what about the air? for fuck sakes people, there 30 million people in california, that 30 million people to decide what about the air. you dont need 1 person in washington to decide what 30 million people want their air to be like. fuck, liberals and their regulation bullshit. like they forget what their own voice can do.
People who like big government are like people who pray to a god; they are thankful when they receive what they wish for, but they refuse to hold it the entity accountable when something goes wrong.
This interview is terrible, the questions are not challenging at all, and all the answers are subjects that Friedman had written about in his books. A good interviewer would really challenge his position so that someone with a different framework could be convinced, and not just a group of libertarians petting each others shoulders.
@astroboomboy i believe the purpose of this interview was at least partly to familiarize people who had not read Friedman's books with his views - to give them a taste of what was in them so they could decide whether they were interested in reading them or not
@RestAssuredDrummer I should have viewed the vide on those terms, I guess I need to stop thinking of interviews and lectures as actually giving an in-depth knowledge of the issues I want to learn about, but rather a superficial glance in order to spark an interest. I admit, I was to judgmental. What book would you recommend me to read by Friedman? I'm not an economist, but I have a knowledge of math, so I think I would be able to read his works on a technical level.
@NateC0le I assume your imaginary business is new to the market, since I really doubt an entrenched company would throw itself down a pit for short term profits,(Especially since getting a foothold in the pharmaceutical industry is hard enough already) so even the reputability of your company would be in question as it isn't likely that you've done much of anything to get any respect or trust from anyone.
@Nate and the ones that are the most reputable have their seal of approval hold more prestige. It becomes part of marketing. These agencies live off of their reputation, more so than other businesses, so corruption becomes less of an issue.
How will you get doctors to use your drug in the first place? If anything, your speculated drug would face the most rigorous of testing for doctors to consider using it in their treatment. Lots of people go around claiming to have found the cure to cancer.
@NateC0le "How would you prevent this without the FDA?"
Firstly, how is the FDA supposed to prevent this? Suppose your drug doesn't kill the patient after 4 years. If the FDA spends 4 years testing it, how many people would die of cancer before it went out into the market? That, and you're going to be facing a hefty amount of lawsuits.
Removal of the FDA doesn't stop testing either. Private testing agencies arise...(Cont)
sounds to me like friedman is talking about CAP AND TRADE - which makes many of his proponents head explode when obama and the dems are proposing it.. am I not right? right wingers please clarify.
actually, your right to property doesnt come from law or the courts, as the framers clearly stated, certain rights are presupposed, and are inborn, deriving from god or nature, not government. That is why we have a constitution instead of EVERYTHING being dcided by majority vote, certain rights exist whether the majority wants them to or not, otherwise you'd end up with tyranny by the majority, which is just as evil as despotism.
The power plant emits a smoke which dirties my shirt. Has Milton lost it in his old age? If they dirty my shirt with their smoke, i should sue them for the cost of cleaning or replacing my shit. There is no reason for legislation to mandate the government gets more money, or power. Only the individual should have the right to sue. The power plant then should pay all legal costs, but it it where found out that i soiled my own shirt, I should indeed pay the legal costs of the powerplant and my own
@TheRacistsMustDie You didn't look very hard, or you are reading the wrong Constitution
Amendment 5; 1791 - nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
@TheRacistsMustDie What props up private Enterprise? Wait for it.... wait for it... the government.! Ding ding ding, you win.
On a serous note. It has been deemed that you have a right to property through the courts. You can also protect your property using lethal force (at least in Texas.) You steal my TV and run down the stairs, i can kill you where you stand. You had my property after all, and where in the wrong.
@asleeperj But that the state props up private enterprise (PE) doesn't make those articles of the US constitution mean that PE's can't deprive people of property etc. because that's plainly not in the text.
& you don't have a property rights because of courts, you have them because of the law which that court judges by & if there is no rule in that law made by 'the state' which says 'if A damages B's property, A must compensate B' then you wont win the case.
Friedman gives up too easily here and falls back on gov't - which is never a good solution to these things. There is no problem at all dealing with environmental issues as long as you have property rights and some half-way decent free-market enforcement mechanism. Environmental/safety regulation would naturally arise out of insurance firms in a free market:"We won't insure you if you do X. You can do Y, but it will cost you Z." Then competition will uphold the good rules and weed out the bad.
No regulations leads to more class acts which results in more courts...Is judicial system not part of government? Milton's FDA example is like Android's app market, more reviews then good app, if app screws your phone sue the developer.....monopoly rules in this case because no one is going to risk their life by experimenting new drugs on themselves or very cheap drugs will do it and then poor gets screwed(they'll be drawn to those cheap drugs)...that is the whole purpose of this system, right?
@opyimistprime You have a point, there probably would be more courts; however, I think that's still better than the government using our money inefficiently, and even letting some toxic substances slip through, such as in baby toys, and we can't sue the government for ineptness--we can't sue and win, that is.On our own, we would come down harder on an unsafe company because we would not erroneously assume that everything that could be done to protect us was done. There would be no excuses.
When our forefathers engaged in the writing of our documents all they had was a concept taking from all the best of all they knew, we are in a far better place to do so much more. We must stay in motion, constantly correcting our flaws and short comings, this is the time, and we already have a place to start! It’s OK to learn from our mistakes, it’s just time for correction and that’s OK. You know the deal..For good men to do nothing and the whole evil thing!
Completely wrong! Who sells the rights? How can you equate the true value? How do you know that some corrupt official doesn't under value for a company? If a company is affluent they can by harmful amounts and there's no recourse! You solve this problem by having an unbias scientist to set a safe level and that's it. His FDA analysis is WRONG! FDA is funded by pharmaceutical there are tons of drugs being released with or without FDA in third worlds with no oversight look upJames Steele's report.
@jorintelis Disagree with that - public assets like health, education, and transport infrastructure are too valuable to be left in the hands of private corporations which always act in the short-term interest. My explanation is stated above, that is, that these are public goods owned by the public as a whole. My credentials are that I'm a citizen of my country. I take an interest in politics and I vote.
@VincenzoPickatelli once again its the government's fault. government passed laws against nuclear power so we don't have that alternative source of power. also, the coal companies were able to harness the power of the big government through lobbying/bribing. so there's an unholy alliance of big gov't/big corporation between the big coal companies and big government.
@VincenzoPickatelli also, if the government didn't tax coal companies like crazy, they might actually have the money to give the workers better safety equipment. If that doesn't work, we can always file class action lawsuits instead of calling for more government control.
@skydark thanks for pointing that out. liberalism=libertarianism=conservativism. What they CALL "liberalism" today is really socialism. We should no longer call them liberals, we should call them pinkos or commies. Same with "democrats" in realith the republicans are democratic the modern "demoncats...er democrats" are autocratic totalitarian marxists.
Oh, btw. elected republican official = RINO = Eunich pussy bitch without the balls to stand up to the dems = might as well be a dem.
my country has been dominated by social democrats, it resulted in a major crizis during the 90s which made our countrys growth go backwards for a while
@skydark I hate that they stole the term LIBERAL from us. I am a classical Liberal. Now i have to call myself a libertarian, or else people think I'm a socialist if i tell them i am a liberal. The correct term is Progressive. The same party the Nazi's where in the 20s.
Democrats are Progressive party 2.0
Republicans are still the older standard of progressivism.
@skydark The Left has lifted the liberal moniker from us I believe just to spite us. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers used the term liberal and liberty many times, when did Engels or Marx or any of the early Socialists ever use it? I'd be interested to know. They don't want liberty and the liberal philosophy, they want complete control.
A little shocked that he sounds like he's advocating Cap and Trade at 0:46. Though there's a degree to which the way he explains it makes sense. The way the Greens explain it makes no sense.
@seismicmike hes not saying we should do cap and trade. hes saying that we do that now but that a similar system that isnt rigged to be another form of croney capitalism would potentially be good. The real argument to take care of pollution, is to NOT take care of pollution. private companies naturally take care of polution these days because they know the public will buy their product more if they do. Notice how Whole Foods sells more food than other stores? no need for gov intervention
I believe the point Friedman was making was specific to the LA basin. That it's not a modern problem, but a problem encountered as far back as we have written accounts from that area. That is, whether it's pollutants from a million cars, or from early industries, or even from Native American campfires during large tribal gatherings . . . pollutants tend to hang around more noxiously there due to topography than in many other places where it disperses more.
So many issues with Friedman's arguments and this host is really not holding him to account.
He talks about there being an incentive for the pharmaceuticals to avoid harm. Well then, how is this any different to the incentive on the government to be overly cautious in relation to approving the drugs. There is no reason to assume that the cost/profit analysis by the pharmas are going to produced the best utility in terms of public health.
its been shown in just about every instance of modern industry, at least in America, that it is much more profitable to worry less about safety and quality and more on increasing consumption of goods and cutting costs (labor compensation, product quality, planned obsolescence, etc.) companies are large enough were they can take a consumer hit from having a bad product exposed.
Ahhh, intellectual consistency. Coherent logic. Refresshing... Especially after watching Chomsky say that in America the word "libertarian" means tyranny. Nothing worse than a brilliant idiot.
(CONT) ...we are essentially engaged in a battle of whose rhetoric sounds nicer. I think my rhetoric sounds nicer, so I think I'm winning. You think your rhetoric sounds nicer, ergo you're winning. But neither, you, me, Friedman, Krugman, Marx, Engels, Adam Smith nor even godlike intellects like Glen Beck have ever come close to proving a point about economics or politics objectively. I've been studying economics for 30 years now and I have never EVER seen an objectively true fact demonstrated.
@belisariusorb I have to disagree, and with all due respect, I think your post epitomizes blindly believing things. Your argument is mostly tautology and like Wood said, just full of assertions. I've noticed this with everyone who levels the same criticism against Libertarians. It's because they believe certain things are absolutely true without question, that when someone has different beliefs, like Libs, they assume that the Libs must be 'blind' ideologues. I think it's often the reverse.
A massive fail for Friedman on the point of the FDA and thalidomide. He didn't even acknowledge the suffering of thalidomide, what it really means in terms of suffering and not a tort law case.
Friedman's logic on the free market as applied to international trade, which is consistent and coherent, fails completely when applied to social issues and most particularly law, education, health, environmental protection and safety. These are public assets, shared by all. "No man is an island" - Donne
But of course environmental pollution doesn't just dirty my shirt ... it damages my quality of life, my health and that of my family and harms the ecosystem. The market is focused on the here-and-now, not on the future, and to suggest a marketable commodity of pollution units as he does is absurd. Blindness of the free-marketeer, who sees the holy market able to control everything to everyone's satisfaction. We have all recently seen, the financial market is unable to stop itself from imploding.
@belisariusorb If the financial market had really imploded in the kind of context you like to imagine it has, we'd truly be in a lot worst shape. A bubble burst.. A collapse in the finance sector happened due to many reasons. The princples talked about in this clip in no way say everything will be perfect. You have to invent that cliched straw man of the blind free marketeer as you have nothing to address the real arguments with or the irrefutable logic therein.
@Underground906 I certainly don't need to invent a straw-man blind free marketer, I've just been listening very carefully to one, Milton Friedman himself. He believes the market functions perfectly, is in favour of taking away state protections like the EPA and FDA, and leaving everything in the market to regulate itself by market pressures and tort law.
Oh, by the way, I'm Irish, so from where I'm sitting it's hard to see what kind of worse shape we could be in. Credit implosion, no doubt.
@belisariusorb Blind-Marketeer is just another one of those neat little derisory cliches thrown about, mostly by the left as that is their style and is necessary for those short on logic to mask that shortcoming. It's mostly devoid of meaning when examined. He doesn't *blindly* follow free markets, he gives reasons and logical arguments for why state control is unneccesary and counter-productive in his view. Y not address that? He said in the first vid things are never perfect. Strawman there
@Underground906 "Blind" is the only way to describe people who can't see what's evident to everyone else. Namely that there are public goods, including the environment, security and transport infrastructures that nobody except the state can govern or manage properly. That health and safety regulations are imposed for the public good, that education is free and public because having an educated population is good for everyone. And that the present dire situation was a failure of regulation.
@belisariusorb, what is your evidence that the State is the only body that can manage public health & safety? That seems to be just an assertion. The government is a coercive monopoly, offering the worst service at the highest cost.
It is a fact that governments, especially the military, are the worst polluters, not corporations.
It is very likely that the FDA and AMA have caused more deaths than they have actually saved.
You don't own other people. Stop treating them like slaves.
@wood9670 I've been conducting a civilised discussion with others here. If you were my slave, I'd whip you for straying off the point. Your comment is as unbacked by evidence as anything I've ever heard.
"It is a fact that clowns, especially those with long shoes, make more people laugh than a lion-tamer act.
It is very likely that tight shoes have caused more callouses than they have firmed up people's arches.
You don't own the English language. Stop using its letters and words. "
@belisariusorb, Clowns? Really. If you wanted me to back up my claims all you had to do is ask. I'll send you a PM referencing you to articles that discuss each point in detail. You are more than welcome to send me a PM backing up your claim that ONLY the government can protect the environment offer security services, and transport infrastructures properly.
@belisariusorb Eg: Friedman - 'There is enormous evidence they they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by their early aprovals' yet still the policy favours late approvals. I wouldn't call that 'blind'. I'd call it reasoned. With evidence to back it up. You just assert that 'everyone knows' you need those things to protect us. 'that nobody except the state can govern or manage properly.'
Why does the private sector perform better in those areas then?
@Underground906 Hi, I've been away. To reply to your point and encompass a few other comments too - Yes, it is an assertion that public goods are best managed by public entities. It is equally an assertion by Friedman that people look after their own assets better than they do public assets, that FDA late approvals have killed more people than early approvals, or that tort law would do a better job of assuring public health than regulation. Since both Friedman and myself lack evidence, (CONT)
You don't understand just how inefficient government bureaucracies are at managing or executing ANYTHING. Government-ordained bureaucrats are typically more concerned with solidifying their own power or position held than with actually getting things accomplished, it's human nature.
Take the taxpayer drain that is the DEA... their employees have a vested interest in keeping their "noble' struggle going indefinitely - or escalating it - than actually WINNING the War on Drugs!!
The way it has been handled in the USA, the War on Drugs is not 'winnable'. This is because the very idea of a "War" on drugs is totally unconstitutional and anti-American to begin with; a society with American values and respect for personal liberties can never effectively wage such a war.
The only way a War on Drugs is winnable is with a strong authoritarian government. Mao got the Chinese off opium rather quickly-- he had uncooperative addicts and dealers killed en masse.
@sellsjeeps No that's basically it. I admire Milton more that most and agree with almost all of his ideas, but that I totally disagree with. Because if you can tax a basic element of life (carbon, for example), you then have a gov't with legislative control over your whole existence. Hence the taxing of having 2+ children in china or on the soda you buy . Which is imposing a cost on you(which he roughly points out.). He was an economists not a scientist. So, sadly, he failed to recognize that.
@ChaosDynamics Nobody's forced to work for a company. Boycott em, don't buy there products and don't work for them...No workers, no sales, bye bye company. Thats the beauty of the free market. Until gov't plays favorites, bails out company's that should be outta biz..thats corporatism not capitalism...
To impose a monetary penalty on a corporation for harming the environment is necessary as a disincentive but ultimately beside the point. Our priceless environmental resources should not be hoarded and controlled by the private sector but considered an asset of the people and entrusted to our elected representatives who have motives other than profit. Capitalism has a limited moral compass and Libertarianism fails to adequately anticipate the potential abuses of power and acts after the fact.
@canteluna What makes you think our elected representatives aren't motivated by profit? It's as if you're suggesting that politicians are altruistic and everyone else isn't. Remember, land grab organizations (which do a very good job, btw) such as the Nature Conservancy are part of the free market. The government might protect resources here and there but overall, it harms the planet more than it helps. Subsidized gas, agriculture, public roads...
By putting these very resources in the hands of politicians you ensure the abuse of power. A private business can only rewards its CEO by what the business can actually generate of profits, the rewards of politicians on the other hand are practically unlimited since the can just print money, borrow or tax to their hearts content.
What abuse of power? The only power a private business has is the power to offer you goods and services you can choose to buy or not.
The government on the other hand has the power to use force. Just look out how a private business gets money and look at how the gov't gets money. A business has to convince you voluntarily to give it money by providing you with something you want, the government points a gun to your head and says give me 40% of your income or go to jail.
@TimeWarp66 what abuse of power? you must be joking! there of course exists the collective power of businesses and their influence on city governments, some of it legitimate, some not. but i am mainly referring to corporate power and its use of force and coersion in the market place subverting "free markets" and governments, actions that you Libertarians allegedly abhor.
if you are telling me you pay 40% of your income in taxes i would say you are lying.
Simpleton! One of Friedman's capitalist mantras is that "nobody takes care of someone else's property better than he takes care of his own." While that is a general truth, it has limited application in capitalist practice and shouldn't be touted as an intrinsic virtue. Just look at all the examples of corporate neglect of "property" or environments, from toxic dumping to the latest BP gulf oil spill. Or does Friedman mean that corporations might be more careful if they owned all the oceans?
@canteluna -- Friedman also states VERY clearly that the government must intervene when individuals interfere with the livelihoods of others. There is no denying that the oil spills by a major corporation like BP is detrimental to local businesses. Evidently, Friedman would agree that the government would need to stop in effectively to punish BP.
And it's not even like product testing would disappear if the government would require it. The private sector could easily fill this role, in fact we already have things like this with Consumer Reports, Good Housekeeping. These companies have in their interest to promote the best products and give honest reviews because their reputation and profits hinge on it.
regulate themselves, but this is only a form of "damage control" and go right back to putting bad products in the market again if they can make a couple bucks off of them. I strongly believe that the profit motive is most definitely NOT inherently good, which is why I'm a Libertarian that supports consumer protection agencies.
@fish8jonah1 I would argue that if a company puts out a product that they know is dangerous without informing the consumer they should be held liable to a very extreme degree. If the customer knows that a product is untested/unsafe and still buys it, then that is their business.
Well, I would argue that the consumer is ignorant on how tested or unsafe a product is and that any smart business or cofrporation would have a vested interest in keeping that info. away from them.
Maybe if the consumer lived in a vacuum without TV, word of mouth, print media... a little thing called the internet. People should be responsible and make informed decisions regardless of whether some government agency rubber stamped it anyways. People argue against libertarianism tend to think that most people are incapable of making decisions and while our decision making has been atrophied by big brother I think most can make a good judgement call about what they buy.
potential losses from lawsuits, they would put the defective product in the market with no hesitation whatsoever. Now, when a point like this comes up, the more "fanatical" libertarians would claim that the market itself, too, will correct this because the company that tries to get away with this will lose the people's trust and will begin to fail as a result. Well, this is only partially true. Companies will "clean up" after putting several defective products on the market and will begin to
Although I can agree with a lot of what Friedman says, he is dead wrong in his assessment of organizations like the FDA. It often times is not in the interest for a pharmaceutical company to not release a bad drug in the market. What he doesn't realize, or at least didn't say in this part of the interview, that Big Pharma, and corporations in general, run a cost-benefit analysis on even "defective" products. If they find that they can still make some kind of profit after factoring in
What does it say about Americans when this video has 49k views and the J&K Wedding Entrance has over 55million views - want to know why Rome is burning...?
Americans like free markets until the foundational priniciples of the market reveal their personal agenda as a sham or scam - then suddenly, it's not okay, or doesn't work, or is "immoral"
The FDA has killed more people with late approvals than it has saved with it's early approvals? How about the lives saved with their late approvals? did he make a mistake?
@MrInky123 The market would take care of it because each case would be taken on its own and people will determine whether or not they like a drug and how much or little. And then it can help as many people as it can and be withheld from people whom it would harm.
Actually less government intervention is always better. Case in point; Who killed the electric car. In this documentary we see an example of private enterprise finding a solution to environmental woes, only to be stifled by the very government that is supposed to protect us. Environmental protection should NEVER be left up to .gov. At best, their track record is all fail all the time.
No. He doesn't believe in that kind of command and control approach. He was simply articulating how it is the proper role of government to protect 3rd parties.
Pharmaceutical corporations move on profits. if a product gives them profits they would sell it weather that product works or not. If corporations find out that their product does not work or it cause harm instead, they would hide their finding, and still sell the product. That's the case of Tobbaco industry. Corporations go even further, if their product is disapproved in USA for it causes harm they stil sell it abroad.
The FDA should approve or disapprove something based on scientific test. The FDA is not doing a better job because it's part of a government controlled by big corporations, including pharmaceutical corporations. This corporations have active lobbyist in Washington who buy out our political leaders to act in their favor, not in favor of the public.
Friedman is wrong on pollution. Pollution is always a trespass. Selling a right to pollute doesn't change the fact my shirt is dirty. If I can prove the power plant dirtied my shirt, I should be able to sue directly to get a new shirt. To be sure, the power plant doesn't need my permission to pollute, because its pollutants might not effect me, but if they did I should be able to sue directly to be compensated directly. Such lawsuits would provide the incentive to pollute less.
@hobatu A free market is where the government takes enterprises and hands them over to its cronies? A free market is with crippling taxes that encourage corruption and bribes to get around paying? Are you sure you know what free markets are? Using the power of the state to crush opponents and corruption are not free markets. I do sort of like the Russian state creating a crisis and using that to justify it taking more power. Classic totalitarian tactics. But do not call it "laissez faire"
Our founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with. Milton Friedman makes so much sense. I'm changing my party from Republican to Libertarian.
@09Chance its true, i changed to a libertarian back in 07 when RON PAUL CURED MY APATHY!!!! NO WAR AND NON INTERVENTION. FRIENDS WITH ALL, AND NOT WRAPPED IN OTHERS CONFLICTS! REINSTATE AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION TO THE LETTER BECAUSE ALL PROBLEMS STEM FROM IGNORING IT !!! AMERICANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO TO WHATEVER YOU LIKE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T IMPOSE ON OTHERS RIGHTS, YOU ARE NON VIOLENT AND ARE NOT POLLUTING OR CAUSING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY TO DECREASE IN VALUE!! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!!
@09Chance I left the Republican party 2 years ago. I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate in 2008 but I'm not joining the Libertarian party. They have a few platforms that I just cannot agree with, like legalizing drugs.
I prefer to follow George Washington is his opposition to all political parties.
@ZIRCHxWORLD i think it really goes likie this. liberal ->conservative ->libertarian ->oh shit, i cant vote in primaries so my vote is basically useless. I might as well be a political non entity -> registered as republican. but libertarian in ideology.
@09Chance While I agree with your sentiment... please don't throw your vote away. Infiltrate the Republican party as a Libertarian... take it back. Become a delegate. Attend platform conventions. Do something that will make a real difference. The Dems thrive on the third party vote.
@2DumbKidsVideo You're an idiot if you honestly think the GOP can be reformed. There is no difference between the two parties. Third parties are only way out besides a tax revolt.
@EyeAmTheIlluminati On the contrary, I think you're an idiot if you think that you can win elections by dividing the party. The parties are NOT the same. Have you ever read the voting platforms?
The parties, platforms & chair-people are made up of individuals like you and I. If you don't like how things are being run, do something about it. IE: Become a delegate in your district or run as a chairman. Voting for a third party that has no ability to fund-raise & organize will get you NOWHERE.
@2DumbKidsVideo I've tried the route and many other libertarians have as well. It goes as far as any third parties. The GOP is dominated at all levels by people who think we should police the world and control social behavior. Third parties are hopeless but the two party system is every bit as hopeless. Revolutions never happen through voting; voting is a fradulent system manipulated by the people who control the state.
@EyeAmTheIlluminati I sympathize with some of your arguments, but I believe that there are better alternatives. Changing the GOP takes time, but doing so is a much better alternative than dividing the vote share, especially when the vast majority of the GOP voter base already holds many Libertarian values. For the simplicity of math, let's say that this country is 60% conservative and 40% liberal. If you divide conservatives into 2 groups of 30%, you will never win elections.
That's where you miss the point. You buy into the false left-right paradigm, assuming that libertarians are more conservative than they are liberal. You assume that liberals do not have strong libertarian instincts, such as opposing unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional spying (PATRIOT Act), government-sanctioned corporate monopolies, etc. You also assume that liberals will continue to support the Democratic Party after the GOP collapses. The Dems will collapse under their own failed policies
In re-electing the same statist Republicans, The TEA Party has actually emboldened liberals to vote Democrat with greater intensity than if they defected into a third party. Liberals see the same bastards who supported Bush expansion of government and deficits complaining about the Democrats' expansion of government and deficits. If the Democrats remained in power and continued to destroy the economy and healthcare system, liberals would jump ship and form their own anti-government movement
@2DumbKidsVideo You disagree that the TEA Party movement, something that started with a strong libertarian lean, has been co-opted by neoconservatives? You obviously did not see the election results in 2010. Even libertarian TEA Partiers were tricked into the lie that voting for a big government Republican is preferable to Democrats. The true libertarians such as Adam Kokesh and R.J. Harris were slaughtered in their Congressional primaries.
@2DumbKidsVideo You disagree that the TEA Party movement, something that started with a strong libertarian lean, has been co-opted by neoconservatives? You obviously did not see the election results in 2010. Even libertarian TEA Partiers were tricked into the lie that voting for a big government Republican is preferable to Democrats. The true libertarians such as Adam Kokesh and R.J. Harris were slaughtered in their Congressional primaries.
@09Chance economically speaking, there is almost no difference between the libertarian party and the republican party with the exception of their views on the legalization of drugs. Except that as a registered libertarian you cant help defeat socialism because you cant vote in the republican primaries. So people like Geingrich or McCain will win the nomination when they should be working at McDonalds and people like Trump who SHOULD win wont. Then Barry the muslim will get reelected.
@VoiceOfModeration The majority of Paul supporters are regular people like you an me. Your dumbass comment only served to show how much of a dumbass you are, therefore, you are very much a dumbass.
First of all, your assumption is asinine and wrong. Stop watching so much TV. Secondly, you shouldn't support or reject someone because of the people in his/her base, you should support them because you believe in their ideas and message. So even IF they were kooks, it would be totally irrelevant. It doesn't change the validity of Dr. Paul's stances. Hell, that should give you more incentive to get involved and CHANGE the nature of his base, if you believe in it.
@VoiceOfModeration@dryan22 To suggest that an entire group of people are "kooks" because of the thoughts and actions of only a few is both irrational and irresponsible. I know plenty of people, like myself, whom support Ron Paul and do not partake in any such conspiracies.
@hobatu As I said marxists understanding of free market as some kind of lawless paradise for criminals might be at the root of Russian problems. Plus same a socializm capitalist economy has whole spectrum of possibilities. It does not have to be black and white.
@hobatu Just stop assuming things you do not know. My knowledge of Russia is extensive , I speak the language, I know the history, I know the culture. Russian understanding of the capitalism in general is still restricted to marxists description. The very fact of Eltcin//Putin/Medvedev(Gazprom) being reelected shows that russians prefer criminal government enterprise to any free market. Also the fact that you can "whack your competition" contradicts you claim of the free market.
@hobatu nobody knows how such paradise looks like including RP. I personally have strong reservations about it, since libertarians quite often are irrational people including RP and his family. As for Russia the only paradise it knows is a criminal enterprise - it is part of the culture, and I am afraid market economy is not for Russians. Love for the strong government hand and simultaneous hate for the rule of law is a Russian cultural trait in my opinion. Last 70-90 years made it worse.
@hobatu@hobatu Unlicensed business was a problem, and in fact that is where/why I strongly disagree with MF. I would go one step farther and state that unlicensed production food/alcohol/drugs is incredibly dangerous and unsustainable idea. In defense of MF I have to point out that Russian judicial system is incredibly corrupt and it is not very useful for protection of a consumer, which might be the main reason why market economy of any kind does not work in Russia.
@hobatu I am not talking about what russian people or russian government called it, I am talking about free market as defined by Friedman. In best traditions of USSR russia names things in opposite of what they really are. First of all not a single instance of so-called "privatization" was done in a free market manner, it was just a take over by criminals/communists of the collective property of USSR, second participation of KGB, interior ministry and army in the process is not a free market.
@hobatu 1. Russia never had a free market in last 1000 years. What they had in the 90th is a criminal enterprise economy , supported by and imbedded in - you guessed it - government. 2. Russian government is historically very bad in providing security/ justice//freedom to its citizens(with communists or without), so if you follow Freedman's idea all necessary conditions for a free market are not there. Freedman specifically said that private military is a bad idea.
@hobatu you're confusing a weak government with a strong, but small government. quite easily done when you've grown up around such atrocities as are found in Russia. But the only reason they've become so weak is their communist mindset and political actions for the last century. Not to mention I would much rather a country where the president is scared of the people than the other way around.
@hobatu wow... you're completely and utterly obtuse. you just made my point for me, and then defended it somehow... you really think that the guys that came up with the political system you're defending got it wrong? HE MADE IT! just because you think you could do better doesn't mean you can. It's like saying murder could be good, as long as you're doing it for science... oh hitler said that didn't he?
@hobatu they replied" yes, that's what our professors say to"... and he figured that at that point he knew why Russia had invaded
the point of all that was to show that regulation usually = socialism and the only way any bit of socialism works, is when it leads to more and more. Not more prosperity or freedom, because you can't tell someone else what to do and them still be free. but more hate and dependency, separating and killing of the very spirit that makes America great.
@hobatu they were trying to explain to him what the czec reformers were trying to do when Russia invaded.. as they described it they wanted the "best of capitalism and of socialism.. they were explaining that part of that was that they wanted free market prices for most goods but to have regulations on the important ones like milk and bread. To which he replied, if capitalism is so important for the other things, then i would argue it's most important to those things you deem most important.
@hobatu Milt's kid has a great quote. Wherein he says first that if you think government should be involved in only the important things, then take food as an example. The experiment has been tried. In the 1930's Stalin collectivized agriculture. It resulted in the starvation of several million Ukrainians.
he goes on to say that the whole thing reminds him of a conversation he had with Czec students the summer Czec tried moving away from communism and Russians invaded.
@hobatu You couldn't be more blind. Libertarians are ALL about personal property. Just because you aren't smart enough to decide things for yourself does NOT mean I or anyone else isn't. Just because you like having big brother there to tell you how to spend your money and live your life doesn't mean I want him there. They have no constitutional right to do anything involving the personal lives of American citizens, only to defend us against outside threats.
The factory emission example also does not need government.if pollution gets into my backyard,I will sue the source,therefore the source must curtail emissions or compensate all those who can sue them.
The moral of the story is simply do NOT let the gov't do anything that people and the marketplace can do for itself. the goons in washington have brainwashed people to think the opposite. a happy Welfare state ?? its a myth
@And politicians are altruists who work for long term wellbeing of citizens? I seriously doubt that! The idea that government action can substitute free enterprise and produce "fare" output is crazy. Politicians, like managers look to the sort term prospective - next elections. How can we expect them to run country better then we run our lives on our own...?
has Friedman ever thought about how managers might be more interested in short term gain than long term reliability due to personnal gains? If not than he should maybe study the realities of modern business more carefully. This doctrine is like communism, not based on reality and faulty!!!!
@SuperTB4 The stock holders can always sell their stock if they disagree with how its being run. If they don't then they are responsible for their own losses. If those running the company are withholding relevant information then they should be prosecuted for fraud. If its their own company then they have a right to run it as they please. The employees will lose their jobs, but that's reality, nobody has a right to a job.
Friedman was one of the most brilliant economists of the 20th century.
what about the air? for fuck sakes people, there 30 million people in california, that 30 million people to decide what about the air. you dont need 1 person in washington to decide what 30 million people want their air to be like. fuck, liberals and their regulation bullshit. like they forget what their own voice can do.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 days ago
Milton Friedman and race
Nosaltypeanut 1 month ago
@NateC0le "Isn't one of the strong incentives for drug companies to sell rigorously tested drugs the very existence of the FDA?"
Yes. However, Constitutionally speaking, It should be a State Power, not a FED GOV power.
evolutionist101 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is the only hope we have at achieving a society that Milton Freidman advocated and our forefathers fought for. Let's restore AMERICA.
RON PAUL 2012!!!!.
dixierebel1929 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who like big government are like people who pray to a god; they are thankful when they receive what they wish for, but they refuse to hold it the entity accountable when something goes wrong.
SkepticThink 3 months ago
Friedman is Libertastic!
ShrugMeSilly245 4 months ago
This interview is terrible, the questions are not challenging at all, and all the answers are subjects that Friedman had written about in his books. A good interviewer would really challenge his position so that someone with a different framework could be convinced, and not just a group of libertarians petting each others shoulders.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy i believe the purpose of this interview was at least partly to familiarize people who had not read Friedman's books with his views - to give them a taste of what was in them so they could decide whether they were interested in reading them or not
RestAssuredDrummer 3 months ago
@RestAssuredDrummer I should have viewed the vide on those terms, I guess I need to stop thinking of interviews and lectures as actually giving an in-depth knowledge of the issues I want to learn about, but rather a superficial glance in order to spark an interest. I admit, I was to judgmental. What book would you recommend me to read by Friedman? I'm not an economist, but I have a knowledge of math, so I think I would be able to read his works on a technical level.
astroboomboy 3 months ago
This is a good interview. I appreciate interviewers who allow their subject to explain their views and who are generally respectful.
labrusca10 4 months ago
I have heard that part about indians saying that about L.A. smog.
aBenDragon 4 months ago
@NateC0le I assume your imaginary business is new to the market, since I really doubt an entrenched company would throw itself down a pit for short term profits,(Especially since getting a foothold in the pharmaceutical industry is hard enough already) so even the reputability of your company would be in question as it isn't likely that you've done much of anything to get any respect or trust from anyone.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@Nate and the ones that are the most reputable have their seal of approval hold more prestige. It becomes part of marketing. These agencies live off of their reputation, more so than other businesses, so corruption becomes less of an issue.
How will you get doctors to use your drug in the first place? If anything, your speculated drug would face the most rigorous of testing for doctors to consider using it in their treatment. Lots of people go around claiming to have found the cure to cancer.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
@NateC0le "How would you prevent this without the FDA?"
Firstly, how is the FDA supposed to prevent this? Suppose your drug doesn't kill the patient after 4 years. If the FDA spends 4 years testing it, how many people would die of cancer before it went out into the market? That, and you're going to be facing a hefty amount of lawsuits.
Removal of the FDA doesn't stop testing either. Private testing agencies arise...(Cont)
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
Libertarians are living in a fantasy world.
twosquirrelly 4 months ago
@twosquirrelly
Communists are living in a fantasy world.
Conservatives are living in a fantasy world.
Liberals are living in a fantasy world.
Fascists are living in a fantasy world.
Voluntarists are living in a fantasy world.
Anarchists are living in a fantasy world.
Socialists are living in a fantasy world.
Reactionaries are living in a fantasy world.
The statements above are all meaningless, as is yours.
TheMoriMaster 4 months ago
In the beginning did Milton just discribe the Cap and Trade system? That kinda surprising.
shaqdaddy11 4 months ago
The greatest economist ever. /thread
myhome123 4 months ago
sounds to me like friedman is talking about CAP AND TRADE - which makes many of his proponents head explode when obama and the dems are proposing it.. am I not right? right wingers please clarify.
inso99 5 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie
actually, your right to property doesnt come from law or the courts, as the framers clearly stated, certain rights are presupposed, and are inborn, deriving from god or nature, not government. That is why we have a constitution instead of EVERYTHING being dcided by majority vote, certain rights exist whether the majority wants them to or not, otherwise you'd end up with tyranny by the majority, which is just as evil as despotism.
munstrumridcully 5 months ago
The power plant emits a smoke which dirties my shirt. Has Milton lost it in his old age? If they dirty my shirt with their smoke, i should sue them for the cost of cleaning or replacing my shit. There is no reason for legislation to mandate the government gets more money, or power. Only the individual should have the right to sue. The power plant then should pay all legal costs, but it it where found out that i soiled my own shirt, I should indeed pay the legal costs of the powerplant and my own
asleeperj 5 months ago
@asleeperj But how would you win the case if it's not illegal?
TheRacistsMustDie 5 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie It is illegal to destroy someones property. Come on, It's just that simple. It's all spelled out in the constitution.
asleeperj 5 months ago
@asleeperj I've sought, but I can't find it. Could you point out where exactly that is written?
TheRacistsMustDie 5 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie You didn't look very hard, or you are reading the wrong Constitution
Amendment 5; 1791 - nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Also in Amendment 13.
asleeperj 5 months ago
@asleeperj But it's both about the states of the union or the federal government exercising power over individuals not private enterprises.
TheRacistsMustDie 5 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie What props up private Enterprise? Wait for it.... wait for it... the government.! Ding ding ding, you win.
On a serous note. It has been deemed that you have a right to property through the courts. You can also protect your property using lethal force (at least in Texas.) You steal my TV and run down the stairs, i can kill you where you stand. You had my property after all, and where in the wrong.
asleeperj 5 months ago
@asleeperj But that the state props up private enterprise (PE) doesn't make those articles of the US constitution mean that PE's can't deprive people of property etc. because that's plainly not in the text.
& you don't have a property rights because of courts, you have them because of the law which that court judges by & if there is no rule in that law made by 'the state' which says 'if A damages B's property, A must compensate B' then you wont win the case.
TheRacistsMustDie 5 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie sorry 14th amendment.
asleeperj 5 months ago
Friedman gives up too easily here and falls back on gov't - which is never a good solution to these things. There is no problem at all dealing with environmental issues as long as you have property rights and some half-way decent free-market enforcement mechanism. Environmental/safety regulation would naturally arise out of insurance firms in a free market:"We won't insure you if you do X. You can do Y, but it will cost you Z." Then competition will uphold the good rules and weed out the bad.
MillionthUsername 6 months ago
what did he say at 1:32 "the key feature of a libertarian jew"???
bhfireblade 7 months ago
No regulations leads to more class acts which results in more courts...Is judicial system not part of government? Milton's FDA example is like Android's app market, more reviews then good app, if app screws your phone sue the developer.....monopoly rules in this case because no one is going to risk their life by experimenting new drugs on themselves or very cheap drugs will do it and then poor gets screwed(they'll be drawn to those cheap drugs)...that is the whole purpose of this system, right?
opyimistprime 8 months ago
@opyimistprime You have a point, there probably would be more courts; however, I think that's still better than the government using our money inefficiently, and even letting some toxic substances slip through, such as in baby toys, and we can't sue the government for ineptness--we can't sue and win, that is.On our own, we would come down harder on an unsafe company because we would not erroneously assume that everything that could be done to protect us was done. There would be no excuses.
ElJefer 7 months ago
libertarianism= the second worst best idea (behind socialism)
tua25544 8 months ago
When our forefathers engaged in the writing of our documents all they had was a concept taking from all the best of all they knew, we are in a far better place to do so much more. We must stay in motion, constantly correcting our flaws and short comings, this is the time, and we already have a place to start! It’s OK to learn from our mistakes, it’s just time for correction and that’s OK. You know the deal..For good men to do nothing and the whole evil thing!
razoredge45 8 months ago
Completely wrong! Who sells the rights? How can you equate the true value? How do you know that some corrupt official doesn't under value for a company? If a company is affluent they can by harmful amounts and there's no recourse! You solve this problem by having an unbias scientist to set a safe level and that's it. His FDA analysis is WRONG! FDA is funded by pharmaceutical there are tons of drugs being released with or without FDA in third worlds with no oversight look upJames Steele's report.
IndyFlie 8 months ago
@jorintelis Disagree with that - public assets like health, education, and transport infrastructure are too valuable to be left in the hands of private corporations which always act in the short-term interest. My explanation is stated above, that is, that these are public goods owned by the public as a whole. My credentials are that I'm a citizen of my country. I take an interest in politics and I vote.
belisariusorb 9 months ago
Such faith in business,,,,,,,,,,,,its almost religious. Wonder if he ever worked in the mines.
VincenzoPickatelli 9 months ago
@VincenzoPickatelli once again its the government's fault. government passed laws against nuclear power so we don't have that alternative source of power. also, the coal companies were able to harness the power of the big government through lobbying/bribing. so there's an unholy alliance of big gov't/big corporation between the big coal companies and big government.
selymak 9 months ago
@VincenzoPickatelli also, if the government didn't tax coal companies like crazy, they might actually have the money to give the workers better safety equipment. If that doesn't work, we can always file class action lawsuits instead of calling for more government control.
selymak 9 months ago
Wow. Who knew Milton Friedman was pro cap and trade.
CliffRunner17 9 months ago
@CliffRunner17 Liberal != Libertarianism
skydark 9 months ago
@skydark thanks for pointing that out. liberalism=libertarianism=conservativism. What they CALL "liberalism" today is really socialism. We should no longer call them liberals, we should call them pinkos or commies. Same with "democrats" in realith the republicans are democratic the modern "demoncats...er democrats" are autocratic totalitarian marxists.
Oh, btw. elected republican official = RINO = Eunich pussy bitch without the balls to stand up to the dems = might as well be a dem.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@Porojukaha "We should no longer call them liberals, we should call them pinkos or commies"
Wouldn't go that far, but certainly social-democrats...which, like communism, doesn't work, but it does take longer to show its nefarious effects.
skydark 9 months ago 24
@skydark
my country has been dominated by social democrats, it resulted in a major crizis during the 90s which made our countrys growth go backwards for a while
unfad1ng 9 months ago
@skydark Hitler was a social democrat before he started the nazi state.
MrFireballbren 6 months ago
@skydark I hate that they stole the term LIBERAL from us. I am a classical Liberal. Now i have to call myself a libertarian, or else people think I'm a socialist if i tell them i am a liberal. The correct term is Progressive. The same party the Nazi's where in the 20s.
Democrats are Progressive party 2.0
Republicans are still the older standard of progressivism.
asleeperj 5 months ago
@skydark The Left has lifted the liberal moniker from us I believe just to spite us. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers used the term liberal and liberty many times, when did Engels or Marx or any of the early Socialists ever use it? I'd be interested to know. They don't want liberty and the liberal philosophy, they want complete control.
JoKo203 3 months ago
@JoKo203 that was deliberate... Reagan spoke of this in the 50s
roibasses 1 hour ago
A little shocked that he sounds like he's advocating Cap and Trade at 0:46. Though there's a degree to which the way he explains it makes sense. The way the Greens explain it makes no sense.
seismicmike 10 months ago
@seismicmike hes not saying we should do cap and trade. hes saying that we do that now but that a similar system that isnt rigged to be another form of croney capitalism would potentially be good. The real argument to take care of pollution, is to NOT take care of pollution. private companies naturally take care of polution these days because they know the public will buy their product more if they do. Notice how Whole Foods sells more food than other stores? no need for gov intervention
Porojukaha 9 months ago
smog is natural?
Gideonkiefer 10 months ago
@Gideonkiefer asked "smog is natural?"
I believe the point Friedman was making was specific to the LA basin. That it's not a modern problem, but a problem encountered as far back as we have written accounts from that area. That is, whether it's pollutants from a million cars, or from early industries, or even from Native American campfires during large tribal gatherings . . . pollutants tend to hang around more noxiously there due to topography than in many other places where it disperses more.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
What's more, the notion that the courts can be relied on as a factor in the market place, while maintaining its "superior efficiency" is ridiculous.
MrBibabibab 1 year ago
So many issues with Friedman's arguments and this host is really not holding him to account.
He talks about there being an incentive for the pharmaceuticals to avoid harm. Well then, how is this any different to the incentive on the government to be overly cautious in relation to approving the drugs. There is no reason to assume that the cost/profit analysis by the pharmas are going to produced the best utility in terms of public health.
MrBibabibab 1 year ago
its been shown in just about every instance of modern industry, at least in America, that it is much more profitable to worry less about safety and quality and more on increasing consumption of goods and cutting costs (labor compensation, product quality, planned obsolescence, etc.) companies are large enough were they can take a consumer hit from having a bad product exposed.
sinc206 1 year ago
Ahhh, intellectual consistency. Coherent logic. Refresshing... Especially after watching Chomsky say that in America the word "libertarian" means tyranny. Nothing worse than a brilliant idiot.
rgs11 1 year ago
(CONT) ...we are essentially engaged in a battle of whose rhetoric sounds nicer. I think my rhetoric sounds nicer, so I think I'm winning. You think your rhetoric sounds nicer, ergo you're winning. But neither, you, me, Friedman, Krugman, Marx, Engels, Adam Smith nor even godlike intellects like Glen Beck have ever come close to proving a point about economics or politics objectively. I've been studying economics for 30 years now and I have never EVER seen an objectively true fact demonstrated.
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb I have to disagree, and with all due respect, I think your post epitomizes blindly believing things. Your argument is mostly tautology and like Wood said, just full of assertions. I've noticed this with everyone who levels the same criticism against Libertarians. It's because they believe certain things are absolutely true without question, that when someone has different beliefs, like Libs, they assume that the Libs must be 'blind' ideologues. I think it's often the reverse.
Underground906 1 year ago
A massive fail for Friedman on the point of the FDA and thalidomide. He didn't even acknowledge the suffering of thalidomide, what it really means in terms of suffering and not a tort law case.
Friedman's logic on the free market as applied to international trade, which is consistent and coherent, fails completely when applied to social issues and most particularly law, education, health, environmental protection and safety. These are public assets, shared by all. "No man is an island" - Donne
belisariusorb 1 year ago
But of course environmental pollution doesn't just dirty my shirt ... it damages my quality of life, my health and that of my family and harms the ecosystem. The market is focused on the here-and-now, not on the future, and to suggest a marketable commodity of pollution units as he does is absurd. Blindness of the free-marketeer, who sees the holy market able to control everything to everyone's satisfaction. We have all recently seen, the financial market is unable to stop itself from imploding.
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb If the financial market had really imploded in the kind of context you like to imagine it has, we'd truly be in a lot worst shape. A bubble burst.. A collapse in the finance sector happened due to many reasons. The princples talked about in this clip in no way say everything will be perfect. You have to invent that cliched straw man of the blind free marketeer as you have nothing to address the real arguments with or the irrefutable logic therein.
Underground906 1 year ago
@Underground906 I certainly don't need to invent a straw-man blind free marketer, I've just been listening very carefully to one, Milton Friedman himself. He believes the market functions perfectly, is in favour of taking away state protections like the EPA and FDA, and leaving everything in the market to regulate itself by market pressures and tort law.
Oh, by the way, I'm Irish, so from where I'm sitting it's hard to see what kind of worse shape we could be in. Credit implosion, no doubt.
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb Blind-Marketeer is just another one of those neat little derisory cliches thrown about, mostly by the left as that is their style and is necessary for those short on logic to mask that shortcoming. It's mostly devoid of meaning when examined. He doesn't *blindly* follow free markets, he gives reasons and logical arguments for why state control is unneccesary and counter-productive in his view. Y not address that? He said in the first vid things are never perfect. Strawman there
Underground906 1 year ago
@Underground906 "Blind" is the only way to describe people who can't see what's evident to everyone else. Namely that there are public goods, including the environment, security and transport infrastructures that nobody except the state can govern or manage properly. That health and safety regulations are imposed for the public good, that education is free and public because having an educated population is good for everyone. And that the present dire situation was a failure of regulation.
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb, what is your evidence that the State is the only body that can manage public health & safety? That seems to be just an assertion. The government is a coercive monopoly, offering the worst service at the highest cost.
It is a fact that governments, especially the military, are the worst polluters, not corporations.
It is very likely that the FDA and AMA have caused more deaths than they have actually saved.
You don't own other people. Stop treating them like slaves.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670 I've been conducting a civilised discussion with others here. If you were my slave, I'd whip you for straying off the point. Your comment is as unbacked by evidence as anything I've ever heard.
"It is a fact that clowns, especially those with long shoes, make more people laugh than a lion-tamer act.
It is very likely that tight shoes have caused more callouses than they have firmed up people's arches.
You don't own the English language. Stop using its letters and words. "
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb, Clowns? Really. If you wanted me to back up my claims all you had to do is ask. I'll send you a PM referencing you to articles that discuss each point in detail. You are more than welcome to send me a PM backing up your claim that ONLY the government can protect the environment offer security services, and transport infrastructures properly.
I look forward to hearing from you. :)
wood9670 1 year ago
Comment removed
Underground906 1 year ago
@belisariusorb Eg: Friedman - 'There is enormous evidence they they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by their early aprovals' yet still the policy favours late approvals. I wouldn't call that 'blind'. I'd call it reasoned. With evidence to back it up. You just assert that 'everyone knows' you need those things to protect us. 'that nobody except the state can govern or manage properly.'
Why does the private sector perform better in those areas then?
Underground906 1 year ago
@Underground906 Hi, I've been away. To reply to your point and encompass a few other comments too - Yes, it is an assertion that public goods are best managed by public entities. It is equally an assertion by Friedman that people look after their own assets better than they do public assets, that FDA late approvals have killed more people than early approvals, or that tort law would do a better job of assuring public health than regulation. Since both Friedman and myself lack evidence, (CONT)
belisariusorb 1 year ago
@belisariusorb
You don't understand just how inefficient government bureaucracies are at managing or executing ANYTHING. Government-ordained bureaucrats are typically more concerned with solidifying their own power or position held than with actually getting things accomplished, it's human nature.
Take the taxpayer drain that is the DEA... their employees have a vested interest in keeping their "noble' struggle going indefinitely - or escalating it - than actually WINNING the War on Drugs!!
bobshenix 9 months ago
@bobshenix If I may ask, how do you win the war on drugs?
belisariusorb 9 months ago
@belisariusorb
The way it has been handled in the USA, the War on Drugs is not 'winnable'. This is because the very idea of a "War" on drugs is totally unconstitutional and anti-American to begin with; a society with American values and respect for personal liberties can never effectively wage such a war.
The only way a War on Drugs is winnable is with a strong authoritarian government. Mao got the Chinese off opium rather quickly-- he had uncooperative addicts and dealers killed en masse.
bobshenix 9 months ago
@belisariusorb Ask Ash Ketchum. Gotta smoke em all, War on Drugs!! lol
Porojukaha 9 months ago
Is it just me or does it sound like he's proposing a "cap and tax" type deal to combat pollution?
sellsjeeps 1 year ago
@sellsjeeps No that's basically it. I admire Milton more that most and agree with almost all of his ideas, but that I totally disagree with. Because if you can tax a basic element of life (carbon, for example), you then have a gov't with legislative control over your whole existence. Hence the taxing of having 2+ children in china or on the soda you buy . Which is imposing a cost on you(which he roughly points out.). He was an economists not a scientist. So, sadly, he failed to recognize that.
possm88 1 year ago
If my medicine kills me, what help does it that i can sue the company who produced it?
mathstef 1 year ago
So how about exploitation of workers, how about trade (labour) unions, what is the Libertarian opinion on that?
ChaosDynamics 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics Nobody's forced to work for a company. Boycott em, don't buy there products and don't work for them...No workers, no sales, bye bye company. Thats the beauty of the free market. Until gov't plays favorites, bails out company's that should be outta biz..thats corporatism not capitalism...
TheASEmaster 1 year ago
To impose a monetary penalty on a corporation for harming the environment is necessary as a disincentive but ultimately beside the point. Our priceless environmental resources should not be hoarded and controlled by the private sector but considered an asset of the people and entrusted to our elected representatives who have motives other than profit. Capitalism has a limited moral compass and Libertarianism fails to adequately anticipate the potential abuses of power and acts after the fact.
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna What makes you think our elected representatives aren't motivated by profit? It's as if you're suggesting that politicians are altruistic and everyone else isn't. Remember, land grab organizations (which do a very good job, btw) such as the Nature Conservancy are part of the free market. The government might protect resources here and there but overall, it harms the planet more than it helps. Subsidized gas, agriculture, public roads...
handfetisch 1 year ago
@canteluna
By putting these very resources in the hands of politicians you ensure the abuse of power. A private business can only rewards its CEO by what the business can actually generate of profits, the rewards of politicians on the other hand are practically unlimited since the can just print money, borrow or tax to their hearts content.
Illyrien 1 year ago
@canteluna
What abuse of power? The only power a private business has is the power to offer you goods and services you can choose to buy or not.
The government on the other hand has the power to use force. Just look out how a private business gets money and look at how the gov't gets money. A business has to convince you voluntarily to give it money by providing you with something you want, the government points a gun to your head and says give me 40% of your income or go to jail.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 what abuse of power? you must be joking! there of course exists the collective power of businesses and their influence on city governments, some of it legitimate, some not. but i am mainly referring to corporate power and its use of force and coersion in the market place subverting "free markets" and governments, actions that you Libertarians allegedly abhor.
if you are telling me you pay 40% of your income in taxes i would say you are lying.
canteluna 1 year ago
Simpleton! One of Friedman's capitalist mantras is that "nobody takes care of someone else's property better than he takes care of his own." While that is a general truth, it has limited application in capitalist practice and shouldn't be touted as an intrinsic virtue. Just look at all the examples of corporate neglect of "property" or environments, from toxic dumping to the latest BP gulf oil spill. Or does Friedman mean that corporations might be more careful if they owned all the oceans?
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna -- Friedman also states VERY clearly that the government must intervene when individuals interfere with the livelihoods of others. There is no denying that the oil spills by a major corporation like BP is detrimental to local businesses. Evidently, Friedman would agree that the government would need to stop in effectively to punish BP.
violaguy1 1 year ago
I like Uncle Milty's calculator watch!
rtj3184 1 year ago
And it's not even like product testing would disappear if the government would require it. The private sector could easily fill this role, in fact we already have things like this with Consumer Reports, Good Housekeeping. These companies have in their interest to promote the best products and give honest reviews because their reputation and profits hinge on it.
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
Carbon credits anyone?
Darkrunner1975 1 year ago
Does anyone know the name of the interviewer here? I've seen him somewhere else, possibly with another libertarian figure.
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
regulate themselves, but this is only a form of "damage control" and go right back to putting bad products in the market again if they can make a couple bucks off of them. I strongly believe that the profit motive is most definitely NOT inherently good, which is why I'm a Libertarian that supports consumer protection agencies.
fish8jonah1 1 year ago
@fish8jonah1 I would argue that if a company puts out a product that they know is dangerous without informing the consumer they should be held liable to a very extreme degree. If the customer knows that a product is untested/unsafe and still buys it, then that is their business.
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
@DanNinjaMan
Well, I would argue that the consumer is ignorant on how tested or unsafe a product is and that any smart business or cofrporation would have a vested interest in keeping that info. away from them.
fish8jonah1 1 year ago
@fish8jonah1
Maybe if the consumer lived in a vacuum without TV, word of mouth, print media... a little thing called the internet. People should be responsible and make informed decisions regardless of whether some government agency rubber stamped it anyways. People argue against libertarianism tend to think that most people are incapable of making decisions and while our decision making has been atrophied by big brother I think most can make a good judgement call about what they buy.
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
potential losses from lawsuits, they would put the defective product in the market with no hesitation whatsoever. Now, when a point like this comes up, the more "fanatical" libertarians would claim that the market itself, too, will correct this because the company that tries to get away with this will lose the people's trust and will begin to fail as a result. Well, this is only partially true. Companies will "clean up" after putting several defective products on the market and will begin to
fish8jonah1 1 year ago
Although I can agree with a lot of what Friedman says, he is dead wrong in his assessment of organizations like the FDA. It often times is not in the interest for a pharmaceutical company to not release a bad drug in the market. What he doesn't realize, or at least didn't say in this part of the interview, that Big Pharma, and corporations in general, run a cost-benefit analysis on even "defective" products. If they find that they can still make some kind of profit after factoring in
fish8jonah1 1 year ago
What does it say about Americans when this video has 49k views and the J&K Wedding Entrance has over 55million views - want to know why Rome is burning...?
ICONICFREEDOM 1 year ago
@ICONICFREEDOM Boy, no kidding.
jpschubbs 1 year ago
Americans like free markets until the foundational priniciples of the market reveal their personal agenda as a sham or scam - then suddenly, it's not okay, or doesn't work, or is "immoral"
ICONICFREEDOM 1 year ago
Is he talking about cap and trade here?
jamesryanphoto 1 year ago
The FDA has killed more people with late approvals than it has saved with it's early approvals? How about the lives saved with their late approvals? did he make a mistake?
MrInky123 1 year ago
@MrInky123 The market would take care of it because each case would be taken on its own and people will determine whether or not they like a drug and how much or little. And then it can help as many people as it can and be withheld from people whom it would harm.
kiminokami 1 year ago
Actually less government intervention is always better. Case in point; Who killed the electric car. In this documentary we see an example of private enterprise finding a solution to environmental woes, only to be stifled by the very government that is supposed to protect us. Environmental protection should NEVER be left up to .gov. At best, their track record is all fail all the time.
biscottibob 1 year ago
at the 1:00 mark, so is it my understanding he is a supporter of cap and trade ?
brentonflatt 1 year ago
@brentonflatt
No. He doesn't believe in that kind of command and control approach. He was simply articulating how it is the proper role of government to protect 3rd parties.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
Pharmaceutical corporations move on profits. if a product gives them profits they would sell it weather that product works or not. If corporations find out that their product does not work or it cause harm instead, they would hide their finding, and still sell the product. That's the case of Tobbaco industry. Corporations go even further, if their product is disapproved in USA for it causes harm they stil sell it abroad.
platano1742 1 year ago
The FDA should approve or disapprove something based on scientific test. The FDA is not doing a better job because it's part of a government controlled by big corporations, including pharmaceutical corporations. This corporations have active lobbyist in Washington who buy out our political leaders to act in their favor, not in favor of the public.
platano1742 1 year ago
Friedman is wrong on pollution. Pollution is always a trespass. Selling a right to pollute doesn't change the fact my shirt is dirty. If I can prove the power plant dirtied my shirt, I should be able to sue directly to get a new shirt. To be sure, the power plant doesn't need my permission to pollute, because its pollutants might not effect me, but if they did I should be able to sue directly to be compensated directly. Such lawsuits would provide the incentive to pollute less.
spmauzy 1 year ago
@hobatu A free market is where the government takes enterprises and hands them over to its cronies? A free market is with crippling taxes that encourage corruption and bribes to get around paying? Are you sure you know what free markets are? Using the power of the state to crush opponents and corruption are not free markets. I do sort of like the Russian state creating a crisis and using that to justify it taking more power. Classic totalitarian tactics. But do not call it "laissez faire"
Valmy77 1 year ago
"Forbad"
BarbieReview 1 year ago
@hobatu you're a retard. A lazy lazy retard.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
Cap & Trade?
rock3tcat 1 year ago
Our founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with. Milton Friedman makes so much sense. I'm changing my party from Republican to Libertarian.
09Chance 1 year ago 128
@09Chance its true, i changed to a libertarian back in 07 when RON PAUL CURED MY APATHY!!!! NO WAR AND NON INTERVENTION. FRIENDS WITH ALL, AND NOT WRAPPED IN OTHERS CONFLICTS! REINSTATE AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION TO THE LETTER BECAUSE ALL PROBLEMS STEM FROM IGNORING IT !!! AMERICANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO TO WHATEVER YOU LIKE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T IMPOSE ON OTHERS RIGHTS, YOU ARE NON VIOLENT AND ARE NOT POLLUTING OR CAUSING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY TO DECREASE IN VALUE!! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!!
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
@09Chance Harry Browne converted me in 2000! Only changed back to Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary.
xylemphoenix 1 year ago
@09Chance Thank you! Keep the faith strong!
lloidll 1 year ago
@09Chance I left the Republican party 2 years ago. I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate in 2008 but I'm not joining the Libertarian party. They have a few platforms that I just cannot agree with, like legalizing drugs.
I prefer to follow George Washington is his opposition to all political parties.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@09Chance thats how the transition normally goes. liberal -> conservative -> libertarian!!!
ZIRCHxWORLD 1 year ago 46
@ZIRCHxWORLD Yeah, that's what so frustrating about debating. It's always like: "Dude, I know, I used to believe that shit, too." Sigh...
rgs11 1 year ago
@ZIRCHxWORLD i think it really goes likie this. liberal ->conservative ->libertarian ->oh shit, i cant vote in primaries so my vote is basically useless. I might as well be a political non entity -> registered as republican. but libertarian in ideology.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@ZIRCHxWORLD well said! that was my path to awakening
sketchyfolk 8 months ago
@ZIRCHxWORLD no. It goes: libertarian-> turn 20 -> liberal --> moderate
tua25544 8 months ago
@tua25544 I'll be 42 in 6 weeks.
Vote4RonPaulLiberty 7 months ago
@ZIRCHxWORLD Your right lol when i was younger i was a liberal, but than i went straight to libertarian.
skatelongboards 5 months ago
@ZIRCHxWORLD
Maybe in America haha...
In Brazil: Conservative -> Marxist -> Libertarian
paunocu666 5 months ago
@09Chance While I agree with your sentiment... please don't throw your vote away. Infiltrate the Republican party as a Libertarian... take it back. Become a delegate. Attend platform conventions. Do something that will make a real difference. The Dems thrive on the third party vote.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo You're an idiot if you honestly think the GOP can be reformed. There is no difference between the two parties. Third parties are only way out besides a tax revolt.
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@EyeAmTheIlluminati On the contrary, I think you're an idiot if you think that you can win elections by dividing the party. The parties are NOT the same. Have you ever read the voting platforms?
The parties, platforms & chair-people are made up of individuals like you and I. If you don't like how things are being run, do something about it. IE: Become a delegate in your district or run as a chairman. Voting for a third party that has no ability to fund-raise & organize will get you NOWHERE.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo I've tried the route and many other libertarians have as well. It goes as far as any third parties. The GOP is dominated at all levels by people who think we should police the world and control social behavior. Third parties are hopeless but the two party system is every bit as hopeless. Revolutions never happen through voting; voting is a fradulent system manipulated by the people who control the state.
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@EyeAmTheIlluminati I sympathize with some of your arguments, but I believe that there are better alternatives. Changing the GOP takes time, but doing so is a much better alternative than dividing the vote share, especially when the vast majority of the GOP voter base already holds many Libertarian values. For the simplicity of math, let's say that this country is 60% conservative and 40% liberal. If you divide conservatives into 2 groups of 30%, you will never win elections.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
That's where you miss the point. You buy into the false left-right paradigm, assuming that libertarians are more conservative than they are liberal. You assume that liberals do not have strong libertarian instincts, such as opposing unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional spying (PATRIOT Act), government-sanctioned corporate monopolies, etc. You also assume that liberals will continue to support the Democratic Party after the GOP collapses. The Dems will collapse under their own failed policies
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
In re-electing the same statist Republicans, The TEA Party has actually emboldened liberals to vote Democrat with greater intensity than if they defected into a third party. Liberals see the same bastards who supported Bush expansion of government and deficits complaining about the Democrats' expansion of government and deficits. If the Democrats remained in power and continued to destroy the economy and healthcare system, liberals would jump ship and form their own anti-government movement
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@EyeAmTheIlluminati I respectfully disagree.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo You disagree that the TEA Party movement, something that started with a strong libertarian lean, has been co-opted by neoconservatives? You obviously did not see the election results in 2010. Even libertarian TEA Partiers were tricked into the lie that voting for a big government Republican is preferable to Democrats. The true libertarians such as Adam Kokesh and R.J. Harris were slaughtered in their Congressional primaries.
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo You disagree that the TEA Party movement, something that started with a strong libertarian lean, has been co-opted by neoconservatives? You obviously did not see the election results in 2010. Even libertarian TEA Partiers were tricked into the lie that voting for a big government Republican is preferable to Democrats. The true libertarians such as Adam Kokesh and R.J. Harris were slaughtered in their Congressional primaries.
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
@09Chance economically speaking, there is almost no difference between the libertarian party and the republican party with the exception of their views on the legalization of drugs. Except that as a registered libertarian you cant help defeat socialism because you cant vote in the republican primaries. So people like Geingrich or McCain will win the nomination when they should be working at McDonalds and people like Trump who SHOULD win wont. Then Barry the muslim will get reelected.
Porojukaha 9 months ago
@09Chance
Ron Paul 2012 :) Spread the word! Do your own research
iLitka 8 months ago
@iLitka But Ron Paul's base is mainly conspiracy kooks.
VoiceOfModeration 8 months ago
@VoiceOfModeration The majority of Paul supporters are regular people like you an me. Your dumbass comment only served to show how much of a dumbass you are, therefore, you are very much a dumbass.
KingRobbStark 8 months ago
@VoiceOfModeration
First of all, your assumption is asinine and wrong. Stop watching so much TV. Secondly, you shouldn't support or reject someone because of the people in his/her base, you should support them because you believe in their ideas and message. So even IF they were kooks, it would be totally irrelevant. It doesn't change the validity of Dr. Paul's stances. Hell, that should give you more incentive to get involved and CHANGE the nature of his base, if you believe in it.
iLitka 8 months ago
@iLitka You are wrong! Stop doing this! You shouldn't do that! You should do this!
I just roll right through people who communicate that way.
dryan22 7 months ago
@VoiceOfModeration @dryan22 To suggest that an entire group of people are "kooks" because of the thoughts and actions of only a few is both irrational and irresponsible. I know plenty of people, like myself, whom support Ron Paul and do not partake in any such conspiracies.
09Chance 7 months ago
@hobatu Your comment is defending the Libertarian view on drugs, not the other way around. God you're a fucking moron.
09Chance 1 year ago
@hobatu As I said marxists understanding of free market as some kind of lawless paradise for criminals might be at the root of Russian problems. Plus same a socializm capitalist economy has whole spectrum of possibilities. It does not have to be black and white.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu Just stop assuming things you do not know. My knowledge of Russia is extensive , I speak the language, I know the history, I know the culture. Russian understanding of the capitalism in general is still restricted to marxists description. The very fact of Eltcin//Putin/Medvedev(Gazprom) being reelected shows that russians prefer criminal government enterprise to any free market. Also the fact that you can "whack your competition" contradicts you claim of the free market.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu nobody knows how such paradise looks like including RP. I personally have strong reservations about it, since libertarians quite often are irrational people including RP and his family. As for Russia the only paradise it knows is a criminal enterprise - it is part of the culture, and I am afraid market economy is not for Russians. Love for the strong government hand and simultaneous hate for the rule of law is a Russian cultural trait in my opinion. Last 70-90 years made it worse.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu @hobatu Unlicensed business was a problem, and in fact that is where/why I strongly disagree with MF. I would go one step farther and state that unlicensed production food/alcohol/drugs is incredibly dangerous and unsustainable idea. In defense of MF I have to point out that Russian judicial system is incredibly corrupt and it is not very useful for protection of a consumer, which might be the main reason why market economy of any kind does not work in Russia.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu I am not talking about what russian people or russian government called it, I am talking about free market as defined by Friedman. In best traditions of USSR russia names things in opposite of what they really are. First of all not a single instance of so-called "privatization" was done in a free market manner, it was just a take over by criminals/communists of the collective property of USSR, second participation of KGB, interior ministry and army in the process is not a free market.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu 1. Russia never had a free market in last 1000 years. What they had in the 90th is a criminal enterprise economy , supported by and imbedded in - you guessed it - government. 2. Russian government is historically very bad in providing security/ justice//freedom to its citizens(with communists or without), so if you follow Freedman's idea all necessary conditions for a free market are not there. Freedman specifically said that private military is a bad idea.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
@hobatu you're confusing a weak government with a strong, but small government. quite easily done when you've grown up around such atrocities as are found in Russia. But the only reason they've become so weak is their communist mindset and political actions for the last century. Not to mention I would much rather a country where the president is scared of the people than the other way around.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu wow... you're completely and utterly obtuse. you just made my point for me, and then defended it somehow... you really think that the guys that came up with the political system you're defending got it wrong? HE MADE IT! just because you think you could do better doesn't mean you can. It's like saying murder could be good, as long as you're doing it for science... oh hitler said that didn't he?
daPlumber702 1 year ago
Comment removed
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu they replied" yes, that's what our professors say to"... and he figured that at that point he knew why Russia had invaded
the point of all that was to show that regulation usually = socialism and the only way any bit of socialism works, is when it leads to more and more. Not more prosperity or freedom, because you can't tell someone else what to do and them still be free. but more hate and dependency, separating and killing of the very spirit that makes America great.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu they were trying to explain to him what the czec reformers were trying to do when Russia invaded.. as they described it they wanted the "best of capitalism and of socialism.. they were explaining that part of that was that they wanted free market prices for most goods but to have regulations on the important ones like milk and bread. To which he replied, if capitalism is so important for the other things, then i would argue it's most important to those things you deem most important.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu Milt's kid has a great quote. Wherein he says first that if you think government should be involved in only the important things, then take food as an example. The experiment has been tried. In the 1930's Stalin collectivized agriculture. It resulted in the starvation of several million Ukrainians.
he goes on to say that the whole thing reminds him of a conversation he had with Czec students the summer Czec tried moving away from communism and Russians invaded.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu You couldn't be more blind. Libertarians are ALL about personal property. Just because you aren't smart enough to decide things for yourself does NOT mean I or anyone else isn't. Just because you like having big brother there to tell you how to spend your money and live your life doesn't mean I want him there. They have no constitutional right to do anything involving the personal lives of American citizens, only to defend us against outside threats.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@hobatu libertarian commies? You are obviously confused or misinformed.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
The factory emission example also does not need government.if pollution gets into my backyard,I will sue the source,therefore the source must curtail emissions or compensate all those who can sue them.
TiaSaysSo 1 year ago
Man, Friedman is good.
jmserc 1 year ago
Great series!!! Was once a soc...but now, i'm found.
H204Real 1 year ago 47
@H204Real Really. That is a very tremendous and impressive transformation. I am proud of you.
kiminokami 1 year ago
The moral of the story is simply do NOT let the gov't do anything that people and the marketplace can do for itself. the goons in washington have brainwashed people to think the opposite. a happy Welfare state ?? its a myth
Artfryne 1 year ago
Damn it babis, the Greek Population is not ready for this mindset.!!!!!!! damn it!
AntiPsychopath 1 year ago
@And politicians are altruists who work for long term wellbeing of citizens? I seriously doubt that! The idea that government action can substitute free enterprise and produce "fare" output is crazy. Politicians, like managers look to the sort term prospective - next elections. How can we expect them to run country better then we run our lives on our own...?
grizlero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
has Friedman ever heard the phrase: "no man is an island" or are his ideas too abstract to really direct any objective concession
SuperTB4 1 year ago
has Friedman ever thought about how managers might be more interested in short term gain than long term reliability due to personnal gains? If not than he should maybe study the realities of modern business more carefully. This doctrine is like communism, not based on reality and faulty!!!!
SuperTB4 1 year ago
@SuperTB4 The stock holders can always sell their stock if they disagree with how its being run. If they don't then they are responsible for their own losses. If those running the company are withholding relevant information then they should be prosecuted for fraud. If its their own company then they have a right to run it as they please. The employees will lose their jobs, but that's reality, nobody has a right to a job.
Friedman was one of the most brilliant economists of the 20th century.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperTB4 1 year ago