Milton Friedman - Regulation In A Free Society

[jimmmmie]

If a car is unsafe, publicize it! The public won't buy it, & the manufacturer is motivated to make a safer one. No govt control needed.

[liberaustrian]

Murray Rothbard > Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman > John Maynard Keynes. John Maynard Keynes < My 2 year old nephew.

[fzqlcs]

@liberaustrian Your 2 yr old nephew > John Maynard Keynes

[metzger90]

@liberaustrian Where is Mises and Bastiat?

[liberaustrian]

@metzger90 My statement was simply pointing out that the Austrian school is better than the Chicago school... and Keynes is essentially a negative. I agree though, Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, and many other Austrians are great economists.

[StatelessLiberty]

@liberaustrian Your 2 year old nephew is Milton Friedman?!

[derberg19486]

What an idiot, no seat belts and my insurance has to pay for your injuries from flying out of the car!? Moron

[fzqlcs]

@derberg19486  If your insurances is paying, it is because the accident was your fault, you f*ck-up. Want to save on your insurance and keep Milton from flying out of his car, just drive safely. He's the moron?

[ffrank345]

@derberg19486 No.

If seat belts were not a goverment mandate, there would be various options. A, You could pay less for your vehicle because it doesnt have seatbelts, and other safety devices. B, you could pay more just for safety features, like the Volvo business model. C, you could buy a middle of the road car that has the exact amount of features that you feel like yo ushould have. D, you could pay more in insurence for driving without a seatbelt, but covers more E, bad insure

[rumco]

Friedman was good but not consistent and still a statist.

Listen to this: watch?v=wr-_rUYsEIw

[AVMamfortas]

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. .........broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.”

AJP Taylor, historian.

[scrappmutt2]

"Hood ornaments that impale babies" - Phil Donahue. More hair on his head than brains inside of.

[bungerman1000]

And Milton Freedman was for a taxing carbon emissions??? haha the right has fallen off the cliff.

[bungerman1000]

Aaaaand his argument falls apart 1:29 in. The air bag mandate would be so when a person that isn't insured gets into a wreck and we as a society airlift him to the hospital and give him emergency surgery, we don't all have to pay for that if he has an airbag instead and lives through the incident. It's about saving us all money.

[Tpathpslm557]

@bungerman1000 That's a problem with socialized medicine, not lack of regulation.

[bweazel]

So Milton Friedman supported a carbon tax? Hmmmm, I don't like that one bit.

[karozans]

@bweazel

I don't think MF would either. We know that CO2 isn't a pollutant.

In the video he said "particulate".

You kinda have a tax now on you car.

All modern cars are made with catalytic converters and you have to get them emission tested every year.

That is basically a tax.

[bweazel]

@karozans 1:41. What he says is pollutants. And his reasoning for it sounds almost exactly what the carbon tax pushers say today. He says to impose a tax on the amount of pollutants emitted by a car. And make it in the self interest of the consumer and the business to keep down the amount of pollution they emit. In other words, make the old way of doing business more expensive than the way they want you to do business. Sounds like a carbon tax to me. Remember, this is back in the 80s.

[karozans]

@bweazel

Yes. MF says the word "pollutants". CO2 is not a "pollutant".

CO2 is a necessary gas for life on this planet.

So there would be NO tax on carbon emissions.

There are many way to impose a tax on pollution emission.  Cap and Tax is one way.

The other way is forcing automakers to install a $500 catalytic converter on every car and requiring a person to take their car in and pay for emissions testing. Just like you have to do today.

Did you even read what I wrote?

[bweazel]

@karozans Oh come on. The Feds do classify it as a pollutant, I'm sorry. He is advocating for the "carbon tax" of the day. Creating a bogus market for carbon offsets is not going to do anything but make things more expensive and make some well placed people rich. Yes, I'm reading everything you wrote. You didn't seem to read a single thing I wrote. Friedman is arguing for a carbon tax, period.

[karozans]

@bweazel

Just because the feds classify CO2 as a pollutant doesn't mean that it is.

You're and idiot if you think MF is advocating for a carbon cap and tax.

[ffrank345]

@karozans You're an idiot if you think that he isnt. Your first statement means nothing, if the feds are the ones writing the tax. THATS the problem. That's what Cap and Trade is.... the forced tax on carbon emmisions... otherwise the forced purchase of carbon credits.

[karozans]

@ffrank345

I have listened to dozens of talks by MF and nothing leads me to believe that he wants Cap and Tax.

I am smart enough to understand the difference between a direct tax like Cap and Tax, and an indirect tax like a catalytic converter. Everyone else here seems to know what MF wants except you.

MF wouldn't want the gov. deciding what is or is not a pollutant.

MF would want the public to decide and then have the government enforce the decision. Not the other way around.

[ffrank345]

@karozans I've listened to most of them too. He's one of the reason for why I think the way I do.But dont let your admiration for a man,blind you of what he said. Don't support the words a person says, even if those words are wrong. I'm almost CERTAIN that "MF" would regret to have said that. But HE DID. He, perhaps because he was on the spot and didnt think of it before, described a system that would work EXACTLY the way cap and tax/trade was supposed to.Dont be a sheep,to any shepard

[karozans]

@ffrank345

Well you are the only one here that thinks he said that.

So I am not terribly worried.

[ffrank345]

@karozans OK. I'm the ONLY one here that thinks it.... even though I replied to one of your comments that you made during an argument with somebody else who thinks it. but keep up the blind faith. Too bad Freidman wasnt still around, he could get you to do anyting now.

[karozans]

@ffrank345

I'll give MF the benefit of the doubt over you any day.

[Siegetower]

@ffrank345 Just reading your conversation with karozans but I'm sorry I don't agree with you either.

[liberaustrian]

@ffrank345 I agree. The first thing I thought of when I heard him give his model for environmental regulation was cap and trade.

[XF540]

@bweazel He didn't. His argument was in favor of NOT having clean air systems, because Donahue said "how do you put a price on partiulate matter?" "You have it now, $500 per car." He was saying that the tax Donahue wanted was already implemented and a price was set. He's not in favor of a carbon tax because it can't be quantified, is he argument. How do you set the price when you can't define hard numbers and effects?

[bweazel]

@XF540 He did. 1:41. Yes, he said instead of imposing it with cumbersome rules and regulations, instead set a tax on the amount of pollutants a car emits. That is almost exactly what he says. Yes, exactly, Donahue is the only one thinking logically here, Friedman (in this instance) is being an ideologue. I think you need to listen to Friedman's argument again.

Exactly, that's what Donahue asked, and Friedman ignored the question by changing the subject. He does that a lot in debate.

[bweazel]

@XF540 Friedman was a clever debater. Look what happened here. Donahue didn't really know what he was against, Friedman put him in the place of being for the clean air systems after Donahue asked him how do you quantify particulate matter coming out of a tailpipe. In that instance, Friedman switched from advocating for emission controls to arguing against clean air systems.

You need to be on your toes. I have no doubt Friedman helped brainstorm many of our headaches we have today.

[XF540]

@bweazel Boy have you got your head screwed on backwards.

[bungerman1000]

@bweazel go look at his negative income tax and get back to me.

[bweazel]

@bungerman1000 His negative income tax has nothing to do with what I just said, thanks.

[TheMarksmenCat]

at the end - OWNED!

[LunaticFringe20]

@8chxBLhJDy9 Phil Donahue? Yep, still clueless.

[SkullOfYorick]

Does anyone know to what extent Friedman wanted to privatize property? Did he believe that all property should be private? If so, how did he address the fear that people might have to pay just to go outside their homes?

[sucktdeep]

"There is a case for government" Such a shame Friedman was a sellout.

[LouigiVerona]

@sucktdeep I don't know. I think he was sincere in his views.

[Mezey5]

@8chxBLhJDy9 even more so

[countupir]

the one person who voted "dislikes" this video is obama

[sucktdeep]

@countupir nope, im an anarchist and i vehemently disagree with miltons position that the government should have a hand in economics.

[fyrewolffe]

@sucktdeep

Milton Friedman's position is the polar opposite of your statement. His position was always that the government should leave the economy alone, and that the free market regulates itself far more effectively than the government ever could.

[sucktdeep]

@fyrewolffe polar opposite ? he clearly said that there is a case for government and that the government should tax.

[fyrewolffe]

@sucktdeep Governments have the inherent right to tax. As much as I am for the idea of limited government, even I recognize the legitimacy of taxation, I am merely opposed to the taxation of labor (yet I support the taxation of consumption)!

[fyrewolffe]

@sucktdeep

P.S. There is always a case for government, they establish the courts that provide recourse to those who are defrauded or harmed by the actions of a third party. The Founding Fathers were astute enough to realize that government is indeed a "necessary evil", lest liberty would be unobtainable to the masses.

[helltrackrider]

@fyrewolffe

You mean the judicial system which is funded by theft from everyone to provide recourse for those who are stolen from?

Makes perfect sense.

[sucktdeep]

@fyrewolffe courts existed long before any type of governments have.

[fyrewolffe]

@sucktdeep

You claim that courts existed before governments? Considering that courts are institutions of governments, I highly doubt your claims. If you can substantiate this claim, then cite historical references.

[sucktdeep]

@fyrewolffe oh how truly free the masses are.

[fyrewolffe]

@sucktdeep

The masses are far more liberated than those residing in any anarchist system. Case in point, Somalia is a recognized anarchy with no established government. The masses remain at the mercy of the warlords, the criminals and the thugs. How free are they really? Residing under some form of government, we're able to leave our homes freely with the reasonable expectation that our homes won't be plundered, or families massacred, in our absence.

[UngratefulLiving420]

Being very fond of libertarianism, Friedman should have presented his argument in another way @ 3:35. He should have cited the public's RESPONSE to Nader's book, and how sales of the vehicle declined after the book came out, before the government ever did their investigation. This would be proof that the free market DOES solve issues like unsafe cars, since making them is putting the company's reputation (and profits) at risk.

[napoleonseven]

@8chxBLhJDy9 Like every talk show host on television.

[bxjam85]

I wonder what Friedman thought about "free trade". Seeing that he was for lassiez-faire capitalism, I would expect him to be for "free trade". I'm against free-trade. U.S. tariffs remained high throughout its industrialization.

[fzqlcs]

@bxjam85 Friedman advocated free trade. He supported economic, political and social freedom.

[bxjam85]

@fzqlcs I agree with much of what Friedman advocated, but his concept of freedom is mediocre and idealistic.

[karozans]

@bxjam85

Sounds like something a tyrant would say.

[bxjam85]

@karozans Coming from a liberal, I'll take that as a compliment. Let me guess, a government where only male citizens that own a minimum required amount of land can vote is also tyrannical to you, correct?

[karozans]

@bxjam85

Boy are you dumb.

How did you come to the conclusion that I am a Liberal?

If you visit my page you'll see exactly what I am.

I haven't the foggiest idea what your question is in reference to.

[bxjam85]

@karozans I meant liberal as in classical liberal, not social liberal you jackass. For the sake of communication, I'll call you a libertarian, which is basically the same thing as a classical liberal. My question is referring to your use of the loaded term "tyrant". In the modern era, the word tyrant is used to refer to any public policy or form of government that someone opposes. 

[karozans]

@bxjam85

Libertarian is good.  I want no association with the word "liberal" at all.

I am not interested in your definition of "tyrant".

I use the one in websters.

"A tyrant is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution."

[bxjam85]

@karozans It looks like you just now decided to look up the definition of the word. Here's the second dictionary definition: a ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. With that definition in mind, what the hell does the word tyrant have to do with what I said about Friedman's concept of liberty being mediocre and idealistic?

[karozans]

@bxjam85

Yea. That's why I attributed it to Websters and why I put it in quotes.

Is there a problem?

Liberty is not mediocre nor idealistic. Milton Friedman was the worlds strongest supporter of Freedom and Liberty.

Either you have Liberty or you have tyranny.

"Tyrant" is the root of tyranny. Tyrants have/create tyranny. Get it now?

[groam6666]

@bxjam85 Consumer and industrial goods are much higher in those countries with high tariffs. So you become better off with high tariffs in one dimension in terms of employment. The trap is that no country can produce all it's goods and services and expect prices to remain the same. Lower prices through free trade, will free up labor and capital to be used to produce other goods. Tariffs also lower competition, which industrialists love since they can then corner the market.

[bxjam85]

@groam6666 I agree. I'm not advocating extreme protectionism like classical mercantilism, but "free-trade" is a sham. Protectionism is what helped nations like the U.S., Britain, Germany, Japan, South Korea and China industrialize and sustain their economic growth.

watch?v=kBUvwNYeer4&list=LLdYD­sA57_Nf_suv5hUSj96Q&index=23&f­eature=plpp_video

[groam6666]

@bxjam85 I watched the video. Many good points and legitimate arguments.

1st- a lot of poor countries are poor due to their governments own corruption.

2nd- many countries (mostly the EU) discriminate on final goods produced in poor continents, such as Africa through tariffs up to 300%.

3rd. We don't have free trade, we made significant strives towards it, but the video is right, we simply don't have it.

4th. Ron Paul nailed it at the end.

[bxjam85]

@groam6666 Exactly. Free trade is a merely theoretical phrase. The real world is one of trade agreements. In practice, "free trade" means that large corporations cut deals with large foreign corporations in order to exploit foreign and domestic economies.

[groam6666]

@bxjam85 Pretty much. Although, I am a staunch capitalist and advocate of free trade in it's true sense. America has been coned to thinking that free trade means the "status quo" but, it's not the same as free trade. I still agree with Friedman on every point, it's just that we haven't practiced free trade and limited govt without another plot to enrich a few bankers and CEO's.

[bxjam85]

@groam6666 That's the problem. Free trade is nothing more than a theoretical phrase. The outcomes that the video highlighted are the natural outcomes of free trade. The reason why free trade merely amounts to theory is because unrestrained corporations take advantage of it, which is to be expected. The only way to stop that outcome is to enact protectionist policies on foreign trade between nations.

[rcdny]

@bxjam85 how do corporations advantage of free trade? should be also concerned with trade between the states?

[bxjam85]

@rcdny Copy and paste the URL below and it will explain everything.

watch?v=kBUvwNYeer4&list=LLdYD­sA57_Nf_suv5hUSj96Q&index=25&f­eature=plpp_video

[groam6666]

@bxjam85 My main gripe is with the notion that poor countries should practice protectionism. You make a good point, tariffs lead to our industrial revolution. But, that industrialization took almost 200 years to get to the level we are at. Poor countries would be better served making themselves attractive investments, and not having to go through an industrial revolution. We're selfish really, we want companies to stay here, instead of giving opportunities to poor countries.

[bxjam85]

@groam6666 There's nothing wrong with being self-interested. Poor countries should practice the amount of protectionism necessary in order to grow and stabilize their economies. Their main problem is political corruption due to the failure of democracy in many third world countries. Most of the financial lending and charity we give to third world countries goes to waste because of their political instability.

[superlucci]

Anarchism can never work because there is no governing body that can do anything.

You are advocating for a lawless society where people can go out and murder each other for the hell of it.

ANd nobody is going to stand outside their property and defend it every second of every day of every year.

We already know you cant have ultimate freedom, because that would be Anarchy, however due to us living in a government, we have already accepted this, now we just to be the freest as possible

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

What would motivate a person to "go out and murder" someone for the hell of it?

Do you honestly feel that there would be NO negative recourse in doing so?

Fact is...you are supporting theft and force as a virtue; as such...it is only logical to assume that what is virtuous for one person to do is virtuous for another...so, why is it illegal for me to steal?...for me to kill?...for me to kidnap? in todays society with a Government?...Doesnt the Government do all these?

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider Anything can motivate somebody.

Once again, whether there is a negative recourse or not depends entirely upon the people, not any law, that would bind somebody like a police officer to do, therefore it cant work.

I dont support it as a virtue. I use common sense to realize we need a government. Now that we got the ultimate freedom out of the way, we must determine how much freedom to keep.

You need to have some order in society. In anarchy, you have no order. Therefore fails

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

Order is not created by Government...look around you.

Order is created by human interaction.

So...you accept that theft is a necessity in society?...Why then, is it illegal for me to steal from another man?...Afterall, it is not the "Government" stealing from me...it is another man hiding behind the word "Government".

Government doesnt exist...people using violence or the threat of violence to coerse others exist; hiding behind the word "Government"

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider I accept that theft by government in order to collect taxes is a necessary evil.

Because you dont have the power to do so under our Constitution, which is our founding document which law out the laws me must follow.

Humans make up the government yes, but the humans can be easily replaceable, its the system that is doing this. However we must accept that we must give up taxes.

Well you dont have to, just dont live in the US if you dont like our Constitution.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

Can you explain to me what "Government" is?...I mean, when you break it down - it is one person stealing from another person; the shiny badge and uniform do not entitle that person to another person wealth...so, that shiny badge wearing person is in fact stealing - by definition; regardless of the term or ideology called "Government"

Fact is; "Government" is a non-existent entity

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider Obviously its people doing this, however they are given permission to do so by the Constitution, and each agency has its own rules to follow, for if they disobey, they get punished.

Nobody is exempt from following the laws.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

Did you sign the Constitution?...Did you grant authority for another party to take 50% of your income?...I dont believe you did.

Without permission; there is no legitimate authority over another.

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider I dont need to sign the Constitution in order for me to know I have to follow it.

If you dont want to follow the Constitution, then you can always live in the mountains or just go away to some random foreign land.

Who defines what legitimate is?

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@superlucci

Hi Superlucci. You are wrong. A society without a government would still have laws, just like our society has many laws in the private sector. You should read the book Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. It explains to you exactly how private law works and why you would have protection against murder, theft etc. I have sent you the book in your inbox :) the book is 64 pages. read it and know that you understand anarcism better than most anarchists. Also, you will be excited

[Panpiper]

If they'd left it to Detroit, maybe Detroit would still be making cars?

[helltrackrider]

As much as Friedman tries to allocate for a "Free Market"....he cannot let go of the fact that Government is NOT necessary anywhere...period.

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider You believe in Anarchism?

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@superlucci

Hi Superlucci, I dont believe in Anarchism, I find it the only system that can be moral.

[superlucci]

@niklasbastholmhansen How can a lawless society be moral? Where there is nothing stopping people from killing each other?

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@superlucci

Hi Superklucci, Anarchism is not a lawless society its a stateless society. Anarchism has private laws, no coersive laws that you have not subjected yourself to.

[superlucci]

@niklasbastholmhansen Who creates those laws? Some ruling power must have.

Why must one follow a contract if it does not get enforced? What happens if you hire me to do something, but then dont pay me when i do the service?

WHat happens then?

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@superlucci

Hi Superlucci. These are great questions but you could actually come up with even better questions. Your answers are easy to answer. You should read the book I sent you, it answers these questions and it is only 64 pages long. Give it a shot man :) Just do it. read it right now.

[agent008t]

@niklasbastholmhansen Thanks for the link, I'll read the book.

However - isn't the very existence of the State, or the prevalence of tyranny around the world - evidence that anarcho-capitalism would not work out?

Isn't it only through having the government with monopoly on force, and somehow having the right people in the government that would only use force for just reasons, that a free market can be created?

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@agent008t

Wow you are smarter than most people. That is a very intelligent point and you are partly right. The existence of a state everywhere in the world suggests that there is a natural force that helps the state grow. That is completely correct. the force that helps government is the fact that it is easier to steal than to make yourself. As long as this is the case anarchism is impossible. The state would come back. As productivity grows it is easier to keep the state away

[agent008t]

@niklasbastholmhansen Thanks. The question that really bugs me is that after thousands of years, we still haven't devised a stable political system that would always make it profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing and preserve liberty.

I guess anarchism, like minarchism or indeed any form of liberty is only possible in an intelligent, cultured, educated society where every citizen understands the importance of the founding principles. Impossible but something we can aim for.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@agent008t

You are completely right. there is however, great great differences between minarchism and anarchism even though it seems like the difference is very small. When laws are produced privately you have competition for the best laws, which will get rid of bad laws. This is impossible with public law which Minarchism will be based on. Also, minarchism is impossible to sustain. Someone will quickly seek special benefits and you will be heading towards socialism in no time.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@agent008t

I also searched for the best political system for many years :) This is why there is an anarchist joke that goes like this: "What is the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?" Answer: 10 years of hair pulling.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

Here you pose a question...which, by a market place is seen as a "need"...thus, the market place will devise a service to fill this need.

Rating Agencies, for example, would be created to "rate" peoples morality and trustworthiness in varying transactions...those who carry a low (or no) rating would be held to a greater risk than those who carry a higher rating...and in order to reduce risks, businesses and people would share ratings quite frequently.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

Insurance companies would also exist to assign a cost to the risk of the individual and the contract at hand...your contract with niklas could very easily be insured and if he opts to not pay; your insurance company would cover the loss and assign a rsikier rating to niklas (which would be shared amongst other insurance companies) making it more difficult for niklas to enter into future contracts due to his limitations on getting a reasonable insurance rate.

[superlucci]

@helltrackrider And who issues out justice to anybody who would harm another?

Your rating system doesnt prevent nor give justice.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

I know your rebuttal..."That would be an incredible cost to purchase insurance for every contract"

It would be a much more affordable cost than 50% of your income that is being stolen currently.

[helltrackrider]

@superlucci

I dont "belive" in anything; this implies that my stance is merely a physiological truth ... like "I believe in Santa Claus or God"

It is an understood truth that Government is not necessary - the "services" that Government provides may be necessary; but the means to provide these services is not - the means being the ideology known as "Government"

Coersion and aggression are NOT necessary - nor acceptable - means to provide a service.

[metzger90]

@helltrackrider Who will defend us if nuclear missiles rain down from the sky? Who will fund the military that fights in the trenches during wars. There are limited roles for government. If we can create a unified, worldwide, anarchist anti-state then sure, but as long is there is one government left on earth, a free society will need a government for military to keep it free.

[helltrackrider]

@metzger90

1) Government and Free cannot be used together; they are similar to mixing oil and water.

2) Why would a "Government" want to infiltrate a land of truly free people?...knowing that the people of which they are trying to infiltrate are not submissive to authority and are not in agreement that violence is a virtue?...Do you understand the immense cost associated with this venture?...It would bankrupt any nation state - look at the Soviet Union for a great example.

[helltrackrider]

@metzger90

The previous mentioned points aside...

How is it morally sound to steal from someone to "protect" them from a non-inevitable attack against them?...Should theft be seen as virtuous; then why is it wrong for me to steal from my neighbor and in return - cut his yard and trim his hedges?..this is a necessary service after all.

[Panpiper]

@metzger90 "Free society" and "government" are an oxymoron, they are incompatible opposites. As for how a free society could be defended without government, first off, there would be little motive to attack. Leaving that aside, can you honestly think someone would find a society a military pushover that has a heavily armed, distributed guerrilla resistance formed out of vast numbers of gun clubs, militias, neighborhood watches, paintball gamers, private security firms, etc.?

[helltrackrider]

@Panpiper

Also...i'd like to add that currently; more money (almost double) is spent in the private sector on local security than is spent by the local governments in providing police.

This is an amazing feat considering at least 70%-80% (my estimate) of the police budget goes towards the prevention of victimless crimes.

Not to mention this amount of wealth is being spent after a considerable portion is stolen in taxes to PROVDE PROTECTION...that is obviously not being provided.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@metzger90

Hi Metzger, I have sent you the book "Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy". The pages 43-64 is about private defense and there is a chapter about nuclear defense. Read it, and you will find that not only is private defense better its the only that works.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@helltrackrider

I agree. Not only is government unnecessary, it is inherently evil. It is funny that we accept the word "government" when in fact it is just a "Mafia" organization. Interesting how words are invented to obfuscate the true actions. Anarcho Capitalism FTW.

[agent008t]

@niklasbastholmhansen But organized crime groups exist to provide protection where the government refuses to (for example, prostitution, or drug trade). Protection is a service that society needs. Only problem is that such rackets can only compete using violence. Wars between countries is one example of that.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

@agent008t

You are wrong. Government is a racket, it is the Mafia itself. In a society with high levels of productivity the mafia would not be able to compete using violence. If you are genuinely interested in understanding anarchism yopu can read the book I just sent you. Its free. Its 64 pages that explains to you how society would function without a government. It would be great, its very practical and it also shows what would be a challenge. trust me, you will be surprised.

[helltrackrider]

@agent008t

These "protection services" compete with violence because the services they are protecting are deemed illegal by the Government...so the obvious result is high profit potential for "protective services" as the market to offer these services is illegal...what always happens with activities that are classified as "immoral" by society through arbitrary laws?...they draw the violent sociopathic individuals in.

Similar to Government; full of sociopaths who adore violence.

[june372]

@helltrackrider Obviously. You say that like it's a flaw in his argument.

[Panpiper]

@helltrackrider In a mainstream public medium like such a show, if someone like Friedman came out in favor of zero government, he would simply be considered a kook and never interviewed again. Mainstream society needs to be exposed to baby steps, anything else will simply not be exposed. Full blown anarchist preaching is for the most part, simply preaching to the choir; that discussion goes to the already 90% convinced of hard core libertarians.

[helltrackrider]

@Panpiper

Baby steps to remove theft and violence?

Imagine if we took this approach in our personal lives...wouldnt work out to well.

[Panpiper]

@helltrackrider Society evolves incrementally, that's just reality. We need the Ron Pauls and the Friedmans of the world to introduce the idea of freedom in small enough doses that the public at large can find them palatable. And we need the Stefan Molyneuxs and Adam Kokeshs to then take the partially converted the rest of the way. It is not the case that 'everyone' must preach purist anarchism. Indeed that would be a far less effective strategy.

[helltrackrider]

@Panpiper

Yep...it incrementally evolved from a "minimal" Government (The Constitution) to this shit hole we have today.

Freedom cannot come from legitimized violence; only more violence can come from this...Once the masses understand that them voting for someone else to do the dirty work will result in them getting MORE shit via theft from the productive people...do you honestly think that the masses are going to relenquish this?...Look at Unions - tell me they are going away.

[kmelfina]

@selfrealizedexile no I'm just asking. I like Friedman, I just don't know if corporations would run the rest of us into a ditch unless the people can speak for themselves economically (choosing not to shop there = company would surely lower prices).

[bigfatgoider]

I want an Adam Smith tie.

[kmelfina]

so no regulation =/= corporations can just jack up prices so no one but a few who can buy, pollute the environment for profit, and give slave wages in order for Americans to have a job?

[Panpiper]

@kmelfina Any company, including corporations, that jacks up prices higher than the competition will quickly find themselves out of business. If they offer less wages than others who want to start or grow businesses, they will quickly find themselves without employees. Market forces keep prices as low and wages as high as they can reasonably be. Learn basic supply and demand. It's not theory, it's a law.

[kmelfina]

@Panpiper thanks. Well that answers from all the fear-mongering I've been taught my entire life.