With Romney the likely GOP nominee, this comment from Friedman takes on extra importance. Romney doesn't have a conservative bone in his body, but it will be politically profitable for him to pander to the base of the GOP and hopefully do the right thing: cutting spending, taxes etc.
He's right, but too right. It isn't just political profit they want - it's hard cash MONEY & Sex & Power. A great many elected officials are Psychopaths - they cannot feel or care for other people, but only for their own increased power. They write the laws to favor themselves & strike deals w the Exec Branch; pretty soon the checks & balances necessary for survival of the people are gone.
I think this is the most Liberal thing he ever said. Don't change the politicians, change the system. America was founded under that premise. I guess Friedman wasn't all that bad.
@formerevolutionist It would be much easier if our educational system was not such a joke. Kids come out of our public schools with one semester of American Government, 1 or economics and 1 of American History and the curriculum is completely biased and mundane. it seems as though we lack any emphasis on a truly socialy aware citezenry and focus on math and science. Even the arts have taken a back seat to budget crunches.
Here Friedman is typically simplistic and naive, ignoring that the congress holds all the cards when it comes to buying votes, and that industry holds all the cards when it comes to buying ELECTIONS.
But the People have NO power when it comes to overruling government. This has been the racket ever since the Jackson Administration, and the Lincoln Admin made it permanent through mass-murdering imperialism and state-controlled suppression of the truth.
People DO have the power to take back the government. The problem is that we suffer from rational ignorance. Each new appropriation affects us individually so little that it would be economically inefficient to take action. The way to overcome this is to form groups, but larger groups are more costly to run, thus the formation of special interest groups. But since only a certain number can get a slice of the pie, we only have the most resource rich special interest groups taking over the gov't.
People DO have the power to take back the government. The problem is that we suffer from rational ignorance. Each new appropriation affects us individually so little that it would be economically inefficient to take action. The way to overcome this is to form groups, but larger groups are more costly to run, thus the formation of special interest groups. But since only a certain number can get a slice of the pie, we only have the most resource rich special interest groups taking over the gov't.
did you even read or consider what I just said? That came straight out of the Public Choice field, nobel prize winning material. All I said was that people have the potential to take back the government but don't have the incentives to. In the end, it's all about economics. The system is just screwed up
Our Government can only do what we allow them to do, is how things are SUPPOSED to work. So, in order 4 Them 2 continue taking OUR money from
us when IT is UNLAWFUL & UnConstitutional, works only IF WE let Them. A Flat Tax across the Social status's(invented 4 show) & REMOVING ALL LOOPHOLES & Deductions WILL stop all of this.WE should NOT have Fed Income Taxes and all of the added ways 2 take OUR money.Take away Politicans BENEFITS & make Them pay Their FAIR SHARES and see what happens.
Too bad we're stuck with how things REALLY work: the oligarchy and media are bought by industry and oligopoly, while the sheep are bought by these PANDERING to their prejudices and interests.
complete bs under that idea why have elections at all , just make the payoffs for the right thing more then the payoffs for the wrong things, heres a novel idea,.. how about demanding that they do they right things in the first place or fire there arse,.
paying off people to do the right thing???? everything to him is for sale and only the elite have money
This is timeless and brilliant. This is a principle that all of our best politicians have worked to their own advantage and to the promotion of their agenda.
@HisokanoOkami Well then you obviously dont understand what hes trying to say at all.....LOL your perpetuating the nanny state if you dont agree with his other videos
i think Milton Friedman isnt entirely right here, some politicans are acctually honest and votes for what they think is right and is not only doing it for votes, thought most politicans are
@WhatisBuddah That's just dumb. People naturally categorize opinions and ideas. Therefore, there will never be an absence of political parties. When you make decisions, you outline them into the various groups they fall under. If you vote under certain lines each time you could effectively call yourself voting for a particular group. If others vote under the same criteria, they created a base. Then that group appeals to that base and boom, you're right back to where you started again w/ parties
"by making it politically profitably for the wrong people to do the right things"....wow. true. i can see why that could be so. i know of real-life examples of that case
Friedman is a smart guy, but he does come across as a bit too arrogant and self confident. I wonder what he would have said about the 2008 financial crisis, after proposing his monetarist supposedly free market theories for so long.
@astro7894 ...he has all the right to "appear" (keyword: appear) arrogant and self-confident..if he was debating with Keynes or Karl Marx then I may consider it but not with ordinary people.
Like the parable of the corrupt Judge who had no regard for the law, didnt care for God or justice but when an old woman came to him for justice after doctors and lawyers took her for everything she got, he said to himself "man if I dont avenge this old woman she'll drive me up the wall" so he made the doctors and lawyers pay her back and threw them in jail. or something like that. so the woman got justice even from a corrupt judge.
@mba2ceo Sure you can. If they don't get reelected how can they get their piece of the cake? It's even arguable that the more corruption, the more say the people have. The bigger the cake, the more congress will want to get reelected, so in turn, the more they will follow the masses wishes in order to get reelected. If there is no money on the line, they might just vote for things they believe in lol. Unfortunately right now many people want to sell their vote for welfare.
You think a congressmen is not swayed by a piece of property in Nantucket? You think an offer for free air fair to Brazil, or a nice stock option wont appeal to even the most ardent politically minded individual? Come on. This is a professor of double speak! A great example of someone that is too smart, and to focused on what is "GOOD". Wake up! WAKE UP!!!
I appreciate this guy. Super Smart. But this is wrong. We vote for people to represent those without a voice. Those who are too busy, to really understand what happens in the corrupt epicenter of the world. People have families and jobs that limit their ability to be fully aware of the true level of corruption. We need people that are uncorrectable, that will lead. For fuck sake, they get a full retirement and full benefits the rest of their lives! Do what is right! The Silent Majority!!
@enddafed I have a problem for someone who supposedly is leading people who are "too busy to understand what happens in the corrupt epicenter of the world". Are you proposing we elect officials based on people's opinions which in your own admission do not exist?
fuck a democracy. democracy suxors, fuck the 51 and 90% of their fake ass unconstitutional laws. this is a republic essay and the Milton Friedman bit here is awesome. democracy is communism at best tyranny of the majority at the worst. I dont know about you noobs, but i pledge allegience to the Republic for which it Stands!!!!!! This right here is a true libertarian son's. i iz not be a liberal. You checkin nooobs need to chew on this fer a bit! Skadooooosh!
He's 100% right. We have the government we deserve. If we want our government to be different we need to deserve it. If we really didn't want a nanny state, we wouldn't have one. But ask your average American who pays lipserrvice to wanting lower taxes and smaller government if they also want Social Security and Medicare done away with, then see what they say. As long as most Americans want the Nanny State "blanky", we will continue to have exactly that.
@TheSpacecadet78 Milton Friedman has stated over and over again "we dont deserve anything, so be thankful you don't get what you deserve". I do agree with the sentiment, we get the congress we allow them to be.
I really don't think we have the government we deserve. We have a government that those in the the media who "want to make difference" have manipulated us into electing. We are flying blind folks.
The economy is counter intuitive... that is the main reason why people dont understand it. Its the opposing symbiotic force to humanity and also what has propped humanity up to its heights it now enjoys. Free Market or Bust ... literally
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
This is a MUST SEE video right here on you tube for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, illegal alien or a Congressman. copy and paste this in your browser... Immigration Gumballs
@braininahat What is it about liberals when they can't dispute a fact they nit pick a type-o. The guy is a DUMBASS. I suppoose you'll tell me that's two words huh asshole?
@braininahat The basic point of his reply was to present a logical argument, not to be grammatically correct. Now that he made his point it would seem you either don't have a rebuttal or you find spelling more important than ideas. Either way you really need to get off the "I'm smarter than you therefore I win" bandwagon and use your supposedly better nourished brain to reply to his ideas, not make more personal attacks.
@thebestsumoeva This is what birdbranze said, "What a flaming idiot! I can't believe anyone could be this assinine." That's what you're calling a logical argument, numbnuts. I'll get off the "I'm smarter than you" kick as soon as you fools stop making fools of yourselves. Birdbranze offered only an insult and even botched that up with his misspelling. Don't blame me for his incompetence. At least when I insult people, I get it right.
Having more than two parties does not decrease polarization or gridlock. It does not make politics more people-friendly. Just look at the Parliaments of Europe and Asia.
@TheChaseair At least as far as economics are concerned, you have to tell as many people as possible that the NET benefit of income transfer, like Social Security, medicare, or the shuffle game of tax credits and deductions provide NOTHING but moving the same money around....at NO benefit to the people they are trying to help.
"Throw the bums out" is a pretty popular thing to say but the question is replace them with who because what comes after might be worst if you don't know who you want.
Unfortunately, that's not working with our congress now. They are voting against what the people want. The Libs are so passionate about what they believe that they are willing to be political martyrs for Liberalism. It's seriously a mental disorder. You can't convince sick people to do the right thing.
Congress was originally set up as a rotation system. People would do their public service duty and then go back to their regular lives and jobs. In this way, people were more in touch with common society instead of an aristocracy out of touch sitting on their thrones making deals with each other and playing games with tax payers money. Perhaps rotation through voting for different candidates would in fact help. I believe that term limits should be imposed on congress as well.
I agree with this in principal. Practically though, the "wrong people" often tend to pay lip service to the "right thing", get elected, make every appearance of serving the intentions of voters, but surreptitiously do an end run around it, using every deceptive ploy they have at their disposal to hold off voters until after the next election. When voters in this country have to stop their lives in order to monitor their representatives continually it's a sign that change is needed.
@geek5651 no, a "politically profitable" scenario is not the same as an economically profitable scenario. you're supposed to "bribe" your congressmen with your vote. unfortunately, most people only think about lesser social issues and think nothing of the economics. (the boondoggle of social security, medicare, and the "welfare" state in general confirm this)
What Milton is saying is TRUE. Everybody works out of self-interest (for better or worse). The way to get things done is to make a politician do something that will get him votes ("politically profitable" as Milton puts it). Unfortunately, the politician SHOULD be working for the public and should demonstrate leadership because much of the public is ignorant.
Why do we have "the bums" in the first place? Why send our money and allegiance to DC, in the hopes of maybe getting some of it back? We all know it's a corrupt system. What do they pay for with OUR money, that we can't do for ourselves more locally? National defense, perhaps. If it were limited to just that . . . defense. Everything else is waste. Better off payed for and controlled by locals. Why we tolerate the overbearing paternalism of DC is beyond me.
Just another example that regardless of how long you go to school and get a Doctoral degree, you can still be as stupid as a bag of hammers. This idiotic thinking is exactly what the problem is.
Well that's not fair to Friedman. He was a very intelligent man. It's just that he was wrong on a few things, as most of us are.
Also, consider the fact that he gave this speech back in the day when people forced their politicians out if they failed to represent them; Back when politicians represented the people.
I agree that he was wrong on this issue though. Stupak and the other Dems in Congress are proof of that. Pelosi even said getting their bill passed was worth getting voted out.
This didn't work Sunday....with 60-70% of American's opposed to the health care takeover bill...the wrong people still did the wrong thing in the face of political suicide.
@docsavage98 Unfortunately, it did work Sunday. Most of the American people have not fully awoken from the last hundred years of Leftist indoctrination. But, Sunday proved they are starting to. That is why I'm very optimistic about the future. The MSM, which is the main source of their power, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. And Texas has taken a page out of the Cali- fornia playbook and has shown we can take back the schools as well. There is light at the end of this long darkness!!
Right, which is why Friedman was wrong on this issue.
We do need to elect the right people. Period.
You can't make it profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing unless you have the right people in Congress making laws that will accomplish that.
Ridiculous! Who are the right people? Where are they? The fact of the matter is that only a power-hungry scumbag who hates their own family would be a politician. Yes, that applies to [insert name of you representitive] as well. Go to a tea-party and you'll find tons of people who will tell you this is the first time they've been political. You can't make it profitable by going to one rally / town hall. It takes a lot of work!
Wrong. We have many good people running for office now. Many of whom are former military who served in Iraq or Afgahnistan. We have regular citizens running now too. The right people are conservatives who respect and follow the Constitution and want to return to the limited government ideals of the founding fathers. What will save this country are the three C's; Christianity, Conservatism, and Capitalism.
Great! We won't have to worry about making it "politically profitable" for them to do the right thing, since the "right" people will do it on their own. With the "right" people in office the tea-parties can disband and we can all go back to taking freedom for granted!
The political profit will be in staying in office so that unscrupulous bums can't get back in and mess everything up again. But even if those right people go wrong somewhere, the people can always vote someone else in who will uphold the Constitution and represent their constituents.
Taking freedom for granted is a problem on the people's level. More people will simply have to develop a mindset of patriotism and love of country.
How will you distinguish who is the "right" person and who is someone pretending to be someone they are not to seek power? Maybe you have that ability, but most people don't. Look at how Obama tricked the independents! Your argument relies on a Utopian dream, Friedman's relies on reality. Like he said, "it's nice to elect the 'right' people..." Let's all wake up and realize that the enemies of freedom are devious and will stop at nothing to attain power!
We will know them by what they stand for and what they have done with their lives.
I know he tricked them, but what I'm saying is that we as a society will have to really start paying attention to these candidates. Anyone who watched Fox News even for a second back then knew Obama's true background. The other problem is finding solid folks to run.
Look, there's a lot that has to be done, but the main point is we DO have to throw the bums out.
The political profit will be in staying in office so that unscrupulous bums can't get back in and mess everything up again. But even if those right people go wrong somewhere, the people can always vote someone else in who will uphold the Constitution and represent their constituents.
Taking freedom for granted is a problem on the people's level. More people will simply have to develop a mindset of patriotism and love of country.
...the "ideals" of what Christianity stands for, being practiced consistently will save the world...which are those also embraced by Buddhists, Muslims, etc....bearing in mind that ALL religions have surfaced their own free radicals in history and been a harm to mankind.
Well technically there is no such thing as a Christian "radical" as we understand the term "radical" to mean. Those who carry out violence against the innocent in the name of Christianity are not true Christians, as the Bible does not direct us to do anything of the kind. So a radical Christian would be one who is very dedicated to God's word. A "Jesus Freak", as they were called.
The true challenge for us libertarians is still to win the battle of ideas. The main problem is political indoctrination through the educational system. We need to get better organized in our individual countries and begin infiltrating the schools like the socialists did in the 60's and the following decades. We already have an understanding of this in my country biggest Libertarian party who got 23% of the electoral vote, and 30%+ of the popular vote. But implementing something is harder.
killerbee2k: I think (suspect) that is one of the reasons Friedman was such a proponent of the voucher system. He knew people were too dependent on the government paying for primary eduction to accept total free market education but a voucher system would still improve education while disrupting the socialist control of it.
Brainwashing kids is the dishonest tactic of a socialist and they're good at it. Let's remove their means of doing so rather than playing their game.
Political hacks aren't interested in you, they're interested in themselves. Give them a reason to act on your behalf or else they will act on their own. The only question facing American's at this point in history is how to profit and become financially secure from the inevitable decline of the wealth which these parasites in Washington have caused. The politicians are too stupid to profit from their folly but intelligent individuals will.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LacusOdii this Freidman stating what his idea of a "free" society is What I believe is not a democracy but an individual freedom in a society in which individuals cooperate with one another
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There you have it Friedman on freedom, and another classic Friedman quote "Lets be clear, I dont believe in democracy in one sense. You dont believe in democracy. Nobody believes in democracy" Friedman used this quote to explain away majority decisions using if 55% vote to kill 45% of the population etc. The problem with this is of course any sane person would oppose genocide. That does not mean all decisions by the majority are wrong or majority rule is wrong. Freidman though implies it is
No, Friedman is simply restating de Tocqueville. The 'genocide scenario' is what even mildly intelligent people understand to be a rhetorical device. (Certainly your head isn't that thick, is it?) Do you realize the United States Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian document? No one said or implied that "all decisions by the? majority are wrong," but some (at least ten) things have to be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheTrueLiberal really he is restating de Tocqueville, that is all he is doing, he is not using the words of a great french philosopher to add weight to his own opinion. He is simply stating what someone else said right. I know I am pretty thick I tell you lol Firstly the "US Bill of Rights" was not to protect society from the 'tyranny of the majority.' But to protect the rights of the individual. None of those rights are innately blessed with the divine right. Nor were they set in stone.tbc
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@franks2732 continuing on from that, You Libertarians seem to forget the last bit "without due process of law" That means government may change amend and remove sections as long as it is in accord with the consitution. Admittedly like most other nations it requires about a 2/3 majority but none the less the majority can remove or amend any part of it they wish. Individual rights certainly can be removed or challenged as long as it is according to "due process" i.e. forced acquisition of property
@franks2732 "Firstly the "US Bill of Rights" was not to protect society from the 'tyranny of the majority.' But to protect the rights of the individual."
What a beautiful / ridiculous display of doublespeak! Brilliant!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheTrueLiberal I accuse you of double speak. The "tyranny of the majority" what an opinionated statement if ever i heard one, and yes their is a distinct difference between "tyranny of the majority" and rights of the individual! they are completely separate and opposing views. Individual right protect individuals from the excess of other individuals, the state etc. "tyranny of the majority" is simply an inflammatory comment to garner favor but means nothing
The constitution as a whole itself had the goal of protecting society from the tyranny of the majority, but the bill of rights specifically was to protect individuals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheTrueLiberal And lastly you moronic little cretan (fuck the hide of you to insult my intellect, who went and made you Exchequer of Reasoned thought) Tocqueville was an ardent opponent of individualism. Being a classical liberal "the civil code" etc held sway, His views in these areas are similar to Marx and Hegel. But he was opposed to the rigid structure of the early socialists. But In no way could his views be constructed as to favor Libertarian Individualism or Anarcho Capitalism
@franks2732 Profanity has always been the mark of a true intellectual! Another is to write down everything you want to say, then use a thesaurus to replace every word with a more 'important' sounding one. Then you can generate phrases like: "fuck the hide of you to insult my intellect, who went and made you Exchequer of Reasoned thought"
It clearly helps to randomly capitalize words as well. Bravo! Another brilliant display!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheTrueLiberal i quote your comments "Certainly your head isn't that thick, is it?" so where the shoe fits. It seems I did not start the drive towards insults, rather it was you who were first to use the lose tongue and personal attack. I therefore rightfully attacked your person! What is it one rule for one and not for some. Liberatrians LOL
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheTrueLiberal And another thing if you wish to argue against my statements, please do so, I would gladly welcome the exchange, but it seems to me whenever your statements are questioned and found fault, rather than attack the merit of the argument presented, you resort to rhetoric. Like I will make this statement 'The majority of classical liberals from the age of reason and enlightenment" would be firmly opposed the the beliefs that Modern Libertarians hold.
@TheTrueLiberal Regardless of any of this - we are in common agreement that what Friedman's says here is brilliant and on the mark? Whether or not he repeats de Tocqueville's insights, all rational people must agree that the statement itself is quite correct, yes?
@TheTrueLiberal Milton Friedman said that a simple majority vote is only valid for less important stuff. The real important stuff needs almost unanimity. Sounds a lot like the Bill of Rights. The question is what is real important and what is not? Maybe government may only make laws that have a whooping majority. All the rest must be less important.
@TheTrueLiberal I was just explaining this to someone the other day we have votes in majority in the legislative branch of Gov. but the founding documents are steup to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority people look to Gov and see example in action is ruled by votes and passing new laws but they fail to read the founding documents to see how the foundation of it all is setup so in there minds its majority this polesters that.
@franks2732 it appears to me that you misunderstand Friedman.
Friedman has stated that he believes in democratic government to provide national defence, police, and the provision of law. That is all democracy should concern itself with.
On the other hand, you appear to want government to concern itself with the day-to-day minutae of peoples lives and to steal money and give it to others.
When a man can vote himself freebies paid for by another, democracy falls down.
@kbdkbd99 Sadly how do you wish to "enforce" his ideological position? By going against the will of the people. His argument is the same argument used by Stalin. And the argument no matter how nice he portrays it is. I want democracy as long as it is My type of democracy that my ideological views support. You are saying that government must only do this or that. Thankfully the majority 99.4% disagree. he also said a Dictatorship is OK to bring about HIS type of freedom. I say FUCK NO
The political leaders not only desire political gains but financial gains.
Therefore you see Congress voting for the bailouts even when the majority of the country didn't want it. (and this happens on many other occasions)
What Congress does is they talk about the right things and make excuses to reap political profits during their elections, and then do the opposite to reap financial gains from the corporations and special interests.
See she is only a strong leadership position because of the strong backing of the democratic party last election.
Exactly as M.F. said, if the other democratic members and leaders themselves found it unpopular for her to be in a situation of leadership that would threaten their votes SHE wouldn't be. (should would be in congress but without much power)
Once again THINK, its not about individual elections its about the the popularity contest.
She's the best Democratic fundraiser in the House, hence her position. The biggest bribe taker will naturally lead. I am liberal by the way, but I don't support corruption.
Friedman was right in his day, but today's politician is very different from those of his era. Take Nancy Palosi for example. She just said she doesn't care about her approval rating. She calls those who protest socialized medicine un-American and swastika carriers. They don't care about using slurs on the American people.
Now the town hall protests may be working on most for now, but they'll just find a way to ram the same policies through in some other way. We have to vote them out.
Nope, it applies to her as well. After all, her constituents are typically center-left to far-left (emphasis on far-left). She's not running for President, she's not trying to buy votes from SF *and* Alabama, just SF.
She has stated that she doesn't care what the American people think of her or her job performance. The only option is to vote her out. She is a far left ideologue who only cares about the liberal/statist agenda.
Good point. Their are many ideologues in government. We are no longer dealing with mere egomaniacs that will do anything to stay in power. Socialists like Ms. Pelosi have unwavering agendas.
I do like her liberal propaganda. It's about time liberals started fighting back and playing dirty. The Republicans have been doing it since Nixon. Our politics should be the politics of personal destruction.
Libs have been playing dirty since FDR. Republicans are such wimps that they can't even defend themselves from dirty politics and slander. So let the libs claim the politics of personal destruction. It will only lead to their own destruction.
Conservatism is starting to awaken from its 20 year sleep, and when it does it will propel America back into greatness once again, for conservatism stands for the principals of the founding fathers. With it we'll crush liberalism just as we did in 1984.
Sure, conservatism has been asleep for the last 20 years, despite Republicans controlling congress from 1994-2006 and the White House for the previous 8 years.
Maybe you don't think these politicians were conservatives? If so, why do they run as such? Could it be that it's an ungovernable philosophy, which runs up against incentives for corruption and voters wanting handouts? How do you overcome this? It's human nature.
That's exactly correct. Conservatism started dozing off soon after daddy Bush took office.
We had some conservatives in congress to trip up BJ Clinton and fix the economy during his last term while he was porking an intern, but they eventually got lazy and started straying from their values, reaching out to the other side of the aisle and moving the party to the center. They tried the middle of the road moderate approach in the last election and got creamed again.
That's why they run as conservatives, because that is the only philosophy that can win against the emotional arguments of the liberals and crush their petty insults. McCain didn't stand a chance against Obama until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP. She drew in a lot of interest and won ma
Lobbyists are the problem and that's where the money is. Term limits is the answer.
DoninHI 5 days ago
love the shoulder shrug at 0:09 .... it means Friedman is getting ready ...
lector0003 2 weeks ago
With Romney the likely GOP nominee, this comment from Friedman takes on extra importance. Romney doesn't have a conservative bone in his body, but it will be politically profitable for him to pander to the base of the GOP and hopefully do the right thing: cutting spending, taxes etc.
gshooting 1 month ago
He's right, but too right. It isn't just political profit they want - it's hard cash MONEY & Sex & Power. A great many elected officials are Psychopaths - they cannot feel or care for other people, but only for their own increased power. They write the laws to favor themselves & strike deals w the Exec Branch; pretty soon the checks & balances necessary for survival of the people are gone.
KidsandKarma 1 month ago
@KidsandKarma you're over analysing it. It's actually very simple.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
I think this is the most Liberal thing he ever said. Don't change the politicians, change the system. America was founded under that premise. I guess Friedman wasn't all that bad.
bodinian 2 months ago
I could not agree with him any more.
AEF091 2 months ago
Heh, never thought Alinsky and Friedman could ever agree on anything, but here, they have.
Men never do the right thing for the right reason. They do the right thing for the wrong reason.
aldoreshgaramok 2 months ago
Change the game and not the players?
How about we toss the board and stop playing altogether!
Everyone who wants land, go fight someone for it, if you win you own the land.
Survival of the fittest.
NYzwolf 3 months ago
Friedman = TRUTH
stebecool 3 months ago
@stebecool lol. ok.
235RB 3 months ago
I never thought of it that way. However, making it profitable for the wrong people to do the right things is easier said than done.
formerevolutionist 4 months ago
@formerevolutionist It would be much easier if our educational system was not such a joke. Kids come out of our public schools with one semester of American Government, 1 or economics and 1 of American History and the curriculum is completely biased and mundane. it seems as though we lack any emphasis on a truly socialy aware citezenry and focus on math and science. Even the arts have taken a back seat to budget crunches.
grecorivera941 3 months ago
Here Friedman is typically simplistic and naive, ignoring that the congress holds all the cards when it comes to buying votes, and that industry holds all the cards when it comes to buying ELECTIONS.
But the People have NO power when it comes to overruling government. This has been the racket ever since the Jackson Administration, and the Lincoln Admin made it permanent through mass-murdering imperialism and state-controlled suppression of the truth.
Friedman is a political ignoramus.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
People DO have the power to take back the government. The problem is that we suffer from rational ignorance. Each new appropriation affects us individually so little that it would be economically inefficient to take action. The way to overcome this is to form groups, but larger groups are more costly to run, thus the formation of special interest groups. But since only a certain number can get a slice of the pie, we only have the most resource rich special interest groups taking over the gov't.
takadi 5 months ago
People DO have the power to take back the government. The problem is that we suffer from rational ignorance. Each new appropriation affects us individually so little that it would be economically inefficient to take action. The way to overcome this is to form groups, but larger groups are more costly to run, thus the formation of special interest groups. But since only a certain number can get a slice of the pie, we only have the most resource rich special interest groups taking over the gov't.
takadi 5 months ago
@takadi
You're as naive as Friedman.
Watch my video and learn the facts.
/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
did you even read or consider what I just said? That came straight out of the Public Choice field, nobel prize winning material. All I said was that people have the potential to take back the government but don't have the incentives to. In the end, it's all about economics. The system is just screwed up
takadi 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@takadi
Did you watch my video?
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
a force induced revolution is coming. Believe me...
HandyMan101 5 months ago
@HandyMan101
Yeah, I wish.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
Our Government can only do what we allow them to do, is how things are SUPPOSED to work. So, in order 4 Them 2 continue taking OUR money from
us when IT is UNLAWFUL & UnConstitutional, works only IF WE let Them. A Flat Tax across the Social status's(invented 4 show) & REMOVING ALL LOOPHOLES & Deductions WILL stop all of this.WE should NOT have Fed Income Taxes and all of the added ways 2 take OUR money.Take away Politicans BENEFITS & make Them pay Their FAIR SHARES and see what happens.
splendor333 5 months ago
@splendor333
Too bad we're stuck with how things REALLY work: the oligarchy and media are bought by industry and oligopoly, while the sheep are bought by these PANDERING to their prejudices and interests.
Want proof? Three words: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
complete bs under that idea why have elections at all , just make the payoffs for the right thing more then the payoffs for the wrong things, heres a novel idea,.. how about demanding that they do they right things in the first place or fire there arse,.
paying off people to do the right thing???? everything to him is for sale and only the elite have money
MrMentalflossed 6 months ago 2
Very nicely put.
I love how well Friedman was able to communicate counter-intuitive or subtle nuances to thinking.
PowerCoefficient 6 months ago
@PowerCoefficient
More like pre-holocaust pragmatism.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
This is timeless and brilliant. This is a principle that all of our best politicians have worked to their own advantage and to the promotion of their agenda.
Ronsonic 6 months ago
MORE ASHKENAZI PROPAGANDA
Jimmyjackj 6 months ago
We need to change congress when lobbyist start handing out $5,000 checks on the floor of the house and senate.
cesar333 6 months ago
This is the first one of these videos I've watched in which I found myself in agreement with this guy.
I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
HisokanoOkami 7 months ago
@HisokanoOkami Well then you obviously dont understand what hes trying to say at all.....LOL your perpetuating the nanny state if you dont agree with his other videos
The6ChickMagnet 6 months ago
@HisokanoOkami If in that analogy you are the broken clock, then I agree.
captcool420 6 months ago 3
i think Milton Friedman isnt entirely right here, some politicans are acctually honest and votes for what they think is right and is not only doing it for votes, thought most politicans are
unfad1ng 7 months ago
@unfad1ng He never said that all politicians weren't honest.
HammerOvThor 6 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 7 months ago
@WhatisBuddah That's just dumb. People naturally categorize opinions and ideas. Therefore, there will never be an absence of political parties. When you make decisions, you outline them into the various groups they fall under. If you vote under certain lines each time you could effectively call yourself voting for a particular group. If others vote under the same criteria, they created a base. Then that group appeals to that base and boom, you're right back to where you started again w/ parties
princem12 7 months ago
"by making it politically profitably for the wrong people to do the right things"....wow. true. i can see why that could be so. i know of real-life examples of that case
Jaiyo17 7 months ago
Friedman is a smart guy, but he does come across as a bit too arrogant and self confident. I wonder what he would have said about the 2008 financial crisis, after proposing his monetarist supposedly free market theories for so long.
astro7894 7 months ago
@astro7894 ...he has all the right to "appear" (keyword: appear) arrogant and self-confident..if he was debating with Keynes or Karl Marx then I may consider it but not with ordinary people.
Jaiyo17 7 months ago
@astro7894 He'd talk of government intrusion into housing markets starting back in the 1960s.
princem12 7 months ago
Like the parable of the corrupt Judge who had no regard for the law, didnt care for God or justice but when an old woman came to him for justice after doctors and lawyers took her for everything she got, he said to himself "man if I dont avenge this old woman she'll drive me up the wall" so he made the doctors and lawyers pay her back and threw them in jail. or something like that. so the woman got justice even from a corrupt judge.
fudgedogbannana 7 months ago
If your ineffective government, keep the bums in power
FRSFreeStatePlus 8 months ago
WELL SAID! Mr. Friedman, WELL SAID! I admire Milton Friedman's ablity to logically explain truthful facts that many people do not want to believe.
drollord 8 months ago
ONLY way to hinder corruption is to NOT allow leader to establish corrupt ties. Can only be done with turnover.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
This guy is delusional. U cannot fight corruption with millions on the line.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
@mba2ceo Sure you can. If they don't get reelected how can they get their piece of the cake? It's even arguable that the more corruption, the more say the people have. The bigger the cake, the more congress will want to get reelected, so in turn, the more they will follow the masses wishes in order to get reelected. If there is no money on the line, they might just vote for things they believe in lol. Unfortunately right now many people want to sell their vote for welfare.
captcool420 8 months ago
You think a congressmen is not swayed by a piece of property in Nantucket? You think an offer for free air fair to Brazil, or a nice stock option wont appeal to even the most ardent politically minded individual? Come on. This is a professor of double speak! A great example of someone that is too smart, and to focused on what is "GOOD". Wake up! WAKE UP!!!
enddafed 9 months ago
@enddafed Those corrupt benefits disappear if you don't get reelected.
captcool420 8 months ago
The system is BROKEN!
enddafed 9 months ago
I appreciate this guy. Super Smart. But this is wrong. We vote for people to represent those without a voice. Those who are too busy, to really understand what happens in the corrupt epicenter of the world. People have families and jobs that limit their ability to be fully aware of the true level of corruption. We need people that are uncorrectable, that will lead. For fuck sake, they get a full retirement and full benefits the rest of their lives! Do what is right! The Silent Majority!!
enddafed 9 months ago
@enddafed I have a problem for someone who supposedly is leading people who are "too busy to understand what happens in the corrupt epicenter of the world". Are you proposing we elect officials based on people's opinions which in your own admission do not exist?
ajdavidson11292 8 months ago
not a big fan but at least hes keeping it 100 percent real right here.
doonymacc 10 months ago
fuck a democracy. democracy suxors, fuck the 51 and 90% of their fake ass unconstitutional laws. this is a republic essay and the Milton Friedman bit here is awesome. democracy is communism at best tyranny of the majority at the worst. I dont know about you noobs, but i pledge allegience to the Republic for which it Stands!!!!!! This right here is a true libertarian son's. i iz not be a liberal. You checkin nooobs need to chew on this fer a bit! Skadooooosh!
May God Bless the USA!
MrGeestacks 10 months ago
There is a lot of truth to that.
streetrace442 10 months ago
I say the problem with throwign the bums out is you will just repalce them with a new bum- becuse the issue is the voter
upyr1 11 months ago
That would be something if he said "The way you solve things, is by putting 2 bullets to the head and one in the chest" lololol
tusepagliacco 1 year ago
He's 100% right. We have the government we deserve. If we want our government to be different we need to deserve it. If we really didn't want a nanny state, we wouldn't have one. But ask your average American who pays lipserrvice to wanting lower taxes and smaller government if they also want Social Security and Medicare done away with, then see what they say. As long as most Americans want the Nanny State "blanky", we will continue to have exactly that.
TheSpacecadet78 1 year ago 22
@TheSpacecadet78
Look up Thomas Paine. Invented Social Security.,
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@TheSpacecadet78 Milton Friedman has stated over and over again "we dont deserve anything, so be thankful you don't get what you deserve". I do agree with the sentiment, we get the congress we allow them to be.
Tri1umph 4 months ago
@TheSpacecadet78
I really don't think we have the government we deserve. We have a government that those in the the media who "want to make difference" have manipulated us into electing. We are flying blind folks.
donmyrick 2 months ago
The economy is counter intuitive... that is the main reason why people dont understand it. Its the opposing symbiotic force to humanity and also what has propped humanity up to its heights it now enjoys. Free Market or Bust ... literally
ORACLE063 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
FreeGiftOffers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
FreeGiftOffers 1 year ago
competition to the extreme
DavidHilll 1 year ago
so he's saying we gotta change the game not the players in the game.
rainzoro 1 year ago 27
@rainzoro We have to change ourselves.
AmericanValues321 6 months ago
@rainzoro gotta change how to win
2846odlab 5 months ago
@rainzoro
Yep, pure Uncle Remus-- i.e. SLAVE MENTALITY.
"Gotta find ways to fool mazza and B'rer Fox! PLEEEZE Don' throw me in that briar-patch!"
They man is simply a naive, anti-democratic pragmatist.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
I like the counter-Friedman book, "The Freedom NOT to choose..."
MyBetty111 1 year ago
Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns wrote: "Uh huh, and how do we do that Mr. Friedman sir?" We just had a brilliant case study: Despite huge political pressure from Dem leadership to keep Party discipline together, Dems who realized their constituents were going to vote for candidates to the right of them stopped supporting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Too little too late for most. But Joe Manchin won a Senate seat this way by suddenly assuring voters he WOULDN'T vote Dem Party Line. Voter-driven transformation!
FreeGiftOffers 1 year ago
Immigration Gumballs
This is a MUST SEE video right here on you tube for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, illegal alien or a Congressman. copy and paste this in your browser... Immigration Gumballs
onstageagain 1 year ago
What a flaming idiot! I can't believe anyone could be this assinine.
birdbranze 1 year ago
@birdbranze You misspelled 'asinine' in trying to insult someone a lot smarter than you. Not a good look for you.
braininahat 1 year ago
@braininahat What is it about liberals when they can't dispute a fact they nit pick a type-o. The guy is a DUMBASS. I suppoose you'll tell me that's two words huh asshole?
birdbranze 1 year ago
@braininahat The basic point of his reply was to present a logical argument, not to be grammatically correct. Now that he made his point it would seem you either don't have a rebuttal or you find spelling more important than ideas. Either way you really need to get off the "I'm smarter than you therefore I win" bandwagon and use your supposedly better nourished brain to reply to his ideas, not make more personal attacks.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebestsumoeva This is what birdbranze said, "What a flaming idiot! I can't believe anyone could be this assinine." That's what you're calling a logical argument, numbnuts. I'll get off the "I'm smarter than you" kick as soon as you fools stop making fools of yourselves. Birdbranze offered only an insult and even botched that up with his misspelling. Don't blame me for his incompetence. At least when I insult people, I get it right.
braininahat 1 year ago
And that is why the two party system is a joke
85Picchio 1 year ago
@85Picchio
Having more than two parties does not decrease polarization or gridlock. It does not make politics more people-friendly. Just look at the Parliaments of Europe and Asia.
RavingDissension 1 year ago 2
this is money!
jdengsky 1 year ago
Brilliant observation. How can we make freedom politically profitable for the greedy rulers?
TheChaseair 1 year ago
@TheChaseair At least as far as economics are concerned, you have to tell as many people as possible that the NET benefit of income transfer, like Social Security, medicare, or the shuffle game of tax credits and deductions provide NOTHING but moving the same money around....at NO benefit to the people they are trying to help.
Gyrode 1 year ago
Terms limits has been a failure in the California legislature leading to polarized budget battles and inability to get things done.
EnricCirne 1 year ago
"Throw the bums out" is a pretty popular thing to say but the question is replace them with who because what comes after might be worst if you don't know who you want.
ErikS1975FreeState 1 year ago 2
Unfortunately, that's not working with our congress now. They are voting against what the people want. The Libs are so passionate about what they believe that they are willing to be political martyrs for Liberalism. It's seriously a mental disorder. You can't convince sick people to do the right thing.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
Congress was originally set up as a rotation system. People would do their public service duty and then go back to their regular lives and jobs. In this way, people were more in touch with common society instead of an aristocracy out of touch sitting on their thrones making deals with each other and playing games with tax payers money. Perhaps rotation through voting for different candidates would in fact help. I believe that term limits should be imposed on congress as well.
sisems75 1 year ago
I love Milton Friedman
tonytoy1776 1 year ago
we dont have schools and colleges like this. i wish we did.
amazing presentation and good questions.
kids now only care about celebrities and showbiz. the teachers union is also to blame as costs for education are increasing.
if we can end the teachers union we can have more control of education and costs.
hyylo 1 year ago
Ah loved this video
revolt1492 1 year ago
Truer words have never been spoken.
ButterflyDragon9 1 year ago
Milton is simply Brilliant
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is it that there's no clips of this guy on YouTube that are over 4 nanoseconds long.
FreeInquisition 1 year ago
Comment removed
FreeInquisition 1 year ago
I agree with this in principal. Practically though, the "wrong people" often tend to pay lip service to the "right thing", get elected, make every appearance of serving the intentions of voters, but surreptitiously do an end run around it, using every deceptive ploy they have at their disposal to hold off voters until after the next election. When voters in this country have to stop their lives in order to monitor their representatives continually it's a sign that change is needed.
mjhonsun 1 year ago
Wow, that is a deep statement!
JavaDevJPC 1 year ago
Did he just say "We have to bribe the crooks??" When the law gets to this point , The prisons will be empty..
geek5651 1 year ago
@geek5651 no, a "politically profitable" scenario is not the same as an economically profitable scenario. you're supposed to "bribe" your congressmen with your vote. unfortunately, most people only think about lesser social issues and think nothing of the economics. (the boondoggle of social security, medicare, and the "welfare" state in general confirm this)
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
brilliant. :)
scott01019 1 year ago
this would be a more realistic goal. But i like the Rothbard strategy of abolishing congress ; )
ohbobsagetpiss 1 year ago
What Milton is saying is TRUE. Everybody works out of self-interest (for better or worse). The way to get things done is to make a politician do something that will get him votes ("politically profitable" as Milton puts it). Unfortunately, the politician SHOULD be working for the public and should demonstrate leadership because much of the public is ignorant.
all028 1 year ago
Fantastic!
sdfkjllshadflhadfshl 1 year ago
Why do we have "the bums" in the first place? Why send our money and allegiance to DC, in the hopes of maybe getting some of it back? We all know it's a corrupt system. What do they pay for with OUR money, that we can't do for ourselves more locally? National defense, perhaps. If it were limited to just that . . . defense. Everything else is waste. Better off payed for and controlled by locals. Why we tolerate the overbearing paternalism of DC is beyond me.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
I welcome the truth as an oasis in the desert of people . Tom collins4-16-10
Tomcaatt 1 year ago
The truth was here before we were, people have always rather beleived the lies
Tomcaatt 1 year ago
Gotta love Friedman. I almost never like what he has to say but 95% of the time he is absolutely correct.
kinga750 1 year ago 2
epiiiiiiiiiic
aUsernameAvailable 1 year ago
Just another example that regardless of how long you go to school and get a Doctoral degree, you can still be as stupid as a bag of hammers. This idiotic thinking is exactly what the problem is.
jerrysanders15 1 year ago
Well that's not fair to Friedman. He was a very intelligent man. It's just that he was wrong on a few things, as most of us are.
Also, consider the fact that he gave this speech back in the day when people forced their politicians out if they failed to represent them; Back when politicians represented the people.
I agree that he was wrong on this issue though. Stupak and the other Dems in Congress are proof of that. Pelosi even said getting their bill passed was worth getting voted out.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This didn't work Sunday....with 60-70% of American's opposed to the health care takeover bill...the wrong people still did the wrong thing in the face of political suicide.
docsavage98 1 year ago
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
Right, which is why Friedman was wrong on this issue.
We do need to elect the right people. Period.
You can't make it profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing unless you have the right people in Congress making laws that will accomplish that.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
Ridiculous! Who are the right people? Where are they? The fact of the matter is that only a power-hungry scumbag who hates their own family would be a politician. Yes, that applies to [insert name of you representitive] as well. Go to a tea-party and you'll find tons of people who will tell you this is the first time they've been political. You can't make it profitable by going to one rally / town hall. It takes a lot of work!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago 2
Wrong. We have many good people running for office now. Many of whom are former military who served in Iraq or Afgahnistan. We have regular citizens running now too. The right people are conservatives who respect and follow the Constitution and want to return to the limited government ideals of the founding fathers. What will save this country are the three C's; Christianity, Conservatism, and Capitalism.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
Great! We won't have to worry about making it "politically profitable" for them to do the right thing, since the "right" people will do it on their own. With the "right" people in office the tea-parties can disband and we can all go back to taking freedom for granted!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
The political profit will be in staying in office so that unscrupulous bums can't get back in and mess everything up again. But even if those right people go wrong somewhere, the people can always vote someone else in who will uphold the Constitution and represent their constituents.
Taking freedom for granted is a problem on the people's level. More people will simply have to develop a mindset of patriotism and love of country.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
How will you distinguish who is the "right" person and who is someone pretending to be someone they are not to seek power? Maybe you have that ability, but most people don't. Look at how Obama tricked the independents! Your argument relies on a Utopian dream, Friedman's relies on reality. Like he said, "it's nice to elect the 'right' people..." Let's all wake up and realize that the enemies of freedom are devious and will stop at nothing to attain power!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
We will know them by what they stand for and what they have done with their lives.
I know he tricked them, but what I'm saying is that we as a society will have to really start paying attention to these candidates. Anyone who watched Fox News even for a second back then knew Obama's true background. The other problem is finding solid folks to run.
Look, there's a lot that has to be done, but the main point is we DO have to throw the bums out.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
The political profit will be in staying in office so that unscrupulous bums can't get back in and mess everything up again. But even if those right people go wrong somewhere, the people can always vote someone else in who will uphold the Constitution and represent their constituents.
Taking freedom for granted is a problem on the people's level. More people will simply have to develop a mindset of patriotism and love of country.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
...the "ideals" of what Christianity stands for, being practiced consistently will save the world...which are those also embraced by Buddhists, Muslims, etc....bearing in mind that ALL religions have surfaced their own free radicals in history and been a harm to mankind.
spreadluv2 1 year ago
Well technically there is no such thing as a Christian "radical" as we understand the term "radical" to mean. Those who carry out violence against the innocent in the name of Christianity are not true Christians, as the Bible does not direct us to do anything of the kind. So a radical Christian would be one who is very dedicated to God's word. A "Jesus Freak", as they were called.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
and rest assure they'll pay
chokin2 1 year ago
That is BRILLIANT.
horny4Utube 2 years ago 3
The true challenge for us libertarians is still to win the battle of ideas. The main problem is political indoctrination through the educational system. We need to get better organized in our individual countries and begin infiltrating the schools like the socialists did in the 60's and the following decades. We already have an understanding of this in my country biggest Libertarian party who got 23% of the electoral vote, and 30%+ of the popular vote. But implementing something is harder.
killerbee2k 2 years ago 10
What country is this?
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
killerbee2k: I think (suspect) that is one of the reasons Friedman was such a proponent of the voucher system. He knew people were too dependent on the government paying for primary eduction to accept total free market education but a voucher system would still improve education while disrupting the socialist control of it.
Brainwashing kids is the dishonest tactic of a socialist and they're good at it. Let's remove their means of doing so rather than playing their game.
studentofsmith 2 years ago
Dont hate player, hate the game.
miiiikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
LacusOdii 2 years ago
He comes close to saying no such thing (and doesn't believe that either). What is your first language? It sure isn't English.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Political hacks aren't interested in you, they're interested in themselves. Give them a reason to act on your behalf or else they will act on their own. The only question facing American's at this point in history is how to profit and become financially secure from the inevitable decline of the wealth which these parasites in Washington have caused. The politicians are too stupid to profit from their folly but intelligent individuals will.
tantrikwizard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LacusOdii this Freidman stating what his idea of a "free" society is What I believe is not a democracy but an individual freedom in a society in which individuals cooperate with one another
franks2732 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There you have it Friedman on freedom, and another classic Friedman quote "Lets be clear, I dont believe in democracy in one sense. You dont believe in democracy. Nobody believes in democracy" Friedman used this quote to explain away majority decisions using if 55% vote to kill 45% of the population etc. The problem with this is of course any sane person would oppose genocide. That does not mean all decisions by the majority are wrong or majority rule is wrong. Freidman though implies it is
franks2732 2 years ago
@franks2732
No, Friedman is simply restating de Tocqueville. The 'genocide scenario' is what even mildly intelligent people understand to be a rhetorical device. (Certainly your head isn't that thick, is it?) Do you realize the United States Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian document? No one said or implied that "all decisions by the? majority are wrong," but some (at least ten) things have to be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority.'
TheTrueLiberal 2 years ago 32
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheTrueLiberal really he is restating de Tocqueville, that is all he is doing, he is not using the words of a great french philosopher to add weight to his own opinion. He is simply stating what someone else said right. I know I am pretty thick I tell you lol Firstly the "US Bill of Rights" was not to protect society from the 'tyranny of the majority.' But to protect the rights of the individual. None of those rights are innately blessed with the divine right. Nor were they set in stone.tbc
franks2732 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@franks2732 continuing on from that, You Libertarians seem to forget the last bit "without due process of law" That means government may change amend and remove sections as long as it is in accord with the consitution. Admittedly like most other nations it requires about a 2/3 majority but none the less the majority can remove or amend any part of it they wish. Individual rights certainly can be removed or challenged as long as it is according to "due process" i.e. forced acquisition of property
franks2732 2 years ago
@franks2732 "Firstly the "US Bill of Rights" was not to protect society from the 'tyranny of the majority.' But to protect the rights of the individual."
What a beautiful / ridiculous display of doublespeak! Brilliant!
TheTrueLiberal 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheTrueLiberal I accuse you of double speak. The "tyranny of the majority" what an opinionated statement if ever i heard one, and yes their is a distinct difference between "tyranny of the majority" and rights of the individual! they are completely separate and opposing views. Individual right protect individuals from the excess of other individuals, the state etc. "tyranny of the majority" is simply an inflammatory comment to garner favor but means nothing
franks2732 2 years ago
The constitution as a whole itself had the goal of protecting society from the tyranny of the majority, but the bill of rights specifically was to protect individuals.
bgoods9956 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheTrueLiberal And lastly you moronic little cretan (fuck the hide of you to insult my intellect, who went and made you Exchequer of Reasoned thought) Tocqueville was an ardent opponent of individualism. Being a classical liberal "the civil code" etc held sway, His views in these areas are similar to Marx and Hegel. But he was opposed to the rigid structure of the early socialists. But In no way could his views be constructed as to favor Libertarian Individualism or Anarcho Capitalism
franks2732 2 years ago
@franks2732 Profanity has always been the mark of a true intellectual! Another is to write down everything you want to say, then use a thesaurus to replace every word with a more 'important' sounding one. Then you can generate phrases like: "fuck the hide of you to insult my intellect, who went and made you Exchequer of Reasoned thought"
It clearly helps to randomly capitalize words as well. Bravo! Another brilliant display!
TheTrueLiberal 2 years ago 47
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheTrueLiberal i quote your comments "Certainly your head isn't that thick, is it?" so where the shoe fits. It seems I did not start the drive towards insults, rather it was you who were first to use the lose tongue and personal attack. I therefore rightfully attacked your person! What is it one rule for one and not for some. Liberatrians LOL
franks2732 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheTrueLiberal And another thing if you wish to argue against my statements, please do so, I would gladly welcome the exchange, but it seems to me whenever your statements are questioned and found fault, rather than attack the merit of the argument presented, you resort to rhetoric. Like I will make this statement 'The majority of classical liberals from the age of reason and enlightenment" would be firmly opposed the the beliefs that Modern Libertarians hold.
franks2732 2 years ago
@TheTrueLiberal
LOL ..best post of the day.
AquariaNetTV 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Regardless of any of this - we are in common agreement that what Friedman's says here is brilliant and on the mark? Whether or not he repeats de Tocqueville's insights, all rational people must agree that the statement itself is quite correct, yes?
DrCruel 1 year ago
Oh, yes, his head is that thick. See if your patience for his dishonesty lasts as long as mine did.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago 7
@TheTrueLiberal Milton Friedman said that a simple majority vote is only valid for less important stuff. The real important stuff needs almost unanimity. Sounds a lot like the Bill of Rights. The question is what is real important and what is not? Maybe government may only make laws that have a whooping majority. All the rest must be less important.
MarcCools1964 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal I was just explaining this to someone the other day we have votes in majority in the legislative branch of Gov. but the founding documents are steup to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority people look to Gov and see example in action is ruled by votes and passing new laws but they fail to read the founding documents to see how the foundation of it all is setup so in there minds its majority this polesters that.
ssjwes 1 year ago
@franks2732 it appears to me that you misunderstand Friedman.
Friedman has stated that he believes in democratic government to provide national defence, police, and the provision of law. That is all democracy should concern itself with.
On the other hand, you appear to want government to concern itself with the day-to-day minutae of peoples lives and to steal money and give it to others.
When a man can vote himself freebies paid for by another, democracy falls down.
kbdkbd99 10 months ago 2
@kbdkbd99 Sadly how do you wish to "enforce" his ideological position? By going against the will of the people. His argument is the same argument used by Stalin. And the argument no matter how nice he portrays it is. I want democracy as long as it is My type of democracy that my ideological views support. You are saying that government must only do this or that. Thankfully the majority 99.4% disagree. he also said a Dictatorship is OK to bring about HIS type of freedom. I say FUCK NO
franks2732 10 months ago
I think Friedman is wrong here.
The political leaders not only desire political gains but financial gains.
Therefore you see Congress voting for the bailouts even when the majority of the country didn't want it. (and this happens on many other occasions)
What Congress does is they talk about the right things and make excuses to reap political profits during their elections, and then do the opposite to reap financial gains from the corporations and special interests.
offBeatRock777 2 years ago
On revolution: watch?v=gJQ_lE6UL1o
YearofYouth 2 years ago
The Feynman of Econ...
or is it the other way around?!
highonhayek 2 years ago 5
You people are wrong about nancy p.
See she is only a strong leadership position because of the strong backing of the democratic party last election.
Exactly as M.F. said, if the other democratic members and leaders themselves found it unpopular for her to be in a situation of leadership that would threaten their votes SHE wouldn't be. (should would be in congress but without much power)
Once again THINK, its not about individual elections its about the the popularity contest.
jetrpg22 2 years ago
She's the best Democratic fundraiser in the House, hence her position. The biggest bribe taker will naturally lead. I am liberal by the way, but I don't support corruption.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
THROW THE LIBERALS OUT!! NOW!
Hydra773 2 years ago
Schiff and Ron Paul supporters should watch this video. When ever I read their comments, the thought of Bonapartism rings in my head.
historyboy12 2 years ago
Friedman was right in his day, but today's politician is very different from those of his era. Take Nancy Palosi for example. She just said she doesn't care about her approval rating. She calls those who protest socialized medicine un-American and swastika carriers. They don't care about using slurs on the American people.
Now the town hall protests may be working on most for now, but they'll just find a way to ram the same policies through in some other way. We have to vote them out.
BelieveIt1051 2 years ago
Nope, it applies to her as well. After all, her constituents are typically center-left to far-left (emphasis on far-left). She's not running for President, she's not trying to buy votes from SF *and* Alabama, just SF.
zorkie 2 years ago 2
She has stated that she doesn't care what the American people think of her or her job performance. The only option is to vote her out. She is a far left ideologue who only cares about the liberal/statist agenda.
BelieveIt1051 2 years ago
Saying she doesn't care what Americans think is exactly the sort of rhetoric that makes them swoon in SF and Berkely.
zorkie 2 years ago
Good point. Their are many ideologues in government. We are no longer dealing with mere egomaniacs that will do anything to stay in power. Socialists like Ms. Pelosi have unwavering agendas.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
I do like her liberal propaganda. It's about time liberals started fighting back and playing dirty. The Republicans have been doing it since Nixon. Our politics should be the politics of personal destruction.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Libs have been playing dirty since FDR. Republicans are such wimps that they can't even defend themselves from dirty politics and slander. So let the libs claim the politics of personal destruction. It will only lead to their own destruction.
Conservatism is starting to awaken from its 20 year sleep, and when it does it will propel America back into greatness once again, for conservatism stands for the principals of the founding fathers. With it we'll crush liberalism just as we did in 1984.
BelieveIt1051 2 years ago
Sure, conservatism has been asleep for the last 20 years, despite Republicans controlling congress from 1994-2006 and the White House for the previous 8 years.
Maybe you don't think these politicians were conservatives? If so, why do they run as such? Could it be that it's an ungovernable philosophy, which runs up against incentives for corruption and voters wanting handouts? How do you overcome this? It's human nature.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
That's exactly correct. Conservatism started dozing off soon after daddy Bush took office.
We had some conservatives in congress to trip up BJ Clinton and fix the economy during his last term while he was porking an intern, but they eventually got lazy and started straying from their values, reaching out to the other side of the aisle and moving the party to the center. They tried the middle of the road moderate approach in the last election and got creamed again.
BelieveIt1051 2 years ago
That's why they run as conservatives, because that is the only philosophy that can win against the emotional arguments of the liberals and crush their petty insults. McCain didn't stand a chance against Obama until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP. She drew in a lot of interest and won ma