like art, music, shop, and any number of other activities needed for a good education.
Your statement about reducing costs is wrong when properly assessed.
fwiw, I'm done arguing with you. Your caricature about "all the evidence" sealed the deal.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
"I didn't even mention the decline in activities like art, music, shop, and any number of other activities needed for a good education."
I think parents can decided what there children need for a good education rather than some Liberal elitists.
Which is precisely what vouchers do. It gives the option to the parents rather than government officials. This is something Liberals simply cannot stand.
And you claim to be "the party of the people." Psh. More like the party of the bureaucrats....
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
That Albert Shanker is a dick.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago 4
All of these bureaucrats are bigoted fools.
beepandbop 3 years ago 3
I knew a guy whose family didn't have much money but despite that chose to go to a private school rather than a public one because of the lousy standard of education he was receiving at the public school system.
kkklownknight6699 3 years ago
The men that were against a voucher system are just dumb. What you think that giving unproductive people money for free is going to compel them to be productive? This is common sense. Giving money for unproductivity does not compel someone to be productive.
The poor people (that would be in a public school even in the freer market) have nothing to lose if the voucher system is in place. In fact, sense some kids will be leaving public schools there will be less congestion.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
i love watching milton debate, he knows very well the dangers of bureaucrats and is not afraid to defend the common man from their grasp.
bmtimv 3 years ago 6
Milton Friedman was a brilliant economist and charismatic debater. Read his books and take them to your local school board and government representatives. God knows they need them.
CorollaKing 3 years ago 2
I love this line "I don't think Mr.Shenker is saying that you should never use a doctor, if you have cancer, who hasn't himself have cancer" RIP Milton Friedman 1912-2006
Zgoalie18 3 years ago 2
I love the self serving school officials whose points have no validity, but they keep screaming then thinking that they will somehow convince Friedman that they are right.
wrc21353 3 years ago 6
Oh well, cant say that Milton didn't warn the masses about the self serving bureaucrats.
moviedude111 4 years ago 6