@SumanuitLudjak Deciding if you killed the motorcyclist would be determined by whose fault it was that caused the mishap. The wreck itself effects a third party, but the helmet only effects the individual who chose to wear it or not. So the answer is no.
So when I crash into a helmet-less motorcycle driver who then dies from head trauma? Do I still go to jail? Did I not kill a man? So how is no third party hurt by his suicidal behaviour?
@SumanutiLudjak What if he was wearing a helmet? What if the driver was driving an SUV? What if the driver was wearing a helmet, driving an SUV, and wearing his seatbelt? He would have a better chance of survival with the helmet, SUV, and seatbelt. Does that mean we should require by law that everyone should have to wear a helmet, a seatbelt, and drive an SUV? The driver and everyone else would have the best chance of survival if we made driving illegal altogether.. You see where I am getting at
@kahnk009 Yeah, but wearing helmets in SUV's and making driving illegal are not minor things that drastically decrease chances of injury/death. That alone does not justify the laws, but also, there usually is a third party involved in traffic accidents. Do you have a right to commit suicide by jumping in front of someone else's car?
I was following Friedman up until he posed the argument at 2:55. Then I really sat at the edge of my seat. But then he puts it off with some rhetoric. I guess the simple answer is that the government shouldn't pay for so much and that people should be responsible for their actions.
@Goodatconnect4 This is a philosophical struggle between collectivists how worship government control and manipulating of people versus those of use who laugh at the notion of 'groups' because groups are made up of individuals. Gov't exists to protect the rights of individuals, not as some fictious group that is used as a tool to tell others how you think they should live their own lives when they don't violate others natural rights. Statism vs. classic liberalism (a.k.a libertarianism)
@Goodatconnect4 Racism comes from collectivism, sexism comes from collectivism, wars come from collectivism, theft comes from collectivism. All the bad problems of the world today stem from this false notion of collectivism. The Borg is a great example of extreme collectivism. Hopefully you are no fan of the concept of the Borg. If you are I will defend myself with force against you and those you send after me if that is the case.
This logic is another reason I am not a Libertarian. Professor Friedman's logic works only if you accept his major premise---that we own our own bodies. In the view of the Torah, however, the body does not belong to us, (or to the US Gov't for that matter). It belongs to G-d, and it is on loan to us. We are required to take care of our bodies, and to exercise reasonable care in its use. We are not permitted to commit suicide, G-d forbid! The Torah specifically prohibits reckless behavior.
You are right, but there is grave danger in allowing government to serve as a proxy for G-d. In a society where the number of atheists and agnostics is growing, many have come to believe that government IS G-d, or that they must PLAY G-d because they visualize a world of chaos and injustice with no controlling force. This leads to idolatry, as in Newsweek's editor to refer to newly-elected Obama, "hovering over" the world, adding "He's kind of G-d."
I came to the exact same conclusion as the only conceivable justification for a helmet law from a conservative perspective. I was a much younger conservative at the time. I was thinking some government entity has to clean and process the accident mess. But then I thought there shouldn't be a government service that has to do that and then the helmet law could be unnecessary.
If I am in an accident with someone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet and I am found at fault, my insurance will have to pay out more for their death or increased injury than if they were properly protected. Therefore, I think seatbelt and helmet laws are appropriate unless we can agree that not wearing them immediately releases all other drivers and their insurance companies from any responsibility whatsoever in the case of accident.
@vynson I agree. Although it could be said that facing potentially harsh penalties for being at fault in an accident would discourage reckless driving.
If health care is socialized then any serious injury also creates serious costs for society, doing "financial harm" to others. That's the main reason for such laws, not protecting individuals or doing good.
My mother was pulled over for a seat belt violation while she was wearing it. The cop argued that he couldn't be sure from his position, so he ticketed her anyway. Great, now police are lying to give these out.
this videos only been posted yet 3 days and already 79 needs of lashing out. this is why commenting is not a useful way to communicate ideas. its just a place for people to vent non thought through emotionally based whines and desires for stumping. milton for one would not be thrilled at a constant flocking to every single of his videos but more so the simple act of thinking for yourself researching ideas &challenging yourself not a need to build up a cult hero! go fuck yourselves, respectfully!
@MrPatrioticUSA Paul krugman said that he regards milton friedman as a :"great economist and a great man" . Maybe you should look into topics before you try to score thumbs up with the classic: the dislikes are made by....
Money will come from tax payers to clean up the mess of the motorcycle rider, even if it first is delegated through government. Therefore, even if the government is involved, you and me will still pay the bill for the reckless motorcycle driver. It is naive to think that we are controlled by the government because of a helmet law. There are other ways the government abuses its power, but this one is a weak argument really.
@1nflamed Even if the motorcycle rider does wear a helmet. The resulting injuries that occur from motorcycle accidents are often still disastrous. Should we not, then, ban motorcycles altogether?
The per-mile deaths of motor cycle riders are about 30 times higher then car riders. The Every action we take in our lives creates some sort of risk for ourselves. Heck, just being outside is dangerous, over 8,000 people in the US die due to sun-caused skin cancer every year. Maybe we should make a law against going outside without wearing a hat!
I don't get these people. If you don't think riding a bike without a helmet is safe, then DON'T DO IT!, simple as that!
@Aliothemage Perhaps that is an underlying motive for the push towards a "single payer" heath care system. They could ban things they deem "unsafe" or "unhealthy," using the cost-to-society argument as justification... Just a thought.
@d0861 You know, compared to all other rules and regulations we are subjected to on a daily basis, I am amazed that it is legal to drive a two wheel crouch rocket at 100 km/h lol
@d0861 The point is to mitigate the risk involved in riding a motorcycle. Look at it this was if you know your going to be shot by a bullet its not a matter of if but when so why not choose the caliber of the bullet so its less lethal. By your same token of logic one can say we shoudl ban skateboarding because it causes to many fractures. No just wear kneepads and wrist pads to mitigate risk get it?
"The point is to mitigate the risk involved in riding a motorcycle"
No, that is YOUR prerogative. But you do NOT OWN OTHER PEOPLE. They can prioritize things over their own safety if they wish to.
"Helmet safety laws protect third parties from paying excessively"
You need to violate our rights to accomplish that? Insurance companies can just charge more for motor-cyclists, or insurance companies can just not cover motor brain damage costs for the helmet-less.
I agree that seatbelt laws are problematic but I am really split in this question, because on the other hand laws can promote social norms. In this case seatbelt laws promote the norm of seatbelt usage and this in turn is obviously a good norm. On the one hand we want people to have freedom over their lives, but on the other hand we also want people to take responsibility for their lives.
"we also want people to take responsibility for their lives."
Wouldn't that be best promoted by making people pay the full cost and receiving the full benefit of all their actions? The only law concerning these things should be that any cost a person's actions inflict on others should be paid by the person who caused the act.
@enevighet17 indeed, however The Soviets were Marxist.
The difference being that Socialism has a peppering of what looks and feels like Capitalism until the Government decides to take your business, home, land and then family.
Marxism they just take everything to start with and then starve everyone because we're all just animals to a Marxist.
I want motorcycle helmet laws enforced for the simple reason that if one were to get into an accident and contract brain damage then the tax payers will ultimately foot the bill for that brain injured for the rest of their life!!! That is a much more rational positon that Freidman's.
@fzqlcs People should be free to die in poor houses or in the streets as many did from hypothermia pre Social Security and that is at no cost to the rest of society. Yes we live in a society thus requires social regulations to be enacted for the welfare of the state it is a problem of humane behaviour. Those who think Ayn Rand had all the answers will ultimately find it resolves nothing but idealogical BS which conflicts with the reality of our modern world circumstance.
Nobody dies of hypothermia any more? Lol, hundreds of people die every year of hypothermia and other things because they lived irresponsibly. But having freedom means you have the freedom to err. Or should we only have the freedom to live like bubble boy?
The government is there to protect us from aggression from others, not to save us from our own decisions. The cost of freedom is self responsibility. Don't try to have you cake and eat it too.
@Aliothemage Government is there to protect us from others, well you said my friend! This would include the fact that legislative and enforced safety regulations shall protect us from the stupid dolts that would choose to drive a motorcycle without a helmet to grant the illusion of freedom of choice to err. Your reckless idealogy threatens my responsible choices which in turn will cost me some of my earned freedom dollars. I see it as a cost benefit analysis besides from the humane aspect.
"protect us from the stupid dolts that would choose to drive a motorcycle without a helmet"
How does THEM not wearing a helmet help preserve YOUR safety? Is his bear head dangerous to you? Please try to make SOME sense.
And yeah, businesses take risks to maximize profit, that is a GOOD thing. ALL ACTION takes risk, and we want businesses to take ALL the risks that are likely to be more beneficial then harmful. Without taking risks absolutely nothing would get done, literally.
@Aliothemage Is it your lack of reading comprehension or just ignoring what I am writing in response. I will try to make it simple so even you will understand. Helmet safety laws protect third parties from paying excessively for the absolute wreck of a human that's left over after an accident. If you've ever had exposure to what is brought into an emergency room after an accident, any motorized vehicle, you would comprehend the implicit collateral damage.
@DoctrinaBytes You're trying to apply a Libertarian solution to a problem of Socialism. Rather than not make tax payers foot the bill, you'd rather tell people what to do. Do not counter argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. If you do, then you should have no qualms about paying for the healthcare of someone who did not wear a seatbelt.
@LibertarianINT And the person who has no seatbelt pays for those who wear one and get injured anyway so it'd be prefectly fair. Everyone covers everyone elses backside.
@LibertarianINT You are an either or, its black or white no shade of gray huh? I guess in your world it would be just fine to not fund public schools or highways or even safety standards on steel that builds the bridges you would drive on. If you think the "libertain solution" is to do away with all regulations then go live in Haiti that worked out real well for them.
@DoctrinaBytes There are a lot of things wrong with your comment. Haiti is in no way a Libertarian society. If you knew what Libertarianism was, you'd know that. In my world you wouldn't need public schooling. But if you understood, you'd know eliminate public the DoE means take away federal power and let the states deal with public education. A business wouldn't use weak steal because of the threat of liability that would bankrupt them. But I do believe building codes are necessary.
@LibertarianINT Do you not think business have their own profit agenda, often they choose to ignore what is safe for simple measurable profits even though they have a slight chance of getting slapped with a law suit. More times than not the benefit outweighs the risk. Look into the oil disaster in the gulf and the memos between the 3 companies involved to see their choices will lead.
@DoctrinaBytes It's amazing how you disregard the fact that the 'regulators' still allowed the rig to be built. How were those regulations working? There's a point where you can't just blame business. Your government isn't infallible. The government saw the plan, gave the okay, and gave them safety awards. The businesses are owned by shareholders. If the government and the shareholders are not pro-active enough, do not put this squarely on the business.
@DoctrinaBytes YOU are a black or white no shade of gray person because of your one size fits all cookie cutter ideals not concerned with the individual and their situation. I believe that each person has different needs and they themselves are in the best position to find their own shade of grey. But please, spout hackneyed talking points until the cows come home. Now when did I say I believe in no regulation? Read up on the straw man fallacy, your picture should be somewhere there.
Haiti? Haiti is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, do you REALLY think them building new roads would be good for their people? They'd steal most of the money that goes to build the roads!
And why can't private businesses manage the roads? It doesn't take government force to build and pay for a road...
And why do we need non-competitive public schools when we could use a voucher system to provide education as well as inter-school competition and innovation?
@Aliothemage Is something so bad if its govt funded how about DARPA? You think private business would find it in their profit margins to start such a project. If that were the case we wouldn't have an internet to have thsi conversation. How about the Eisenhower freeway, another socialist govt funded program, you seriously think private companies would have decided to take on such a project? In regard to public schools the problem lies in the lowering of standards which apease affirmativeaction
Yeah, how about those subsidized roads which has encouraged our dependence of cars and oil and have in turn helped create global warming. That was a BRILLIANT idea!
And Yeah, private companies can and do take on huge projects like that, like the great northern transcontinental railroad which was built privately up in Canada.
And Public schools suck because they lack competition, it is an incredibly easy problem to fix.
What about the nature of a highway demands that you be given the power to violently impose your will on me and steal my money through taxation? Does NOT having that highway violate YOUR rights in some way? Not a chance, that highway is just CONVENIENT for you. You are arguing that we should throw out our HUMAN RIGHTS in favor of simple convenience!
@DoctrinaBytes "That is a much more rational positon that Freidman's."
Yeah, well, he addressed that argument, and you simply ignored his argument against it. So, who is more rational, he, who addressed your argument (even though he is long dead) or you, who avoided his full argument for not apparent reason?
@Aliothemage Miltons argument summed as "How can you justify safety requirements to protect the driver himself?" Whether he aserts that you can protect a third party from providing subisides and services by labeling each individual as a 'property of state'. Comon now you seriously think that is rationale? Yes according to Freidman (yes is dead =irrelevent to the discussion) a person is free to disregard safety at the expesne of others and the state should ignore the cost all the idea of liberty
I think you're a bit mixed up. He's not saying the state should ignore the costs an unsafe driver puts on others. He said that he doesn't want the state to assume the costs an unsafe driver applies to himself. That's why he would say it is OK for the state to ban drunk driving, because that can cost OTHER PEOPLE their lives, but it cannot make safety belt laws since only the person not wearing the safety belt is harmed by that action as long as the state doesn't pay for his care.
Who pays for his care? HE DOES, or his insurance agency, or anyone who volunteers to pay for him. If he can't pay then he'll have to declare bankruptcy like anyone who takes expensive risks and loses on those risks.
And yeah, DARPA shouldn't exist either. If it didn't then the free market would have more money to spend on research and we'd have MORE advanced technology then we do today. Most MILITARY technology fails to improve our lives in any meaningful way anyhow.
@Aliothemage The free market does not take on huge projects that DARPA can. For example, the rural electrification in 1935 - Private companies did'nt want to invest in wiring America for the farmers. Private companies had the idea there was no profit in provided elctricity to farmers. They thought they would huddle around a 60 watt bulb! Turns out agribusiness brought more money to the non profit co-ops and all of sudden the private companies scream socialism. True facts my friend.
"Private companies did'nt want to invest in wiring America for the farmers"
And neither did I. Why did I have to pay for that? Why are you stealing from me to subsidize other people's life styles? If the farmers wanted electricity so much then they'd pay for it. That gives them no right to steal from others. If a private company doesn't want to step in to provide a service like that it means its NOT WORTH DOING YET!
@Aliothemage By your logic "NOT WORTH DOING YET!" I am guessing the internet would not have come about until the year 2050(or later) and that the US modern agriculture that prospered our country would not have happned until a good 50 years. Good show knuckledragger the idealogical world you desire would be recessed by decades of progress.
Ohh please. Connecting two computers and getting them to talk to each other did NOT require massive govt spending. The computer industry moves PLENTY FAST without govt involvement and it would move FASTER if the government wasn't taxing them so much! Why do you think US tech is so far advanced? Other nations put larger % of their GDP in research, but our taxes are lower, allowing businesses to handle the research. The market is WAY more productive then the govt!
Did it require the govt to build the first plane? Light bulb? Telephone? sound recorder? The internal combustion engine? The assembly line? Hell no.
Would these things have occurred later on in history if the Federal govt had spending and taxing been about 50% of the US GDP as it does now instead of under 10% it did back in the Age of Invention? Of course!
Govt spending doesn't respond to market signals, thus it is ALWAYS less efficient then private spending!
Never really had a problem with being required to wear a seatbelt or helmet. But this guy has a point: we all have a right to our bodies, and thus we have a choice to do what we want with it, even if that choice puts us at risk.
See Milton Friedman is still a doofus from the grave. Get into a wreck without a seat belt=taking extra time to clean up your stupid assed body and inconveniencing others with a slowed downed highway with your dumbassery. Hell, you libertarians are such retards.
@robertmike57 Talk about a dumb fuck. YOU take the cake. Most people would wear seat belts because they value their own lives. But for you, saving your own lousy hide isn't good enough reason, you need to be threatened with a fine. For me, I want cops to be concerned with violations of rights, not acting as your nanny. In a free society, libertarians would thrive and pea brains like yourself, who yearn to be state slaves, could just get a conservator. That should work for everyone.
His argument is based on social atomization. Essentially The law is not merely “for one’s own good," since the whole, has different properties than an individual human. The argument is weak.
@AEVautomatic If you belong to someone, he's in charge of you and he'll want you as safe as possible. After all, you are his property. And you're useful. So, Protect yourself!
No, you've gotten it backwards. His argument is very individualistic. It argues that people own themselves exclusively and that the society as a whole can make no just claim on him and force him to do as he does not wish except to prevent him from directly harming others. His is a very strong argument.
You are right that the communal arguments are weak though.
@AEVautomatic Yeah boy we were just up in flames when we had drugs legal before. Any problems in transition would be mostly the fault of it being driven underground in the first place.
"but looks what effects the American system will suffer if tons of drugs are pumped into it."
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many millions of lives have been destroyed by the drug LAWS? The drug war is one of the most disastrous, costly, and counter-productive attempts at social-engineering that the govt has ever tried!
Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs back in 2001 and drug use, especially among the young, has DECREASED. You need to research that a bit.
@Aliothemage If the ‘communal’ argument is weak and the viability of the American system effects the individual then his ‘individualistic’ argument is weak.
@AEVautomatic "If the ‘communal’ argument is weak and the viability of the American system effects the individual then his ‘individualistic’ argument is weak."
Why? He isn't making a communal argument. Communal arguments are weak because communities are just made up concepts without any intrinsic value. Individual humans DO have intrinsic value and should be respected and treated with dignity simply for being human. That's why we have human rights.
@AEVautomatic "Yes you provided nothing to back up what you said. My arguments were elucidated perfectly."
No, I'll second him about that. Your argument didn't really MAKE an argument, it just asserted something. And what is this "you must be a freshman", lol? That's about the least mature thing you could have possibly said! It makes YOU look like you must be the kid.
@CircleBastiat Your argument structure is atrocious. “In my opinion and I am too stupid to understand a simple philosophical argument therefore we can’t take you seriously.” That is the worst ad hominem I have seen in my life. In addition to that, You don’t even attempt to justify Milton’s social atomistic position-
@CircleBastiat that crises that took place in the liability insurance system and the tort law including their mutual operation were predictable. These brought changes in these systems and shifted the role of a person who is in fault and the injured one. These changes made both people eligible for getting an insurance payment.
@CircleBastiat Thus industrial objects that are not likely to bear their responsibility for producing something not in accordance with established standards that should be punished in accordance with the criminal law. So we establish here an important point.
@CircleBastiat People that wanted neither to buy insurance nor to pay costs to the injured party in the case of accident were numerous. To avoid different problems and guarantee the payment of compensation authorities made all people pay insurance premiums. The premiums were paid in small parts to avoid public criticism. However, one of the most criticized aspects of the insurance system change is its organization in accordance with human values, beliefs, and expectations.
@AEVautomatic The whole may well have properties that are different from an individual (not something that Friedman denied) but I have failed to get a whole to pay the costs of something. Apparently, one of the properties that individuals have and that wholes don't is that individuals can pay costs.
Friedman argues the opposite of the law being for one's own good: that the place of the law is to protect us from others, not ourselves.
Else, why not illegalise alcohol, soda, football etc.?
@Myndir "Friedman argues the opposite of the law being for one's own good: that the place of the law is to protect us from others, not ourselves."
Actually, he argues that being left alone IS what is good for each one of us in the long run.
If the govt kept us all in incubation chambers to make sure we were all safe all the time, we'd obviously all be worse off even if out lives were a lot longer due to it.
Coercing you? Yep, you're right. But it would be doing so in the name of protecting you, just the same way it does with bike helmet laws. It coerces us into wearing helmets against our will, but it excuses its behavior by claiming it knows better then we do what is good for us and that this gives it the right to force us to do what it wants.
The principle in my hypothetical and helmet laws remains the same. You can't consistently advocate/criticize one without the other.
Milton was a brilliant man who had a masterful way to connect and explain complex economic and philosophical topics to anyone. We need more like him (hopefully more of the Austrian school of thought).
@airfalcon True in his younger years but listen or read what he was saying in the last decade or so of his life, he had moved towards many of their positions, not really disagreeing with you but I found it interesting how he seemed to change his views a bit.
Well, he gets to the essential point, but I fear it may be lost on many. It is not that laws such as seat belt and helmet laws are unjust, they are in fact warranted IF we are living in a nanny state that coddles us from cradle to grave. If we expect the state to assume responsibility for our needs, then the state MUST assume responsibility for our freedoms as well. One necessarily requires the other. We have no choice, if we would have freedom, we cannot have nanny government.
@Panpiper but the problem lies here....NO ONE ASKED the govt to assume responsibility. They took it thru stealth and manipulation. They simply wanted FULL control so they created laws to control us ....laws which are ridiculous such as a licence to go fishing or to have a garage/boot sale or to have a lemonade stall on YOUR property. The list goes on.
@Badwolf182 Playing devil's advocate here, as I really am a minarchist verging on anarchist; from the perspective of government, they ask us each election. While ultimately we choose some middle of the road statist, they would defend that that 'middle' moves with the consensus of society. If the majority of society truly desired a minimal libertarian government, the middle of the road that would win would be decidedly libertarian. Ultimately the solution is educating the public.
@Panpiper well who controls education?. Personally, I believe the elections are a simple PR exercise. It matters not who u vote for bcoz the govt always gets in! The corporations runs our nations! In turn our schools are used for corporate needs and to indoctrinate future generations into whatever way they want society shaped as they change.influence and manipulate kids into whatever way they choose. They chose to educate the lats gens for sonsumerism and thats exactly wha we have :)
@Badwolf182 To the extent that we deny our own responsibility to effect change, we impede it. We have at our disposal the most god awful educational tool ever devised by man, the Internet in all it's myriad aspects. Yes, the statists control the public schools, but most kids figure out quickly that what they are being fed there is a whole load of useless waste of time. They are themselves deprived of freedom, and they hunger for a taste of it. They hunger for a dose of truth.
OMG! That crowd is a ROUGH one in the 70's. Neck brace and sunglasses! lol
ouluvme2 1 week ago
@SumanuitLudjak Deciding if you killed the motorcyclist would be determined by whose fault it was that caused the mishap. The wreck itself effects a third party, but the helmet only effects the individual who chose to wear it or not. So the answer is no.
GodDamnit7711 2 weeks ago
So when I crash into a helmet-less motorcycle driver who then dies from head trauma? Do I still go to jail? Did I not kill a man? So how is no third party hurt by his suicidal behaviour?
SumanutiLudjak 1 month ago
@SumanutiLudjak What if he was wearing a helmet? What if the driver was driving an SUV? What if the driver was wearing a helmet, driving an SUV, and wearing his seatbelt? He would have a better chance of survival with the helmet, SUV, and seatbelt. Does that mean we should require by law that everyone should have to wear a helmet, a seatbelt, and drive an SUV? The driver and everyone else would have the best chance of survival if we made driving illegal altogether.. You see where I am getting at
kahnk009 4 weeks ago
@kahnk009 Yeah, but wearing helmets in SUV's and making driving illegal are not minor things that drastically decrease chances of injury/death. That alone does not justify the laws, but also, there usually is a third party involved in traffic accidents. Do you have a right to commit suicide by jumping in front of someone else's car?
SumanutiLudjak 3 weeks ago
@SumanutiLudjak
you should probably reconsider crashing into people to begin with.
carnut666 3 weeks ago
The answer is insurance companies.
testmark1 3 months ago
I was following Friedman up until he posed the argument at 2:55. Then I really sat at the edge of my seat. But then he puts it off with some rhetoric. I guess the simple answer is that the government shouldn't pay for so much and that people should be responsible for their actions.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 This is a philosophical struggle between collectivists how worship government control and manipulating of people versus those of use who laugh at the notion of 'groups' because groups are made up of individuals. Gov't exists to protect the rights of individuals, not as some fictious group that is used as a tool to tell others how you think they should live their own lives when they don't violate others natural rights. Statism vs. classic liberalism (a.k.a libertarianism)
residentzombie 1 month ago
@Goodatconnect4 Racism comes from collectivism, sexism comes from collectivism, wars come from collectivism, theft comes from collectivism. All the bad problems of the world today stem from this false notion of collectivism. The Borg is a great example of extreme collectivism. Hopefully you are no fan of the concept of the Borg. If you are I will defend myself with force against you and those you send after me if that is the case.
residentzombie 1 month ago
Comment removed
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
look it's a profound head floating around a black background!
AmandaFeetJeansFan 8 months ago
You are free to believe anything you wish or desire. That doesn't make it true, however.
edzaslow 8 months ago
This logic is another reason I am not a Libertarian. Professor Friedman's logic works only if you accept his major premise---that we own our own bodies. In the view of the Torah, however, the body does not belong to us, (or to the US Gov't for that matter). It belongs to G-d, and it is on loan to us. We are required to take care of our bodies, and to exercise reasonable care in its use. We are not permitted to commit suicide, G-d forbid! The Torah specifically prohibits reckless behavior.
edzaslow 8 months ago
@edzaslow I will thank you not to impose your primitive idea of god on me.
fzqlcs 8 months ago
@edzaslow
You are right, but there is grave danger in allowing government to serve as a proxy for G-d. In a society where the number of atheists and agnostics is growing, many have come to believe that government IS G-d, or that they must PLAY G-d because they visualize a world of chaos and injustice with no controlling force. This leads to idolatry, as in Newsweek's editor to refer to newly-elected Obama, "hovering over" the world, adding "He's kind of G-d."
hennypenny247 8 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@edzaslow So what? Not everyone goes to hell. Their punishment is on the day of judgment.
testmark1 3 months ago
I was amused he made that point. I felt like I discovered the best Answer for that situation on my own.
ridiculusstimulus 9 months ago
I came to the exact same conclusion as the only conceivable justification for a helmet law from a conservative perspective. I was a much younger conservative at the time. I was thinking some government entity has to clean and process the accident mess. But then I thought there shouldn't be a government service that has to do that and then the helmet law could be unnecessary.
ridiculusstimulus 9 months ago
If I am in an accident with someone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet and I am found at fault, my insurance will have to pay out more for their death or increased injury than if they were properly protected. Therefore, I think seatbelt and helmet laws are appropriate unless we can agree that not wearing them immediately releases all other drivers and their insurance companies from any responsibility whatsoever in the case of accident.
vynson 1 year ago
@vynson yes, and you should also have to wear a bullet-proof vest to minimize my liability in case I were to shoot you.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs nothing like a completely irrational non sequitur to make yourself look like a complete moron, eh fzqlcs?
vynson 1 year ago
@vynson Yes! My point precisely.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@vynson I agree. Although it could be said that facing potentially harsh penalties for being at fault in an accident would discourage reckless driving.
liamunderscoret 10 months ago
If health care is socialized then any serious injury also creates serious costs for society, doing "financial harm" to others. That's the main reason for such laws, not protecting individuals or doing good.
ungerik 1 year ago
My mother was pulled over for a seat belt violation while she was wearing it. The cop argued that he couldn't be sure from his position, so he ticketed her anyway. Great, now police are lying to give these out.
Polarcupcheck 1 year ago 2
Absolutely brilliant!
netster007z 1 year ago 16
this videos only been posted yet 3 days and already 79 needs of lashing out. this is why commenting is not a useful way to communicate ideas. its just a place for people to vent non thought through emotionally based whines and desires for stumping. milton for one would not be thrilled at a constant flocking to every single of his videos but more so the simple act of thinking for yourself researching ideas &challenging yourself not a need to build up a cult hero! go fuck yourselves, respectfully!
tophernates 1 year ago
There's obviously one person that watched this that considers themselves property of the US government!!
HOLY CWAP!!!!
ricadrew 1 year ago
1 person disliked this video? Oh, you've just crossed the line Paul Krugman!
MrPatrioticUSA 1 year ago 34
@MrPatrioticUSA Paul krugman said that he regards milton friedman as a :"great economist and a great man" . Maybe you should look into topics before you try to score thumbs up with the classic: the dislikes are made by....
VtjeP 3 weeks ago
@VtjeP 3xw d0t nybooks d0t c0m/ articles /archives/ 2007 /feb/ 15 /who-was-milton-friedman
VtjeP 3 weeks ago
Money will come from tax payers to clean up the mess of the motorcycle rider, even if it first is delegated through government. Therefore, even if the government is involved, you and me will still pay the bill for the reckless motorcycle driver. It is naive to think that we are controlled by the government because of a helmet law. There are other ways the government abuses its power, but this one is a weak argument really.
1nflamed 1 year ago 2
@1nflamed Totally agree!
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@1nflamed Even if the motorcycle rider does wear a helmet. The resulting injuries that occur from motorcycle accidents are often still disastrous. Should we not, then, ban motorcycles altogether?
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861Exactly!
The per-mile deaths of motor cycle riders are about 30 times higher then car riders. The Every action we take in our lives creates some sort of risk for ourselves. Heck, just being outside is dangerous, over 8,000 people in the US die due to sun-caused skin cancer every year. Maybe we should make a law against going outside without wearing a hat!
I don't get these people. If you don't think riding a bike without a helmet is safe, then DON'T DO IT!, simple as that!
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Perhaps that is an underlying motive for the push towards a "single payer" heath care system. They could ban things they deem "unsafe" or "unhealthy," using the cost-to-society argument as justification... Just a thought.
d0861 1 year ago
@d0861
I wouldn't be at all surprised. More government interference always seems to beget excuses for more government interference.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@d0861 You know, compared to all other rules and regulations we are subjected to on a daily basis, I am amazed that it is legal to drive a two wheel crouch rocket at 100 km/h lol
1nflamed 1 year ago
@d0861 The point is to mitigate the risk involved in riding a motorcycle. Look at it this was if you know your going to be shot by a bullet its not a matter of if but when so why not choose the caliber of the bullet so its less lethal. By your same token of logic one can say we shoudl ban skateboarding because it causes to many fractures. No just wear kneepads and wrist pads to mitigate risk get it?
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes ...
d0861 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
"The point is to mitigate the risk involved in riding a motorcycle"
No, that is YOUR prerogative. But you do NOT OWN OTHER PEOPLE. They can prioritize things over their own safety if they wish to.
"Helmet safety laws protect third parties from paying excessively"
You need to violate our rights to accomplish that? Insurance companies can just charge more for motor-cyclists, or insurance companies can just not cover motor brain damage costs for the helmet-less.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
I agree that seatbelt laws are problematic but I am really split in this question, because on the other hand laws can promote social norms. In this case seatbelt laws promote the norm of seatbelt usage and this in turn is obviously a good norm. On the one hand we want people to have freedom over their lives, but on the other hand we also want people to take responsibility for their lives.
I want you, the reader, to react on my comment!
enevighet17 1 year ago
@enevighet17
"we also want people to take responsibility for their lives."
Wouldn't that be best promoted by making people pay the full cost and receiving the full benefit of all their actions? The only law concerning these things should be that any cost a person's actions inflict on others should be paid by the person who caused the act.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
To want Socialism is to want Nazism.
Nazi = National Socialist Workers party.
The only Socialist Government to have ever gotten close to World Domination.
americanbandwidth 1 year ago
@americanbandwidth
Well, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was pretty close as well I would say.
enevighet17 1 year ago
@enevighet17 indeed, however The Soviets were Marxist.
The difference being that Socialism has a peppering of what looks and feels like Capitalism until the Government decides to take your business, home, land and then family.
Marxism they just take everything to start with and then starve everyone because we're all just animals to a Marxist.
You are correct, The Soviets were.
They just weren't Socialist
americanbandwidth 1 year ago
I want motorcycle helmet laws enforced for the simple reason that if one were to get into an accident and contract brain damage then the tax payers will ultimately foot the bill for that brain injured for the rest of their life!!! That is a much more rational positon that Freidman's.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes Milton advocated liberty, not socialism. Your concern is a problem of socialism.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs People should be free to die in poor houses or in the streets as many did from hypothermia pre Social Security and that is at no cost to the rest of society. Yes we live in a society thus requires social regulations to be enacted for the welfare of the state it is a problem of humane behaviour. Those who think Ayn Rand had all the answers will ultimately find it resolves nothing but idealogical BS which conflicts with the reality of our modern world circumstance.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Nobody dies of hypothermia any more? Lol, hundreds of people die every year of hypothermia and other things because they lived irresponsibly. But having freedom means you have the freedom to err. Or should we only have the freedom to live like bubble boy?
The government is there to protect us from aggression from others, not to save us from our own decisions. The cost of freedom is self responsibility. Don't try to have you cake and eat it too.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Government is there to protect us from others, well you said my friend! This would include the fact that legislative and enforced safety regulations shall protect us from the stupid dolts that would choose to drive a motorcycle without a helmet to grant the illusion of freedom of choice to err. Your reckless idealogy threatens my responsible choices which in turn will cost me some of my earned freedom dollars. I see it as a cost benefit analysis besides from the humane aspect.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
"protect us from the stupid dolts that would choose to drive a motorcycle without a helmet"
How does THEM not wearing a helmet help preserve YOUR safety? Is his bear head dangerous to you? Please try to make SOME sense.
And yeah, businesses take risks to maximize profit, that is a GOOD thing. ALL ACTION takes risk, and we want businesses to take ALL the risks that are likely to be more beneficial then harmful. Without taking risks absolutely nothing would get done, literally.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Is it your lack of reading comprehension or just ignoring what I am writing in response. I will try to make it simple so even you will understand. Helmet safety laws protect third parties from paying excessively for the absolute wreck of a human that's left over after an accident. If you've ever had exposure to what is brought into an emergency room after an accident, any motorized vehicle, you would comprehend the implicit collateral damage.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes You're trying to apply a Libertarian solution to a problem of Socialism. Rather than not make tax payers foot the bill, you'd rather tell people what to do. Do not counter argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. If you do, then you should have no qualms about paying for the healthcare of someone who did not wear a seatbelt.
LibertarianINT 1 year ago
@LibertarianINT And the person who has no seatbelt pays for those who wear one and get injured anyway so it'd be prefectly fair. Everyone covers everyone elses backside.
theredraven 1 year ago
@theredraven Your interpretation of fair is loose I see.
LibertarianINT 1 year ago
@LibertarianINT You are an either or, its black or white no shade of gray huh? I guess in your world it would be just fine to not fund public schools or highways or even safety standards on steel that builds the bridges you would drive on. If you think the "libertain solution" is to do away with all regulations then go live in Haiti that worked out real well for them.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes There are a lot of things wrong with your comment. Haiti is in no way a Libertarian society. If you knew what Libertarianism was, you'd know that. In my world you wouldn't need public schooling. But if you understood, you'd know eliminate public the DoE means take away federal power and let the states deal with public education. A business wouldn't use weak steal because of the threat of liability that would bankrupt them. But I do believe building codes are necessary.
LibertarianINT 1 year ago
@LibertarianINT Do you not think business have their own profit agenda, often they choose to ignore what is safe for simple measurable profits even though they have a slight chance of getting slapped with a law suit. More times than not the benefit outweighs the risk. Look into the oil disaster in the gulf and the memos between the 3 companies involved to see their choices will lead.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes It's amazing how you disregard the fact that the 'regulators' still allowed the rig to be built. How were those regulations working? There's a point where you can't just blame business. Your government isn't infallible. The government saw the plan, gave the okay, and gave them safety awards. The businesses are owned by shareholders. If the government and the shareholders are not pro-active enough, do not put this squarely on the business.
LibertarianINT 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes YOU are a black or white no shade of gray person because of your one size fits all cookie cutter ideals not concerned with the individual and their situation. I believe that each person has different needs and they themselves are in the best position to find their own shade of grey. But please, spout hackneyed talking points until the cows come home. Now when did I say I believe in no regulation? Read up on the straw man fallacy, your picture should be somewhere there.
LibertarianINT 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Haiti? Haiti is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, do you REALLY think them building new roads would be good for their people? They'd steal most of the money that goes to build the roads!
And why can't private businesses manage the roads? It doesn't take government force to build and pay for a road...
And why do we need non-competitive public schools when we could use a voucher system to provide education as well as inter-school competition and innovation?
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Is something so bad if its govt funded how about DARPA? You think private business would find it in their profit margins to start such a project. If that were the case we wouldn't have an internet to have thsi conversation. How about the Eisenhower freeway, another socialist govt funded program, you seriously think private companies would have decided to take on such a project? In regard to public schools the problem lies in the lowering of standards which apease affirmativeaction
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
"How about the Eisenhower freeway"
Yeah, how about those subsidized roads which has encouraged our dependence of cars and oil and have in turn helped create global warming. That was a BRILLIANT idea!
And Yeah, private companies can and do take on huge projects like that, like the great northern transcontinental railroad which was built privately up in Canada.
And Public schools suck because they lack competition, it is an incredibly easy problem to fix.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
What about the nature of a highway demands that you be given the power to violently impose your will on me and steal my money through taxation? Does NOT having that highway violate YOUR rights in some way? Not a chance, that highway is just CONVENIENT for you. You are arguing that we should throw out our HUMAN RIGHTS in favor of simple convenience!
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes "That is a much more rational positon that Freidman's."
Yeah, well, he addressed that argument, and you simply ignored his argument against it. So, who is more rational, he, who addressed your argument (even though he is long dead) or you, who avoided his full argument for not apparent reason?
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Miltons argument summed as "How can you justify safety requirements to protect the driver himself?" Whether he aserts that you can protect a third party from providing subisides and services by labeling each individual as a 'property of state'. Comon now you seriously think that is rationale? Yes according to Freidman (yes is dead =irrelevent to the discussion) a person is free to disregard safety at the expesne of others and the state should ignore the cost all the idea of liberty
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
I think you're a bit mixed up. He's not saying the state should ignore the costs an unsafe driver puts on others. He said that he doesn't want the state to assume the costs an unsafe driver applies to himself. That's why he would say it is OK for the state to ban drunk driving, because that can cost OTHER PEOPLE their lives, but it cannot make safety belt laws since only the person not wearing the safety belt is harmed by that action as long as the state doesn't pay for his care.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage and who will pay for his care? Is it you that are that cheritable sheesh give me a break kid.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Who pays for his care? HE DOES, or his insurance agency, or anyone who volunteers to pay for him. If he can't pay then he'll have to declare bankruptcy like anyone who takes expensive risks and loses on those risks.
And yeah, DARPA shouldn't exist either. If it didn't then the free market would have more money to spend on research and we'd have MORE advanced technology then we do today. Most MILITARY technology fails to improve our lives in any meaningful way anyhow.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage The free market does not take on huge projects that DARPA can. For example, the rural electrification in 1935 - Private companies did'nt want to invest in wiring America for the farmers. Private companies had the idea there was no profit in provided elctricity to farmers. They thought they would huddle around a 60 watt bulb! Turns out agribusiness brought more money to the non profit co-ops and all of sudden the private companies scream socialism. True facts my friend.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
"Private companies did'nt want to invest in wiring America for the farmers"
And neither did I. Why did I have to pay for that? Why are you stealing from me to subsidize other people's life styles? If the farmers wanted electricity so much then they'd pay for it. That gives them no right to steal from others. If a private company doesn't want to step in to provide a service like that it means its NOT WORTH DOING YET!
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage By your logic "NOT WORTH DOING YET!" I am guessing the internet would not have come about until the year 2050(or later) and that the US modern agriculture that prospered our country would not have happned until a good 50 years. Good show knuckledragger the idealogical world you desire would be recessed by decades of progress.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Ohh please. Connecting two computers and getting them to talk to each other did NOT require massive govt spending. The computer industry moves PLENTY FAST without govt involvement and it would move FASTER if the government wasn't taxing them so much! Why do you think US tech is so far advanced? Other nations put larger % of their GDP in research, but our taxes are lower, allowing businesses to handle the research. The market is WAY more productive then the govt!
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage The internet is not simply two computers connected to one another. Your lack of undertstanding underwhelms me.
DoctrinaBytes 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Yeah Doc, actually it is. Connect computers and get them to talk with each other. SO HARD! No way, we couldn't do that privately, lol.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@DoctrinaBytes
Did it require the govt to build the first plane? Light bulb? Telephone? sound recorder? The internal combustion engine? The assembly line? Hell no.
Would these things have occurred later on in history if the Federal govt had spending and taxing been about 50% of the US GDP as it does now instead of under 10% it did back in the Age of Invention? Of course!
Govt spending doesn't respond to market signals, thus it is ALWAYS less efficient then private spending!
Aliothemage 1 year ago
Never really had a problem with being required to wear a seatbelt or helmet. But this guy has a point: we all have a right to our bodies, and thus we have a choice to do what we want with it, even if that choice puts us at risk.
BlameTheFirst 1 year ago 6
See Milton Friedman is still a doofus from the grave. Get into a wreck without a seat belt=taking extra time to clean up your stupid assed body and inconveniencing others with a slowed downed highway with your dumbassery. Hell, you libertarians are such retards.
robertmike57 1 year ago
@robertmike57 he addressed this point derpy one
Spalg 1 year ago
@robertmike57 Talk about a dumb fuck. YOU take the cake. Most people would wear seat belts because they value their own lives. But for you, saving your own lousy hide isn't good enough reason, you need to be threatened with a fine. For me, I want cops to be concerned with violations of rights, not acting as your nanny. In a free society, libertarians would thrive and pea brains like yourself, who yearn to be state slaves, could just get a conservator. That should work for everyone.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fzqlcs Thanks for proving my point you fucktard libertarians have your heads up your ass.
robertmike57 1 year ago
Once again a fantastic vid, LP. Many thanks!
Krifko 1 year ago
His argument is based on social atomization. Essentially The law is not merely “for one’s own good," since the whole, has different properties than an individual human. The argument is weak.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic If you belong to someone, he's in charge of you and he'll want you as safe as possible. After all, you are his property. And you're useful. So, Protect yourself!
manoman0 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic
No, you've gotten it backwards. His argument is very individualistic. It argues that people own themselves exclusively and that the society as a whole can make no just claim on him and force him to do as he does not wish except to prevent him from directly harming others. His is a very strong argument.
You are right that the communal arguments are weak though.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Thats what I though I said sorry.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@Aliothemage Social atomization - individualism - what is the significant difference?
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@Aliothemage The same argument makes all drugs legal, but looks what effects the American system will suffer if tons of drugs are pumped into it.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic Yeah boy we were just up in flames when we had drugs legal before. Any problems in transition would be mostly the fault of it being driven underground in the first place.
Spalg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AEVautomatic
"but looks what effects the American system will suffer if tons of drugs are pumped into it."
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many millions of lives have been destroyed by the drug LAWS? The drug war is one of the most disastrous, costly, and counter-productive attempts at social-engineering that the govt has ever tried!
Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs back in 2001 and drug use, especially among the young, has DECREASED. You need to research that a bit.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage If the ‘communal’ argument is weak and the viability of the American system effects the individual then his ‘individualistic’ argument is weak.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AEVautomatic "If the ‘communal’ argument is weak and the viability of the American system effects the individual then his ‘individualistic’ argument is weak."
Why? He isn't making a communal argument. Communal arguments are weak because communities are just made up concepts without any intrinsic value. Individual humans DO have intrinsic value and should be respected and treated with dignity simply for being human. That's why we have human rights.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic Your argument is difficult to interpret because your grammar and wording are poor.
What's ironic is that you claim his argument is weak, all the while offering nothing substantial to back it up.
Please respond with something stronger if your mission is to debate, otherwise don't expect anyone to take your comments seriously.
Sorry if I came off harsh but I'm so tired of people offering half-baked arguments as if they were refutations.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat Yes you provided nothing to back up what you said. My arguments were elucidated perfectly.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AEVautomatic "Yes you provided nothing to back up what you said. My arguments were elucidated perfectly."
No, I'll second him about that. Your argument didn't really MAKE an argument, it just asserted something. And what is this "you must be a freshman", lol? That's about the least mature thing you could have possibly said! It makes YOU look like you must be the kid.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat You must be a freshmen if you did not understand the argument -
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat Your argument structure is atrocious. “In my opinion and I am too stupid to understand a simple philosophical argument therefore we can’t take you seriously.” That is the worst ad hominem I have seen in my life. In addition to that, You don’t even attempt to justify Milton’s social atomistic position-
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat that crises that took place in the liability insurance system and the tort law including their mutual operation were predictable. These brought changes in these systems and shifted the role of a person who is in fault and the injured one. These changes made both people eligible for getting an insurance payment.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat Thus industrial objects that are not likely to bear their responsibility for producing something not in accordance with established standards that should be punished in accordance with the criminal law. So we establish here an important point.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat People that wanted neither to buy insurance nor to pay costs to the injured party in the case of accident were numerous. To avoid different problems and guarantee the payment of compensation authorities made all people pay insurance premiums. The premiums were paid in small parts to avoid public criticism. However, one of the most criticized aspects of the insurance system change is its organization in accordance with human values, beliefs, and expectations.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@CircleBastiat So, Milton’s arguments are not valid, even less so today in 2011.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic You sure type alot considering you end up saying nothing of merit.
pensword5 1 year ago
@AEVautomatic The whole may well have properties that are different from an individual (not something that Friedman denied) but I have failed to get a whole to pay the costs of something. Apparently, one of the properties that individuals have and that wholes don't is that individuals can pay costs.
Friedman argues the opposite of the law being for one's own good: that the place of the law is to protect us from others, not ourselves.
Else, why not illegalise alcohol, soda, football etc.?
Myndir 1 year ago
@Myndir "Friedman argues the opposite of the law being for one's own good: that the place of the law is to protect us from others, not ourselves."
Actually, he argues that being left alone IS what is good for each one of us in the long run.
If the govt kept us all in incubation chambers to make sure we were all safe all the time, we'd obviously all be worse off even if out lives were a lot longer due to it.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@Aliothemage In such a case, we'd be in a situation where the government was not protecting us, in that it would be coercing us.
Protecting us from each other is one thing. But there is also a need to be protected from government, hence constitutions etc.
Myndir 1 year ago
@Myndir
Coercing you? Yep, you're right. But it would be doing so in the name of protecting you, just the same way it does with bike helmet laws. It coerces us into wearing helmets against our will, but it excuses its behavior by claiming it knows better then we do what is good for us and that this gives it the right to force us to do what it wants.
The principle in my hypothetical and helmet laws remains the same. You can't consistently advocate/criticize one without the other.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
this issue is not resolvable in 3 minutes worth of speaking.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
exactly.
AmanJohnK 1 year ago
Milton was a brilliant man who had a masterful way to connect and explain complex economic and philosophical topics to anyone. We need more like him (hopefully more of the Austrian school of thought).
trekkerperson 1 year ago 6
@trekkerperson Friedman wasn't an Austrian and would oppose them.
airfalcon 10 months ago
@airfalcon
That is what I was getting at though I see it is confusing. I meant people charismatic and witty like him but of the Austrian School.
trekkerperson 9 months ago
@airfalcon True in his younger years but listen or read what he was saying in the last decade or so of his life, he had moved towards many of their positions, not really disagreeing with you but I found it interesting how he seemed to change his views a bit.
DukeofWellington91 7 months ago
Well, he gets to the essential point, but I fear it may be lost on many. It is not that laws such as seat belt and helmet laws are unjust, they are in fact warranted IF we are living in a nanny state that coddles us from cradle to grave. If we expect the state to assume responsibility for our needs, then the state MUST assume responsibility for our freedoms as well. One necessarily requires the other. We have no choice, if we would have freedom, we cannot have nanny government.
Panpiper 1 year ago 4
@Panpiper but the problem lies here....NO ONE ASKED the govt to assume responsibility. They took it thru stealth and manipulation. They simply wanted FULL control so they created laws to control us ....laws which are ridiculous such as a licence to go fishing or to have a garage/boot sale or to have a lemonade stall on YOUR property. The list goes on.
Badwolf182 1 year ago
@Badwolf182 Playing devil's advocate here, as I really am a minarchist verging on anarchist; from the perspective of government, they ask us each election. While ultimately we choose some middle of the road statist, they would defend that that 'middle' moves with the consensus of society. If the majority of society truly desired a minimal libertarian government, the middle of the road that would win would be decidedly libertarian. Ultimately the solution is educating the public.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper well who controls education?. Personally, I believe the elections are a simple PR exercise. It matters not who u vote for bcoz the govt always gets in! The corporations runs our nations! In turn our schools are used for corporate needs and to indoctrinate future generations into whatever way they want society shaped as they change.influence and manipulate kids into whatever way they choose. They chose to educate the lats gens for sonsumerism and thats exactly wha we have :)
Badwolf182 1 year ago
@Badwolf182 To the extent that we deny our own responsibility to effect change, we impede it. We have at our disposal the most god awful educational tool ever devised by man, the Internet in all it's myriad aspects. Yes, the statists control the public schools, but most kids figure out quickly that what they are being fed there is a whole load of useless waste of time. They are themselves deprived of freedom, and they hunger for a taste of it. They hunger for a dose of truth.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Agreed !
Badwolf182 1 year ago
can anyone even argue with this guy?
he spews nothing but truths
josh2116 1 year ago 28
@josh2116 I haven't seen too many of his debates, but in every one that I have seen he completely outclasses his opponents.
jimbo525SE 1 year ago
@josh2116 Amen. On this one? Suicide? Not sure about it. Lol. But sometimes it takes absurdity to demonstrate common sense.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
one parcel of state property disliked this video
fzqlcs 1 year ago 30