Milton Friedman on Libertarianism and Humility

[bmac6446]

Friedman, the man who gave us the payroll tax withholding and pushed for the taxpayer to supplement laziness (the negative income tax). The reason why Mises called him a socialist at The Mont Pelerin Society meeting was for this very idea of subsidizing incomes with taxpayer dollars. His intolerant explanation of Austrian economic theory is typical of a central banking monetarist like many from the Chicago school.

[davekeays]

@bmac6446 So is your simplistic answer to difficult questions that come up in a society that we should leave it to individuals? Like M.F. said; true but how do we get there?

The questions can't be answered by sound-bites as many Libertarians attempt. It makes the Austrian school sound like an east German school circa WWII or re-education camp of 1984. It is a form of preaching to the choir that turns off the rest. It is only justified if Libertarianism is the only possible truth.

[bmac6446]

@davekeays What the he## are you talking about? I'm pointing out that the man was a hypocrite. He was constantly intolerant to any other school of thought that wasn't moneterist. Where do you think the term "Gold Bugs" came from? Sure, he promoted a free market as long as the "free" market was regulated by a central bank and fiat (imposed, not free choice) currency. Every week when I see that chunk of my paycheck missing I say, "Thanks Milton."

[Vodka2389]

Friedman's justification is nihilistic in nature. It's in no way superior to Rand or Rothbard.

[davekeays]

@Vodka2389 What definition of Nihilism are you using? Not the one Miriam-Webster:

1a: ... traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is useless

1b: ... denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2a: ... the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable.

I don't read his words in any of these. Please explain your statement.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

Finally, the man in his own words bitch slaps market fundamentalists, anarchists, Rothbardian drones, who have done nothing other than scapegoat: "he's a statist!" Friedman on the other hand, as a pragmatist, ended the draft, price controls in the energy sector, high inflation in the 80s (through his anti-Keynesian revolution), established the ideas behind school vouchers, negative income tax, contributed to economic theory and won the Nobel Prize. Friedman: 1. Rothbard: 0.

[MrBWB]

@LogicalFlawDetector I hate to say it, though I agree with you, you don't come across as any more mature than those people you just criticized. I think the message in this very video was to work together, not label and divide.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@MrBWB

You can't work with anarchists. They have done more damage to the libertarian movement, by spreading market fundamentalism and scaring away people who would otherwise have become at least moderate minarchists. Anarchists have made the libertarian movement look like a cult, which offers simplistic and impractical solutions to the problems we face.

[kev3d]

@LogicalFlawDetector I tend to agree. Anarchists, and I hate to say it, many Austrian followers are more concerned with the notion of argumentative purity and saying things like "All Taxation is theft", or "All copyrights and patents are wrong " rather than looking at practical ways of at least reducing taxes or exploring more sensible copyright law. Fine principals but one must walk before one can run. An all or nothing approach is far too radical for the vast majority.

[needtoalwayslearn]

@kev3d You argument is conflated. Yes, taxation is theft by the very fact that you have no way out but to pay. There is nothing voluntary about it. I don't see how anyone call can this anything but theft.

The point you are making "looking at practical ways of at least reducing taxes" is a policy point: transitioning from high taxes to lower taxes.

Your point about copyright is taken as I am not completely well versed in it yet.

Still, all "taxation is theft" since it's non-voluntary.

[kev3d]

@needtoalwayslearn Not all taxation is involuntary; one can barter to avoid sales tax (and people do), where there is no flax tax one can work below the minimum income tax bracket. So strictly speaking, many taxes are voluntary. Undesirable, unwise, unethical perhaps, but voluntary. You are right in saying lowering taxes is a policy point, but so is eliminating all taxes, both based on slightly different philosophies.

[needtoalwayslearn]

@kev3d Firstly it is "non-voluntary". "Involuntary" means something else. There is a difference.

Secondly, you need to clarify for me your statement:"one can barter to avoid sales tax".

I think you mean "one can trade indirectly by using money, but he chooses to trade directly (ie.barter) to avoid sales tax".

My question to you is this: Who owns the (paper ?) money in your hand ? You or the government ?

[kev3d]

@needtoalwayslearn Involuntary;

adjective

1. not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude.

2. unintentional; unconscious: an involuntary gesture.

3.Physiology . acting independently of or done or occurring without volition: involuntary muscles.

And by barter I mean

verb

1.to trade by exchange of commodities rather than by the use of money.

[needtoalwayslearn]

@kev3d Let me get this straight. You think you have used the word "involuntary" correctly in the context of our discussion ?

Yes or No ?

[kev3d]

@needtoalwayslearn Well, Noah Webster, do you want to have a discussion on semantics or on the nature of taxes? You have made your position clear; you believe all taxes are theft and I disagree. I maintain SOME taxes may be theft or at the very least, unjust, but not to those who wish to pay them, and not in certain situation or with certain products.

[needtoalwayslearn]

@kev3d Haha, I am trying to have a clear discussion about taxes. No doubt about it. But in order to discuss such issues we need to agree on the terms we use.

If you're going to throw about concepts that incorrectly describe YOUR position then I'm going to try and correct you.

There are a few critical words (1)non-voluntary/voluntary (2)money and (3)property. Once we agree on these terms we can move forward discussing ideas.

You're unable to correct a mistake then what's the point ?

[needtoalwayslearn]

@needtoalwayslearn I want to add something. In the course of a discussion like we're having it's quite normal to misuse world or use words with different definitions to what we think they mean and for one party to ask for clarifications.

In most cases there is always someone who mis-states his position or misunderstands your position. You shouldn't be offended, it's part of the process of a discussion !

[kev3d]

@needtoalwayslearn Well if you with to discuss terms it is simple; involuntary = compulsory, forced. Voluntary= The opposite of involuntary, freely chosen, not forced. Money= A common medium of exchange used for payment of a product or service, commonly issued by governments or banks, historically precious metals. Property=That which is owned, assets which usually carry a monetary and/or sentimental value.

[kev3d]

@needtoalwayslearn Obviously I own the money in my hand, however as I pointed out, there are alternatives to using it in some circumstances, some people want to pay taxes and again, there is the income tax threshold. Now consider this; what if there are no taxes, but the issued money carries a user fee to pay for infrastructure, courts and defense?

[HugoNewman]

@LogicalFlawDetector I have to disagree. It was the very elegance and principled consistency of libertarian anarchists like Rothbard and Block which attracted and ultimately convinced me, the very fact that they were unwilling to concede anything simply to pander to people's emotive reservations about the apparent (and often merely apparent) implications of the position. People I think are attracted to principle. It's a natural intellectual virtue. People tend to apply Ockham's razor.

[HugoNewman]

@LogicalFlawDetector Libertarian anarchism is appealing for precisely this reason - it does not admit of "exceptions" to the rule of non-aggression and make ad hoc concessions, sacrificing consistency for mere palatability. As for the practical propriety of anarchists, that's an entirely separate issue. We can endorse anarchism as an ultimate goal, all the while working to redress the state's most egregious violations of individual rights first, and do so in a politically responsible fashion.

[davekeays]

@MrBWB I heard him praise Mises and Rand, but pointed-out their shortcomings. This was a very frank talk that we libertarians need to listen to. One reason we are seen as the fringe is because many of us are so intolerant of other ideas. Without tolerance we are no different than those who claim we citizens must be of a certain religion, have a certain level of education, or be born into a economic bracket.

[bmac6446]

@LogicalFlawDetector Do you even know what the negative income tax is?