@Auraruth8 he's saying that if people are allowed to work for a low wage, they can get work experience and master a set of skills. Learning those skills allow them to earn a higher wage. If they don't receive it, they can go elsewhere and demand a higher wage for their labor. I realize actually EARNING a higher wage may be a foreign concept to you, but these are facts. People may be earning a higher wage today, but less people are unemployed, more have food stamps, and things cost more.
@SorryForYourBoss Because of wrong government policies on many issues, the minimum wage is NOT one of them. Again look at working conditions before and after the minimum wage was instated and you can look at other factors Im sure. But I would recommend this guy for starters, its a one hour vid on youtube that you can watch if you copy the name of the vid. It basically crushes many of Miltons ideas, at least in my opinion. "Why the world isnt flat" by Ha-Joon Chang. Watch it!
Does he ever mention the actual wages people had through history before and after the rules where implemented? does he mention Martin Luther King? Again he takes on a very simplistic view...again.
@Auraruth8 Wages are irrelevant, through government policies, what used to be $.05/gallon of gas is now $3.50/gallon, look at food, clothing etc... all prices have continued upward as a result of government taxation regulation, minimum wage being one of them. MLK has nothing to do with the conversation,but if you want to bring him in, government excluding of blacks. It was the unions "lobbying" government to create a min wage to destroy black from underbidding the unions at job sites.
@quinnrasta Again why should blacks have to take less pay than whites?I would again say that inflation is irrelevant,if wages go up it doesnt matter,it is through government and government policies that life as we know it is possible and can improve.Government policies simply have to change a little and a lot of the political system has to change.What M.Friedman talks about would only work for the people if everybody changed everything radically. Its not practical. I can continue...
@quinnrasta In some things M. Freidman does have a point. But again it is difficult to explain exactly what I think. Its easier if you watch this vid and then we can pherhaps disscuss a little better as we get a sence of where we both stand: "Why the world isnt flat" by Ha-Joon Chang. Watch it! its an hour but it is entertaining. =)
@Auraruth8 I appreciate you calm and thoughtful demeanor. Blacks DO NOT have to take less pay than whites, but if they are going to be discriminated against the only power they have is to bid for a lower wage, at that point it will cost the racist employer for being racist by having to pay the white worker a higher wage. The minimum wages condemns the black worker because the employer now does not bear a cost for the discrimination and thus hire the whites only.
@Auraruth8 Things are not better because of min wage, but the result of time and technology. The same argument was made with OSHA, after OSHA was put into place work safety increased and the chart they show is from the start of OSHA to present, but when they go before OSHA, safety was rising at the same rate. Same goes for min wage, how is it that Hong Kong with no min wage has produced so much and has thrived? Wages have risen despite the gov coming in to "rescue" the worker
@quinnrasta Have you checked the vid? If not I recommend you do. And then you could check this out. I find its a lot easier this way than trying to write a bunch of stuff, that gets misunderstud anyway. please check it out. And then this playlist wich could be relevant: Chomsky on Reagan and M.Friedman. Please check it out.
@Auraruth8 The guy is misrepresenting facts to satisfy his policies.The way he represents his facts are like saying "John was drunk and was killed in a car wreck" so everybody assumes John was drinking and driving when in fact he was the passenger, but the way the statement is made,is to suggest drinking caused the accident. Protectionism didnt cause the US to be come successful &capitalism is not causing its demise. He wants "fairness" a word someone has to define and for him its gov
Individuals and businesses are often more productive, up to a point, if they are able to act independently. However, in many cases, completely unrestrained freedom of action can actually lead to a less efficient use of resources. Unemployment is an unavoidable result of 'market failure'. Effective government can actively increase productive employment, bad government can of course reduce it. Capitalism tends towards a monopoly of wealth if not properly regulated.
This dude was the incarnation of Satan. He was more satanic than the blackest metal band out there. Hey black metalheads. you should have the face of Milton Friedman as your logo rather than a pentagram. To this fucker, money came before anything, even human lives, moral values or social equality. Hope he's burning in hell!!!
@Titoritus You just don't understand what he's saying. You want morals to be enforced? Great, whose gonna do it? You? I suppose you're too busy right? So you're gonna hire some one. And that someone is going to be the government. And what is the tool at the governments disposal to perform as you command acting as your agent? Violence. And how are they going to get paid? Violence. Are you going to pay? No, you can't, but you command your agent to get paid through everyone. You empower the beast.
@ca1cifer the civil rights Act is important for all public positions. However, it should not be forced on private companies. Individuals running their own company with their own money should have a right to hire and place restrictions on their goods however they choose. Public companies on the other hand, that are funded with tax dollars from everyone, should not be allowed to discriminate.
@mastercloud977 I agree with everything you said, but Friedman said that there's no gov intervention that helped minorities. So I was wondering if the Civil Rights Act did or didn't help.
@mastercloud977 You're absolutely right, it is only proper that racism and sexism should be allowed to flourish once again, just as they did back in the good old days, before all that oppressive government interference.
@atlasman55 you mean the wonderful government interference like "seperate but equal", "jim crow laws" and minumum wages? Oh yes, we obviously need more of them, I can clearly see your point now.
But seriously, racism and sexism shouldn't be controlled at a private level. It is not the governments job to force someone how to think.
@mastercloud977 Thankfully due to the democratic process, bad laws can be repealed, and good laws brought in to replace them. Laws are not intended to control how people think, only to control the effect that their actions have on others.
@atlasman55 Two points. 1. Once a law is in place, it is very very difficult to get it repealed. Its not like you can just wave a magic wand in the democratic process and instantly get rid of all the "bad" laws. And to that, who decides what laws are "bad"?
2. Again, you're suggesting laws to control how people can act / think. U r trying to control peoples actions and that is not what a free society is about. I dont want the government to control my actions, unless i'm directly harming another
@atlasman55 That would be nice if it were true. But our "controlling" of business and individuals has grown out of control and becoming increasingly invasive. When government tries to dictate how business' should operate, you get unemployment and high costs. This hurts the middle and lower class. I disagree that controlling the actions of individuals and organizations is a fundamental part of a free soceity. The country went 200 years without it and had tremoundous growth
@mastercloud977 The country has always had laws, and as such the actions of individuals have always been subject to the authority of government. I agree that there can be such a thing as an over-bearing or too-powerful government, and that may well be the case in the USA at present. However, if one want's to alter the role of government, ultimately one has to engage in the democratic process in some way.
@atlasman55 I agree completely with your previous statement. When I wrote earlier that the coutry went for 200 years without laws, I was more talking about laws that have been added under so called "consumer safety" or business regulation which did not exist for quite a long time. But yes, we must use the democratic process in order to get laws passed. However, it is always not the most efficient process
Prof Friedman appears to conveniently ignore the fact that the poor & disadvantaged ALSO 'inherent' [many] talents. However, in this society because (among some groups) of historic injustice they also inherent economic & social inequalities. No (liberal) moderates are arguing that the state should take all of a families inherited wealth ;but, since all pple benefit form the collective production of the poor, there shd be limited REDISTRIBUTION. The civil rights movement DID call for quotas.
actually, what you mean is, this nation's variety of "unrestrained & unregulated capitalism". Most western nations are capitalist too (including Canada & Germany) but of a more orderly & protective variety. Until about 30 years ago the US & Canada also had about the same % of unionized workers- no more thanks to political policies & unbalanced corp influences. Have U heard of the "working poor"? See the book "Nickled & Dimed". Ignored in UR comment is the reality of massive social injustice
@shieldsff I'm pretty sick of retards like you who think America is a free market. As of 1998 the US had 134,723 pages of regulations. The regulation in Canada is only a fraction of that. Unions are a burden to any employer, but not nearly as crushing as so many regulations. Something has to give; in the US it was the unions.
I like Milton Friedman, but the republican party today is full of ignorant religious dumb people who don't understand basic math..forget basic economics. And the Tea party...HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
@glovisy actually i do know a lot of them, and its really sad to see them believing every word of the Bible as the truth. in milton's days, the republican party wasn't out to screw the american public, they were just a different party from the democrats...and we had 2 parties. TODAY, the republican party(democrats too a bit) is owned corporate america. their priority is cut taxes for the wealthy 2% and block every other bill put forth by The President.
@HPhenomenal I would disagree. The Republican and Democrat Party are the almost the same. Both have put forth government policies that have advanced war, decreased our personal freedoms, and extended the role of government. Both believe in corporatism. However to say that Republicans are full or religious lemmings is gross misinterpretation. ALL parties have their bad apples. In addition, it's obvious that neither party has an understanding of mathematics.
If Affirmative Action is so bad, why didn't Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W., or W end it? Why doesn't industry use its significant financial resources to get elected the people who will end the practice?
@criticalsection Umm... maybe because Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W. and W. were scumbag Republican politicians who didn't give a shit about doing what was right but only about getting more power and keeping it. Maybe because "industry" has more lucrative uses for its money (even within the field of political lobbying) than to spend it lobbying for a measure to help working class blacks. Especially when popular ignorance and magical thinking means they would be rewarded with nothing but contempt.
@DukeofAnarchy Where are blacks worst off in the country? It is not in the states or cities with the liberal ideology that government can take care of them. They are worse off in the cities with massive regulation and taxation, democrats would just prefer that blacks stay poor and keep them segregated from them. The democrat party was the party of segregation, Jim Crow, KKK etc..Eisenhower wrote the civil rights act in 57' but LBJ would not pass it unless it excluded segregation
It is true that the "white man" is keeping them down. But in a counterintuitive way. By passing laws in the name of helping minorities, the government in affect locks them into poverty.
This is absolutley brilliant. I am European and sadly it doesn't look like the powers that be will take Mr Friedman's advice. Things will only get worse for the western countries.
I originally from Jamaica and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Friedman.The government got involved in helping the populace after independence from the British. They took over most industries and implemented policies to help the poor. The country became one of the poorest, debt-ridden and crime ridden countries in the world. I think the Government should be like the REFEREES in football - implement the rules and punish those break them. Leave the game to the people.
@buffteethr yup. Friedman compares the gov to an umpire in baseball lol. They are there to enforce the rules of the game, but we are to play the game freely as long as we do not impose involuntary costs on third parties.
@buffteethr In Canada they always ask are you a visible minority, are you a first nations person, etc. at first I think (as a white male) what benefit am i undeserving of, and secondly why does it matter, I'd be annoyed if i had to check off that box I hate both words visible and minority together, you'd just feel like some token member.
Long live Liberia. The jews live in sqauler.Better yet palistine is the new world, i cant wait to get to the arab world.What a land of freedom and tolerance.Excuse me i think i just threw up in my mouth.
As Dr Martin King said people should be judged by the "Content of their Character & not by the Color of their skin". All people of all backgrounds should have the same access to a quality education & job training so they can get the best job that they can get based on their skills & work performance & nothing else.
Hey don there are millions of people in china and India that have food to eat because of Milton Friedman. I'm sorry your liberal government teacher brainwashed you so badly that you can't see the truth.
@Bfisher14 lol this is so hilarious I'm getting a seizure from laughter, in neoliberal India the poor are increasing as we speak as a quarter of the country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of literally a handful of billionaires. As far as China is concerned, I'm sure that the Chinese are happy that we are dismantling our whole industrial infrastructure so that we can abuse their artificially induced cheap labor to extract more money out of our dying, indebted Western middle class.
@DonVoghano If you define poverty as people with under half of the median income then yes poverty might be increasing. But if you look at the amount of things and food the people have they are far better off with a bad "distribution of wealth" . Trade with China is beneficial to the U.S. maybe you need to learn some economics. If they are going to subsidize exports it is charity to the U.S. Look at the Euro, do you really want to be like Europe?
@Bfisher14 never heard of milton friedman... your misinformed... there is no such funds from milton that goes to the poor in india or china. stop thinking that countries like india and china are poorer and third world. they are lot better than USA!
@tigersoup No, it was the free market principles that Friedman advocated that eventually opened up the markets in India and China (And Vietnam as well). Politically, those nations have a VERY long way to go, but economically, they are doing the right thing for the most part; providing goods and services that people want for an agreeable price. It is this new found economic freedom that has allowed their economies to thrive, while the more restrictive Western economies have been faltering.
@tigersoup : I've lived in India for the first 22 years of my life and let me tell you that India was a stagnant pool of pervasive corruption and inefficient government economic policies up until 1991. It was a result of the protectionist and socialist government that poverty was high in India and the standard of living was horrible. However, since 1991, after the liberalization of the market poverty has been eradicated to a great extent and growth has increased significantly.
@tigersoup Milton Friedman had come to India several times and had made a strong case in favor of liberalized economies. But the Nehruvian and then the Indra government never paid a heed. It was only the stalwarts of the Swatantrantrata Party that ever listened to him. Milton Friedman cites India many a times in his books and he has had a tremendous role in developing a small breed of people who eventually argued for the liberalization of India.
@Bfisher14 The ruling party of India is socialistic and some are communist. There is a good reason why India was a close ally of USSR until 1991. Also, don't forget the cast system and the governmental monopolies.
@Bfisher14 A little simplistic don't you think. =) You have to look at the bigger picture. History books are pretty good for getting that sort of thing. =)
Friedman is good so long as you stay away from any actual empirical verification of his religious doctrines. His ideas turned the US from the greatest, most advanced nation on the planet to a bankrupt plutocracy boasting statistics more similar to 3rd world banana republics than advanced industrial countries.
Unbelievable how hugely brainwashed or ignorant (or lazy since you can find all the facts on-line nowadays) one must be to still listen to this criminal.
@DonVoghano Yes because in past years the united states government has moved away from bigger government to smaller, with more free market and personal freedom. Wait.., it hasn't. And look where we are now ? Your arguments speak purely in favor of Milton Friedman's points of view on government regulation...
@undri Lol you should take a look at the effect of the implementation of Friedmanite measures on 3rd world and ex soviet countries. That Friedman stuff is pure religion, Adam Smith would laugh him out of the room...
@undri Lol you should take a look at the effect of the implementation of Friedmanite measures on 3rd world and ex soviet countries. That Friedman stuff is pure religion, Adam Smith would laugh him out of the room...
Read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, she tells the truth and exposes Friedman for what he is: A New World Nazi who wants nothing more than to exterminate the poor/working class.
Exposes? Well I have read the Shock Doctrine and she needs to get her facts straight. She says that the IMF was designed to be a global shock absorber. As anyone that has read even a simple wikipedia entry on the subject will tell you the IMF was designed to be regulated the currency exchange system in bretton woods. That is it... Her book is riddled with errors fabrications and mis-truths.
Interesting perspective on the minimum wage thing. I know that the quota hiring system is based on discrimination and not on qualifications. This serves to create more resentment, and seperation amongst the races. Ya can't force people to come together, but you can encourage it. Gov intervention on race relations has so far become a nightmare for some.
kev3d, you've got to look at this thing from every perspective, as I have. I realize you want to be kind to everyone, but some behavior is not warranted for such generosity. There is such a thing as too much compassion, particularly where it isn't warranted. Freedom comes with personal responsibility, and the understanding that you simply can't have everything you want just because you choose to behave in a certain way. Think about that. I'm not responding to you anymore.
I am not asking for charity, I am not even asking everyone to be "nice". I am asking for equal contract recognition and no special favors for anyone. You seem to think recognizing a homosexual union somehow constitutes an endorsement, but all it does as serve as an impartial acknowledgement of its existence, not it's content. Freedom is the default, it is not something that is "granted" by a government. If a gay union is bad for the couple, so be it, but the same should be true for all unions.
@kev3d Wrong. It is not an equal contract recognition, because marriage is not a contract, and homosexual activists DO, in fact, look at a marriage certificate issued by the government as endorsement of their activities. This has nothing to do with freedom.
What do you care about what a gay group thinks a piece of paper means?
You keep saying marriage is not a contract, how is it NOT a contract? Because it has "far reaching" implications? Because it MIGHT involve children? A contract, however "far reaching" is simply a contract. If the government acknowledges one kind and not another in all ways equal except for genitals, then the government is wrong. It is very simple.
@kev3d Your arguments are based on three key things, all of which I've shot down; 1) Marriage is a contract (it isn't - ask any lawyer), 2) It's a civil rights issue (it isn't), and 3) marriage is malleable based on the person (it isn't). You cannot redefine a standard just because it doesn't suit a stigmatized chosen lifestyle. Why must we be forced to change something that does work well enough to suit the whims of a few?
2. Yes it is because the government is assisting one group of people over another through tax breaks and incentives based purely on sexual preference.
3. Yes it is, drinking beer might be grounds for divorce in some marriages, while poly-amorous "swinging" might be perfect acceptable in others. Its a matter of personal tastes, philosophy, religion, family and culture, all of which are subject to change.
And consider this, kev3d. I would love to get government out of marriage altogether and leave it a religious matter. I really would. If two people of the same-sex want to marry, and they can find a church or synagogue or mosque or whoever willing to marry them, I got no beef with that. But you can't put the cart before the horse. If governments at each level accept homosexual marriage as normal, thus redefining it, they forcably impose their beliefs on everyone.
I don't believe that young people ought to marry old people to get their social security benefits. Yet this is completely legal.
You have not defined what a "normal" marriage is. How is accepting a marriage "forcing" anyone to believe anything? I can say 1+1=3, it is wrong, but its protected free speech, it doesn't force anyone to accept my weird math, only that the government accepts it as speech, neither valid not invalid. Marriage should be the same way.
@kev3d Because we're have a federal arrangement. Each state can, within certain conditions, determine for themselves what is best for them. If they want to outlaw sodomy or abortion then by rights they should be allowed to do so, if you actually agree to the Constitution. If you don't like that law, you work to change it, or leave that state for another. But if one state tries to force another of something inherently immoral or disgusting in some way, that is wrong.
Everyone also has equal protection under the law. If someone steals $100 from me, it is the same crime to do it to someone else.
The state cannot simply recognize one type of contract between two consenting adults and not of another based solely on genitals. Your reading of the constitution is unfair; states MUST recognize other's marriages but a state cannot recognize gay marriage because other states MIGHT object?
@kev3d Yes, it can, because marriage is NOT a contract. It is something different altogether that has significant legal, moral and familial implications that exceed far and beyond just the couple themselves. A contract between two entities is between two entities and no others beyond what is specified in the contract.
I disagree, it is a contract and cannot be anything else. Moral and familial ramifications have nothing to do with the government. Until you violate someone else's rights, it is no one's business. But if the state insists upon recognizing some contracts, it must recognize them all.
@kev3d But it isn't. Legally, marriage is a wholly different institution than a contract. If it were a simple contract, then divorce wouldn't be a complicated matter as it is, requiring issues to be settled such as property ownership, child custody, alimony, and other things. When a contract is in dispute, things are far more cut and dried.
@kev3d See, that was part and parcel of what was wrong with the Civil War. Lincoln had really no business to try to prevent the South from seceding because that was legal. You and I may not agree to slavery, but there are lots of ways to fight against it and end it as Brazil did on its own thanks to free market incentives.
By the way, kev3d, married couples, invariably, do not get a tax break. They do if they have children, but there is something called the Marriage penalty. You may have heard about it. If you combine two household incomes together you generally end up paying more in taxes than you otherwise would if you filed separately. But that's dependant on a case-by-case basis.
kev3d, you're descending into hystrionics, resorting to nonsensical statements that have no bearing on the truth. Notice that the civil rights aspect is being trumpeted, and gays are trying to compare their "plight" with that of the struggles of blacks in this nation. The problem is, when you look at this rationally, is that it's nothing of the sort. All of the arguments fall by the way side when you discover that it's not a civil rights issue, as I've pointed out.
You are correct in implying that some of these "marginalized" groups are almost reducible to a lobbying group. But the problem is not necessarily the concessions they are demanding or the rights they are heralding; rather, the problem is that such a thing as "political clout" exists at all and that they vie for it. The purpose of government is often (if not always) to benefit some at the expense of others (taxes are an example). The government cannot provide liberty - it can only restrict it.
Hear hear. It may well be that some groups may ask for money or special assistance, but if say, NAACP asks for racial quotas for this or that office (hypothetically), that stands as a COMPLETELY separate issue as Blacks having the right to vote or the abolishment of slavery. I see the opposition to gay marriage as being not only religious, but quite similar to left wing objections to free markets, that somehow Robber Barons will lock everyone into sweatshops unless we restrict them.
@totustuus11 The purpose of government is to amass power and hold onto it. And if they can amass a bit more power from a new lobby, like the homosexual one let's say, they'll do it.
Put the same-sex marriage issue to another perspective; ask if the principle proponents of same-sex marriage, the activist types mind you, would agree to the government getting out of the marriage issueance altogether (and adjust the tax code accordingly), what do you think their reaction would be? I can already tell you. They'd be against that. Why?
I'll let all of you find out why. Be prepared; you may not like the truth.
Depends on who you ask. I'm not sure what an "Activist" type is, but economic freedom is almost a mirror to social freedom. If the government punishes one freely associated group with higher taxes or fewer protections, then the government is wrong. Essentially the government mandates that single adults pay more in taxes for example "just because". This is social engineering, not impartial governance. The government should neither help nor hinder freely entered social contracts between people.
@kev3d I agree, but we're talking about gay marriage, and why the activists want to redefine the definition of marriage which has been a standard bedrock of human behavior for millennia. Why do they want to do that?
I can give you a hint; government will pay them a subsidy if they can claim themselves to be a victim group. That's part of what big government is all about.
Make no mistake, homosexuality is a choice. Bear in mind that some people want to make money off of it.
"a standard bedrock of human behavior for millennia"
Which Millennia? Plural marriage has existed for thousands of years, as has arranged marriage, in some places and in some faiths, they are still common. And exactly how would granting gay marriage trigger claims of being a "victim group"? And even if they did, that's a separate issue. You do not restrict free speech on the assumption they *might* say something counter productive.
@kev3d Obviously if the state endorses their behavior, they can claim they're a victim group that's suffered centuries of discrimination based on their chosen lifestyle, and in so doing makes them a full-fledged civil rights group.
@kev3d Plural marriage has also been the principle domain of the wealthy, and has often caused more problems. But mind you that even plural marriage does not violate the basic definition of marriage. Plural marriage was ruled out by most Western cultures primarily due to the unrest and tumolt that is among the various problems in the Middle East and Africa right now. Never once has marriage meant anything but the union of man and woman as a family unit; until recently.
Well, strict mormons would disagree. The biblical patriarchs had multiple marriages and they were defined as marriages. Sometimes for reasons of wealth, some out of love, but none of that matters, because if the contract is voluntary, the state must abide impartially. If some married gays asks for a handout (a bizarre and paranoid fear if I ever heard one) THAT is a separate issue. The free market applies to more than money, it also applies to ideas, speech and social contracts.
It is of utmost importance that people are not prohibited from voluntarily entering into contracts with others. Marriage, a contract as well as a sacrament (says the Catholic!), falls under this premise. The problem, as you have stated, is the government's involvement in the encouraging (i.e. through tax cuts) or thwarting (i.e. through legal bans) of these contracts. The type of marriage (hetero-/homosexual) is moot - what matters is the freedom to enter into such a union in the first place.
@totustuus11 But marriage is more than just a contract. It has a specific definition. What the homosexual activists want to do is legally redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle.
@ThePenWolf I suppose it depends on the definition to which you refer (as a student of sociology, I know many a debate can stem from defining things). The state has a definition of marriage, certainly, and it has a rather Judeo-Christian heritage like much social law. I have a problem prima facie with legal definitions because I have a problem with burgeoning, invasive government. My advocacy of freedom has little to do with same-sex marriage support and much to do with limiting state control.
@totustuus11 It's not just a legal defninition. It's a cultural definition too. To suddenly cast it aside for the sake of a distinct minority who enjoys a chosen lifestyle ignores the millennia of experimentation that has led to good stable families which form the bedrock of a free society. It fosters and engenders good character needed to be self-responsible and self-reliant, rather than spawn illegitimate children and force your fellow man to pay for your misdeeds.
@ThePenWolf I guess it is fair to begin by asking whether or not the entity that has formulated or maintained the marriage definition is legitimate in so doing. I agree that we should not be forced to pay for anyone's misdeeds. You have rights, and you are held culpable for the consequence of the exercising of those rights. But can we really prevent "misdeeds" in the first place? Certainly "illegitimate" children are born into heterosexual pairings. Can we really "define" away evil?
@totustuus11 You cannot prevent the misdeeds, but you can make sure nobody else is forced to pay for them. By keeping government out of the charity business you prevent such misdeeds from being forced onto the public's fiscal responsibility.
Then why must singles and gays pay more in tax? Call it what you will, but a tax break is the same as a subsidy. You are arguing against the recognition of hetero unions more than denying homosexual unions.
As it is, petitioning the government is a protected right. Hence why every left, right and center group from Amnesty Intl to the NRA lobbies the government. How would gay groups have an unfair voice if they were suddenly allowed to marry each other?
@kev3d I'm not against doing away with any tax breaks, provided we overhaul the whole system. But bear in mind that the homosexual activists do not want to do that anymore than they'd like to get government out of marriage in the first place. Understand that this is about money and power. Your typical homosexual couple would probably want government out of marriage altogether.
@kev3d And subsidies do nothing but create more of what is being subsidized. Subsidies to the poor encourage poverty, subsidies to the unemployed encourage unemployment, etc.
@ThePenWolf And just for the record, I am opposed to homosexual behavior morally (as per the teachings of the Church). However, I do not equate morality with legality, and I do not contradict myself when I say I am morally opposed to same-sex intimacies without opposing them as a voluntary exchange between individuals. Property is fundamental to freedom, and the exercise of control over that property - of which your body is most immediate - is the very meaning of property rights.
It's a HUGE coincidence that this video was posted two days ago: today I was in a lesson at university preparing and debating for an essay on historical approaches, roughly titled 'Is ethnicity different from culture' and being the kick-arse advertiser for freedom ad economics that I am, I raved about these precise issues Friedman discusses in this video, down to exact words and patterns of argument.
I schooled some statists this day, in the (precise) Friedmanite way.
Excellent, thumbs up. If anyone's interested, those precise words and arguments were that affirmative action, government racial-profiling, welfare and political correctness ruin peaceful 'race-relations' and that the concept of ethnicity is intellectually bankrupt because it is part of an imposition on individual freedom the sort from which we are weaned by the natural selection that creates individualHETEROGENEITY in the division of labour, property-rights and ever broader exchange of property.
Racism - arbitrary exclusion of a group of people from a place of employment, for instance - is punished in the free market as the existing labor pool swells with this particular group of people, who will increasingly work for less money as their supply goes up (thus making them a cheaper investment for companies relative to other groups). The companies that do not exclude this cheaper labor source will have higher profit margins as a result and will drive their competitors out of business.
Human capital is not distributed equally among groups. If group X was willing to work for half of what group Y was willing to work for, there's no guarantee that companies who employed members of group X would drive companies who excluded group X out of business. For instance, group X might produce less than group Y making up for the difference in the cost of labor. Your hypothetical assumes that all groups produce equally.
Correct - my analysis was based on arbitrary exclusion (not excluding because of a productivity disparity, but because of prejudice). If my analysis was based on non-arbitrary exclusion, as would be the case with laboring individuals with varying levels of productivity (a company would be justified in excluding them for lower productivity relative to other applicants), I would contend that employment differentials, pay differentials, etc, merely reflect productivity and not some personal bias.
The fact that some groups possess more human capital than others (and thus produce and earn more) is taken as evidence of arbitrary exclusion. All disparities in income and eduction among groups are ASSUMED to be the result of discrimination rather than innate abilities that lend themselves to productivity. If we had a free market, these same disparities would emerge, and we'd be right back to square one, with Affirmative Action and discrimination lawsuits. cont...
You might be interested in Walter Williams's analysis of public schools and how they have kept racial minorities (particularly Blacks) unskilled, inefficient, etc, because the government machine (in all capacities) is not motivated by the profit/loss system (it cannot run out of funds as it coerces them via taxes). See, for instance, his book entitled: "More Liberty Means Less Government."
Does he explain why other races attending public schools outperform blacks on standardized tests? Why doesn't the absence of a profit/loss mechanism in public schools have an equally deleterious affect on the intelligence of whites and Asians, so their standarized test scores are the same as blacks? He's probably correct to some degree, but but his analysis can't fully explain differences in IQ and standardized test scores. There is also a hereditary component to intelligence.
You might supplement the reading with some of the works of Charles Murray, who introduces a sociobiological component to racial analysis ("The Bell Curve" is a good example).
So, if religious entities are the only historically justified grantors of marriage, and if most religions consider homosexuality to be a moral affront, the historical/Constitutional case for legalizing same-sex marriage across the board seems lacking at best. But, on the other hand, I see no support for the government intervening to restrict marriage, either. It remains a decision for privately-operating entities, as every exchange should be.
To comment on the same-sex marriage debate, interestingly enough the "institution" of marriage had no state involvement - was strictly a religious phenomenon - in our country until the mid-1800s. For instance, George and Martha Washington did not have a marriage license. The state did not sanction such-and-such a relationship because the state did not speak to marriage AT ALL.
Social freedom is pretty important, esp. after you've already achieved economic. Social freedom is really the whole reason we have a republic vs. a dictatorship. After all, it's not that hard to get free trade and some capitalism under a totalitarian state, as we've seen with places like China and various other 3rd-world and developing countries. Even in the Middle East, they're very repressed, but they still can make a decent living there.
@whoo689 Yes I know all this, but I'm wondering what you mean by social freedom. How can we further the rights of everybody, which is otherwise unstated in the guaranteed rights of the US constitution?
After all, Milton Friedman was himself a libertarian. Friedrich Hayek may well have been one as well (even published an essay or book on he wasn't a conservative, and he certainly was no liberal). Tom Woods, from what I can see, is something of a libertarian (although he is Catholic and I'm not so sure is incredibly liberal on social issues). I hear that Thomas Sowell is at least a quasi-libertarian right-leaning economist.
I think if you uploaded a few videos here and there on social freedom AS WELL AS economic, you could really weed out those who only view freedom in economic terms. Bring out the true freedom lovers to watch and be inspired by your channel. Not just conservatives.
I mean, your name is LibertyPen right? Not conservative or liberalpen.
They have videos on social issues. There is more than 1 video about ending the failed war on drugs! Legalization/prohobitiom is a social issue that most people care about! If you are talking about a social issue that not a lot of people care about, like gay rights, then it becomes a special interest. Liberty Pen does not cater to special interests.
@whoo689 Please don't sidetrack these vids with comments like these. Not all of us believe that the right to kill unborn children or have special governmental privileges granted to you increases liberty. At least we can agree (for the most part) on the economic issues.
My apologies. However, I fail to see how gay rights are "special governmental privileges." They're just asking for the SAME legal benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples, after all. Disagree with that all you want, but let's not distort their intentions by saying they want "special rights", as if equality under the law is now a 'special right' for certain minority groups b/c they're all "sinners."
There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage." There never has been in any culture in history, because it does not meet the basic definition of marriage.
@Auraruth8 he's saying that if people are allowed to work for a low wage, they can get work experience and master a set of skills. Learning those skills allow them to earn a higher wage. If they don't receive it, they can go elsewhere and demand a higher wage for their labor. I realize actually EARNING a higher wage may be a foreign concept to you, but these are facts. People may be earning a higher wage today, but less people are unemployed, more have food stamps, and things cost more.
SorryForYourBoss 1 month ago
@SorryForYourBoss Because of wrong government policies on many issues, the minimum wage is NOT one of them. Again look at working conditions before and after the minimum wage was instated and you can look at other factors Im sure. But I would recommend this guy for starters, its a one hour vid on youtube that you can watch if you copy the name of the vid. It basically crushes many of Miltons ideas, at least in my opinion. "Why the world isnt flat" by Ha-Joon Chang. Watch it!
Auraruth8 1 month ago
Does he ever mention the actual wages people had through history before and after the rules where implemented? does he mention Martin Luther King? Again he takes on a very simplistic view...again.
Auraruth8 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 Wages are irrelevant, through government policies, what used to be $.05/gallon of gas is now $3.50/gallon, look at food, clothing etc... all prices have continued upward as a result of government taxation regulation, minimum wage being one of them. MLK has nothing to do with the conversation,but if you want to bring him in, government excluding of blacks. It was the unions "lobbying" government to create a min wage to destroy black from underbidding the unions at job sites.
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta Again why should blacks have to take less pay than whites?I would again say that inflation is irrelevant,if wages go up it doesnt matter,it is through government and government policies that life as we know it is possible and can improve.Government policies simply have to change a little and a lot of the political system has to change.What M.Friedman talks about would only work for the people if everybody changed everything radically. Its not practical. I can continue...
Auraruth8 1 month ago
@quinnrasta In some things M. Freidman does have a point. But again it is difficult to explain exactly what I think. Its easier if you watch this vid and then we can pherhaps disscuss a little better as we get a sence of where we both stand: "Why the world isnt flat" by Ha-Joon Chang. Watch it! its an hour but it is entertaining. =)
Auraruth8 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 I appreciate you calm and thoughtful demeanor. Blacks DO NOT have to take less pay than whites, but if they are going to be discriminated against the only power they have is to bid for a lower wage, at that point it will cost the racist employer for being racist by having to pay the white worker a higher wage. The minimum wages condemns the black worker because the employer now does not bear a cost for the discrimination and thus hire the whites only.
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 Things are not better because of min wage, but the result of time and technology. The same argument was made with OSHA, after OSHA was put into place work safety increased and the chart they show is from the start of OSHA to present, but when they go before OSHA, safety was rising at the same rate. Same goes for min wage, how is it that Hong Kong with no min wage has produced so much and has thrived? Wages have risen despite the gov coming in to "rescue" the worker
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta Have you checked the vid? If not I recommend you do. And then you could check this out. I find its a lot easier this way than trying to write a bunch of stuff, that gets misunderstud anyway. please check it out. And then this playlist wich could be relevant: Chomsky on Reagan and M.Friedman. Please check it out.
Auraruth8 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 I have not, but I will
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@quinnrasta "Why the world isnt flat" by Ha-Joon Chang: Youll enjoy it Im sure. =)
Auraruth8 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 The guy is misrepresenting facts to satisfy his policies.The way he represents his facts are like saying "John was drunk and was killed in a car wreck" so everybody assumes John was drinking and driving when in fact he was the passenger, but the way the statement is made,is to suggest drinking caused the accident. Protectionism didnt cause the US to be come successful &capitalism is not causing its demise. He wants "fairness" a word someone has to define and for him its gov
quinnrasta 1 month ago
@Auraruth8 Check out Protectionism: Origin and Effects on the media page of the Mises Institute, there you will learn about protectionism
quinnrasta 1 month ago
why?
bing12345678901 1 month ago
3:00....Friedman, god of economics!!
Gold3nStat3KiD 2 months ago
where is milton when you need him?
canadasucks500 3 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
"If I own the land, I will get your money one way or the other, you fools." - That is Milt's REAL message. Read "The Doozie". amazon, by GH
freemindsdaily 4 months ago
Individuals and businesses are often more productive, up to a point, if they are able to act independently. However, in many cases, completely unrestrained freedom of action can actually lead to a less efficient use of resources. Unemployment is an unavoidable result of 'market failure'. Effective government can actively increase productive employment, bad government can of course reduce it. Capitalism tends towards a monopoly of wealth if not properly regulated.
atlasman55 4 months ago
Comment removed
DukeofAnarchy 3 months ago
It's quite funny how Friedman manages to reach almost completely the wrong conclusion on so many issues, with such persistant frequency.
atlasman55 4 months ago
This dude was the incarnation of Satan. He was more satanic than the blackest metal band out there. Hey black metalheads. you should have the face of Milton Friedman as your logo rather than a pentagram. To this fucker, money came before anything, even human lives, moral values or social equality. Hope he's burning in hell!!!
Titoritus 4 months ago
@Titoritus You just don't understand what he's saying. You want morals to be enforced? Great, whose gonna do it? You? I suppose you're too busy right? So you're gonna hire some one. And that someone is going to be the government. And what is the tool at the governments disposal to perform as you command acting as your agent? Violence. And how are they going to get paid? Violence. Are you going to pay? No, you can't, but you command your agent to get paid through everyone. You empower the beast.
mikedans55 4 months ago
What about the Civil Rights Act?
ca1cifer 5 months ago
@ca1cifer the civil rights Act is important for all public positions. However, it should not be forced on private companies. Individuals running their own company with their own money should have a right to hire and place restrictions on their goods however they choose. Public companies on the other hand, that are funded with tax dollars from everyone, should not be allowed to discriminate.
mastercloud977 5 months ago
@mastercloud977 I agree with everything you said, but Friedman said that there's no gov intervention that helped minorities. So I was wondering if the Civil Rights Act did or didn't help.
ca1cifer 5 months ago
@mastercloud977 You're absolutely right, it is only proper that racism and sexism should be allowed to flourish once again, just as they did back in the good old days, before all that oppressive government interference.
atlasman55 4 months ago
@atlasman55 you mean the wonderful government interference like "seperate but equal", "jim crow laws" and minumum wages? Oh yes, we obviously need more of them, I can clearly see your point now.
But seriously, racism and sexism shouldn't be controlled at a private level. It is not the governments job to force someone how to think.
mastercloud977 4 months ago
@mastercloud977 Thankfully due to the democratic process, bad laws can be repealed, and good laws brought in to replace them. Laws are not intended to control how people think, only to control the effect that their actions have on others.
atlasman55 4 months ago
@atlasman55 Two points. 1. Once a law is in place, it is very very difficult to get it repealed. Its not like you can just wave a magic wand in the democratic process and instantly get rid of all the "bad" laws. And to that, who decides what laws are "bad"?
2. Again, you're suggesting laws to control how people can act / think. U r trying to control peoples actions and that is not what a free society is about. I dont want the government to control my actions, unless i'm directly harming another
mastercloud977 4 months ago
Comment removed
atlasman55 4 months ago
@atlasman55 That would be nice if it were true. But our "controlling" of business and individuals has grown out of control and becoming increasingly invasive. When government tries to dictate how business' should operate, you get unemployment and high costs. This hurts the middle and lower class. I disagree that controlling the actions of individuals and organizations is a fundamental part of a free soceity. The country went 200 years without it and had tremoundous growth
mastercloud977 4 months ago
@mastercloud977 The country has always had laws, and as such the actions of individuals have always been subject to the authority of government. I agree that there can be such a thing as an over-bearing or too-powerful government, and that may well be the case in the USA at present. However, if one want's to alter the role of government, ultimately one has to engage in the democratic process in some way.
atlasman55 4 months ago
@atlasman55 I agree completely with your previous statement. When I wrote earlier that the coutry went for 200 years without laws, I was more talking about laws that have been added under so called "consumer safety" or business regulation which did not exist for quite a long time. But yes, we must use the democratic process in order to get laws passed. However, it is always not the most efficient process
mastercloud977 4 months ago
@mastercloud977 Anarcho-capitalism is the most efficient, and the only moral, way! Fuck democracy.
DukeofAnarchy 3 months ago
Israel is always right and the rest of the world always wrong
Chapulinazuladomx 5 months ago
Milton Friedman is always right! I wish he was around today to challenge Obama with his radical socialism!
stephenabm 6 months ago
...and he schools another.
poopieheadface 6 months ago
And come to think of it he actually makes the argument against himself. If you think about it. =)
Auraruth8 6 months ago
Man I thought this man had some idea of something, but seeing this makes me a little sick.
Auraruth8 6 months ago
Prof Friedman appears to conveniently ignore the fact that the poor & disadvantaged ALSO 'inherent' [many] talents. However, in this society because (among some groups) of historic injustice they also inherent economic & social inequalities. No (liberal) moderates are arguing that the state should take all of a families inherited wealth ;but, since all pple benefit form the collective production of the poor, there shd be limited REDISTRIBUTION. The civil rights movement DID call for quotas.
shieldsff 6 months ago
@shieldsff production = wealth. "production of the poor" = not so much production.
In other words, if the poor were productive, they would not be poor. That is capitalism.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
actually, what you mean is, this nation's variety of "unrestrained & unregulated capitalism". Most western nations are capitalist too (including Canada & Germany) but of a more orderly & protective variety. Until about 30 years ago the US & Canada also had about the same % of unionized workers- no more thanks to political policies & unbalanced corp influences. Have U heard of the "working poor"? See the book "Nickled & Dimed". Ignored in UR comment is the reality of massive social injustice
shieldsff 6 months ago
@shieldsff I'm pretty sick of retards like you who think America is a free market. As of 1998 the US had 134,723 pages of regulations. The regulation in Canada is only a fraction of that. Unions are a burden to any employer, but not nearly as crushing as so many regulations. Something has to give; in the US it was the unions.
obtree 5 months ago
Wait why would blacks have less access to unskilled labor as opposed to whites in richer neighborhoods?
TheEthanwashere 8 months ago
he does make a good point about public schools and black people. LoL
44warjunkie 8 months ago
this dude is like the peter schiff of his time
TheThejoseph 8 months ago
jews were exclusively put out of the banking sector??LMBFAO!
madscientistify 9 months ago
Institutional racist is acceptable ? This FOOL is an idiot or liar.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
I like Milton Friedman, but the republican party today is full of ignorant religious dumb people who don't understand basic math..forget basic economics. And the Tea party...HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
HPhenomenal 9 months ago
@HPhenomenal
Nice stereotyping of all non-atheists. Get to know some of them, then come back when you've got a more nuanced, reasonable opinion of them.
glovisy 9 months ago
@glovisy actually i do know a lot of them, and its really sad to see them believing every word of the Bible as the truth. in milton's days, the republican party wasn't out to screw the american public, they were just a different party from the democrats...and we had 2 parties. TODAY, the republican party(democrats too a bit) is owned corporate america. their priority is cut taxes for the wealthy 2% and block every other bill put forth by The President.
HPhenomenal 9 months ago
@HPhenomenal I would disagree. The Republican and Democrat Party are the almost the same. Both have put forth government policies that have advanced war, decreased our personal freedoms, and extended the role of government. Both believe in corporatism. However to say that Republicans are full or religious lemmings is gross misinterpretation. ALL parties have their bad apples. In addition, it's obvious that neither party has an understanding of mathematics.
1czelaya 9 months ago
@HPhenomenal are you insinuating there is a party out there that does not have its head stuck up its ass? hahahaha? ya nut lol
jsmythib 9 months ago
Comment removed
HPhenomenal 9 months ago
His message is still so relevant today
98nafets 10 months ago
If Affirmative Action is so bad, why didn't Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W., or W end it? Why doesn't industry use its significant financial resources to get elected the people who will end the practice?
criticalsection 10 months ago
@criticalsection Umm... maybe because Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W. and W. were scumbag Republican politicians who didn't give a shit about doing what was right but only about getting more power and keeping it. Maybe because "industry" has more lucrative uses for its money (even within the field of political lobbying) than to spend it lobbying for a measure to help working class blacks. Especially when popular ignorance and magical thinking means they would be rewarded with nothing but contempt.
DukeofAnarchy 3 months ago
@DukeofAnarchy Where are blacks worst off in the country? It is not in the states or cities with the liberal ideology that government can take care of them. They are worse off in the cities with massive regulation and taxation, democrats would just prefer that blacks stay poor and keep them segregated from them. The democrat party was the party of segregation, Jim Crow, KKK etc..Eisenhower wrote the civil rights act in 57' but LBJ would not pass it unless it excluded segregation
quinnrasta 1 month ago
It is true that the "white man" is keeping them down. But in a counterintuitive way. By passing laws in the name of helping minorities, the government in affect locks them into poverty.
Great lecture Milton!
TimeWarp66 11 months ago 2
This is absolutley brilliant. I am European and sadly it doesn't look like the powers that be will take Mr Friedman's advice. Things will only get worse for the western countries.
joeycusack80 11 months ago 7
I originally from Jamaica and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Friedman.The government got involved in helping the populace after independence from the British. They took over most industries and implemented policies to help the poor. The country became one of the poorest, debt-ridden and crime ridden countries in the world. I think the Government should be like the REFEREES in football - implement the rules and punish those break them. Leave the game to the people.
buffteethr 1 year ago 52
@buffteethr Thumbs way up, great analogy.
jrsub3 1 year ago
@buffteethr yup. Friedman compares the gov to an umpire in baseball lol. They are there to enforce the rules of the game, but we are to play the game freely as long as we do not impose involuntary costs on third parties.
mmamolina 1 year ago 2
@buffteethr In Canada they always ask are you a visible minority, are you a first nations person, etc. at first I think (as a white male) what benefit am i undeserving of, and secondly why does it matter, I'd be annoyed if i had to check off that box I hate both words visible and minority together, you'd just feel like some token member.
skydome29 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's like this:
[Liberal] Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
[Conservative] teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Knowledge is the best charity.
To learn a lesson is a far better reward than to receive a gift.
It's better to know how to help yourself, than to beg from others.
Stop expecting and taking the "hand-outs" from the government.
When will Americans wake up?
IamPorterhouse 1 year ago
Long live Liberia. The jews live in sqauler.Better yet palistine is the new world, i cant wait to get to the arab world.What a land of freedom and tolerance.Excuse me i think i just threw up in my mouth.
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
Milton is a facking genius.
You silly lefties are dinosaurs. Evolve!
hegemonymony 1 year ago 4
I try to think of arguments against this man, but.............
arbide2 1 year ago
As Dr Martin King said people should be judged by the "Content of their Character & not by the Color of their skin". All people of all backgrounds should have the same access to a quality education & job training so they can get the best job that they can get based on their skills & work performance & nothing else.
ErikS1975FreeState 1 year ago
i still think he's racist.
Dramactica 1 year ago
@Dramactica
That's fucking stupid. He is realistic, blacks are poor and cannot get jobs-that isn't racist it's true.
b1gr1g 1 year ago 2
@b1gr1g
How realistic? Are blacks really that poor? How he know? Is he get from his stats or conservative Democrats?
Dramactica 1 year ago
@Dramactica
your are a racist!
BennyS0305 1 year ago
@BennyS0305
lol. you failed. So, I'm a racist because I'm question Mr. Friedman's beliefs. So failed.
Dramactica 1 year ago
@Dramactica
no you failed and you are a racist because you tell ppl others a racist who arent
BennyS0305 1 year ago
@BennyS0305
um. You are correct. You are doing the same thing. I'm not a racist. I never was a racist. It is a disgusting word.
Dramactica 1 year ago
It saddens me to see that some people still think they can reason with lefties... leave the poor hypocrite alone!
...or i may be wrong, maybe hes giving the surplus of his money to the poor, and maybe hes not living off of the fruits of capitalism...
Draniels 1 year ago
Hey don there are millions of people in china and India that have food to eat because of Milton Friedman. I'm sorry your liberal government teacher brainwashed you so badly that you can't see the truth.
Bfisher14 1 year ago 82
@Bfisher14 lol this is so hilarious I'm getting a seizure from laughter, in neoliberal India the poor are increasing as we speak as a quarter of the country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of literally a handful of billionaires. As far as China is concerned, I'm sure that the Chinese are happy that we are dismantling our whole industrial infrastructure so that we can abuse their artificially induced cheap labor to extract more money out of our dying, indebted Western middle class.
DonVoghano 1 year ago
@DonVoghano If you define poverty as people with under half of the median income then yes poverty might be increasing. But if you look at the amount of things and food the people have they are far better off with a bad "distribution of wealth" . Trade with China is beneficial to the U.S. maybe you need to learn some economics. If they are going to subsidize exports it is charity to the U.S. Look at the Euro, do you really want to be like Europe?
Bfisher14 1 year ago
@Bfisher14 never heard of milton friedman... your misinformed... there is no such funds from milton that goes to the poor in india or china. stop thinking that countries like india and china are poorer and third world. they are lot better than USA!
tigersoup 1 year ago
@tigersoup No, it was the free market principles that Friedman advocated that eventually opened up the markets in India and China (And Vietnam as well). Politically, those nations have a VERY long way to go, but economically, they are doing the right thing for the most part; providing goods and services that people want for an agreeable price. It is this new found economic freedom that has allowed their economies to thrive, while the more restrictive Western economies have been faltering.
kev3d 1 year ago 5
@tigersoup : I've lived in India for the first 22 years of my life and let me tell you that India was a stagnant pool of pervasive corruption and inefficient government economic policies up until 1991. It was a result of the protectionist and socialist government that poverty was high in India and the standard of living was horrible. However, since 1991, after the liberalization of the market poverty has been eradicated to a great extent and growth has increased significantly.
sameer137 1 year ago 27
@tigersoup Milton Friedman had come to India several times and had made a strong case in favor of liberalized economies. But the Nehruvian and then the Indra government never paid a heed. It was only the stalwarts of the Swatantrantrata Party that ever listened to him. Milton Friedman cites India many a times in his books and he has had a tremendous role in developing a small breed of people who eventually argued for the liberalization of India.
kgupta4 8 months ago
@Bfisher14 - Have you been to India?
The way poor people are treated there is a total disgrace.
UWETHEGOAT 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheShaniqua1992 10 months ago
@Bfisher14 The ruling party of India is socialistic and some are communist. There is a good reason why India was a close ally of USSR until 1991. Also, don't forget the cast system and the governmental monopolies.
Mishkafofer 8 months ago
@Bfisher14 A little simplistic don't you think. =) You have to look at the bigger picture. History books are pretty good for getting that sort of thing. =)
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Bfisher14 maybe this would change your mind watch?v=O2sW2wt3nLU
joao2011 3 months ago
Friedman is good so long as you stay away from any actual empirical verification of his religious doctrines. His ideas turned the US from the greatest, most advanced nation on the planet to a bankrupt plutocracy boasting statistics more similar to 3rd world banana republics than advanced industrial countries.
Unbelievable how hugely brainwashed or ignorant (or lazy since you can find all the facts on-line nowadays) one must be to still listen to this criminal.
DonVoghano 1 year ago
@DonVoghano Are you kidding me? We're been continually drifting away from his ideas.
rnecas 1 year ago
@DonVoghano Speaking of a lack of empirical verification...
syghur 1 year ago
@DonVoghano Yes because in past years the united states government has moved away from bigger government to smaller, with more free market and personal freedom. Wait.., it hasn't. And look where we are now ? Your arguments speak purely in favor of Milton Friedman's points of view on government regulation...
undri 1 year ago
@undri Lol you should take a look at the effect of the implementation of Friedmanite measures on 3rd world and ex soviet countries. That Friedman stuff is pure religion, Adam Smith would laugh him out of the room...
DonVoghano 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@undri Lol you should take a look at the effect of the implementation of Friedmanite measures on 3rd world and ex soviet countries. That Friedman stuff is pure religion, Adam Smith would laugh him out of the room...
DonVoghano 1 year ago
liberalism is the cancer
haterdrinkinhaterade 1 year ago
@haterdrinkinhaterade
you mean socialist liberalism. get that your head
Dramactica 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, she tells the truth and exposes Friedman for what he is: A New World Nazi who wants nothing more than to exterminate the poor/working class.
moronpaul 2 years ago
Exposes? Well I have read the Shock Doctrine and she needs to get her facts straight. She says that the IMF was designed to be a global shock absorber. As anyone that has read even a simple wikipedia entry on the subject will tell you the IMF was designed to be regulated the currency exchange system in bretton woods. That is it... Her book is riddled with errors fabrications and mis-truths.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago 33
@davidmesaaz Her entire thesis is based on a quote from one of Friedman's books that she completely misinterpreted. That bitch is a dumb ass.
Necr0forte 1 year ago 2
Wow, never heard Friedman speak b4. Very insightful, thanks for posting
madscirat 2 years ago
The more I learn of Dr. Friedman the more I am impressed, and I am not a natural admirer of the man responsible for 'withholding'.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
Interesting perspective on the minimum wage thing. I know that the quota hiring system is based on discrimination and not on qualifications. This serves to create more resentment, and seperation amongst the races. Ya can't force people to come together, but you can encourage it. Gov intervention on race relations has so far become a nightmare for some.
ValueFreedom 2 years ago
kev3d, you've got to look at this thing from every perspective, as I have. I realize you want to be kind to everyone, but some behavior is not warranted for such generosity. There is such a thing as too much compassion, particularly where it isn't warranted. Freedom comes with personal responsibility, and the understanding that you simply can't have everything you want just because you choose to behave in a certain way. Think about that. I'm not responding to you anymore.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
I am not asking for charity, I am not even asking everyone to be "nice". I am asking for equal contract recognition and no special favors for anyone. You seem to think recognizing a homosexual union somehow constitutes an endorsement, but all it does as serve as an impartial acknowledgement of its existence, not it's content. Freedom is the default, it is not something that is "granted" by a government. If a gay union is bad for the couple, so be it, but the same should be true for all unions.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d Wrong. It is not an equal contract recognition, because marriage is not a contract, and homosexual activists DO, in fact, look at a marriage certificate issued by the government as endorsement of their activities. This has nothing to do with freedom.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
What do you care about what a gay group thinks a piece of paper means?
You keep saying marriage is not a contract, how is it NOT a contract? Because it has "far reaching" implications? Because it MIGHT involve children? A contract, however "far reaching" is simply a contract. If the government acknowledges one kind and not another in all ways equal except for genitals, then the government is wrong. It is very simple.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d Your arguments are based on three key things, all of which I've shot down; 1) Marriage is a contract (it isn't - ask any lawyer), 2) It's a civil rights issue (it isn't), and 3) marriage is malleable based on the person (it isn't). You cannot redefine a standard just because it doesn't suit a stigmatized chosen lifestyle. Why must we be forced to change something that does work well enough to suit the whims of a few?
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
1. Yes it is, seriously YOU ask a lawyer
2. Yes it is because the government is assisting one group of people over another through tax breaks and incentives based purely on sexual preference.
3. Yes it is, drinking beer might be grounds for divorce in some marriages, while poly-amorous "swinging" might be perfect acceptable in others. Its a matter of personal tastes, philosophy, religion, family and culture, all of which are subject to change.
kev3d 2 years ago
And consider this, kev3d. I would love to get government out of marriage altogether and leave it a religious matter. I really would. If two people of the same-sex want to marry, and they can find a church or synagogue or mosque or whoever willing to marry them, I got no beef with that. But you can't put the cart before the horse. If governments at each level accept homosexual marriage as normal, thus redefining it, they forcably impose their beliefs on everyone.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
I don't believe that young people ought to marry old people to get their social security benefits. Yet this is completely legal.
You have not defined what a "normal" marriage is. How is accepting a marriage "forcing" anyone to believe anything? I can say 1+1=3, it is wrong, but its protected free speech, it doesn't force anyone to accept my weird math, only that the government accepts it as speech, neither valid not invalid. Marriage should be the same way.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d Because we're have a federal arrangement. Each state can, within certain conditions, determine for themselves what is best for them. If they want to outlaw sodomy or abortion then by rights they should be allowed to do so, if you actually agree to the Constitution. If you don't like that law, you work to change it, or leave that state for another. But if one state tries to force another of something inherently immoral or disgusting in some way, that is wrong.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Everyone also has equal protection under the law. If someone steals $100 from me, it is the same crime to do it to someone else.
The state cannot simply recognize one type of contract between two consenting adults and not of another based solely on genitals. Your reading of the constitution is unfair; states MUST recognize other's marriages but a state cannot recognize gay marriage because other states MIGHT object?
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d Yes, it can, because marriage is NOT a contract. It is something different altogether that has significant legal, moral and familial implications that exceed far and beyond just the couple themselves. A contract between two entities is between two entities and no others beyond what is specified in the contract.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
I disagree, it is a contract and cannot be anything else. Moral and familial ramifications have nothing to do with the government. Until you violate someone else's rights, it is no one's business. But if the state insists upon recognizing some contracts, it must recognize them all.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d But it isn't. Legally, marriage is a wholly different institution than a contract. If it were a simple contract, then divorce wouldn't be a complicated matter as it is, requiring issues to be settled such as property ownership, child custody, alimony, and other things. When a contract is in dispute, things are far more cut and dried.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@kev3d See, that was part and parcel of what was wrong with the Civil War. Lincoln had really no business to try to prevent the South from seceding because that was legal. You and I may not agree to slavery, but there are lots of ways to fight against it and end it as Brazil did on its own thanks to free market incentives.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
By the way, kev3d, married couples, invariably, do not get a tax break. They do if they have children, but there is something called the Marriage penalty. You may have heard about it. If you combine two household incomes together you generally end up paying more in taxes than you otherwise would if you filed separately. But that's dependant on a case-by-case basis.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
kev3d, you're descending into hystrionics, resorting to nonsensical statements that have no bearing on the truth. Notice that the civil rights aspect is being trumpeted, and gays are trying to compare their "plight" with that of the struggles of blacks in this nation. The problem is, when you look at this rationally, is that it's nothing of the sort. All of the arguments fall by the way side when you discover that it's not a civil rights issue, as I've pointed out.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
You are correct in implying that some of these "marginalized" groups are almost reducible to a lobbying group. But the problem is not necessarily the concessions they are demanding or the rights they are heralding; rather, the problem is that such a thing as "political clout" exists at all and that they vie for it. The purpose of government is often (if not always) to benefit some at the expense of others (taxes are an example). The government cannot provide liberty - it can only restrict it.
totustuus11 2 years ago
Hear hear. It may well be that some groups may ask for money or special assistance, but if say, NAACP asks for racial quotas for this or that office (hypothetically), that stands as a COMPLETELY separate issue as Blacks having the right to vote or the abolishment of slavery. I see the opposition to gay marriage as being not only religious, but quite similar to left wing objections to free markets, that somehow Robber Barons will lock everyone into sweatshops unless we restrict them.
kev3d 2 years ago
@totustuus11 The purpose of government is to amass power and hold onto it. And if they can amass a bit more power from a new lobby, like the homosexual one let's say, they'll do it.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Put the same-sex marriage issue to another perspective; ask if the principle proponents of same-sex marriage, the activist types mind you, would agree to the government getting out of the marriage issueance altogether (and adjust the tax code accordingly), what do you think their reaction would be? I can already tell you. They'd be against that. Why?
I'll let all of you find out why. Be prepared; you may not like the truth.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Depends on who you ask. I'm not sure what an "Activist" type is, but economic freedom is almost a mirror to social freedom. If the government punishes one freely associated group with higher taxes or fewer protections, then the government is wrong. Essentially the government mandates that single adults pay more in taxes for example "just because". This is social engineering, not impartial governance. The government should neither help nor hinder freely entered social contracts between people.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d I agree, but we're talking about gay marriage, and why the activists want to redefine the definition of marriage which has been a standard bedrock of human behavior for millennia. Why do they want to do that?
I can give you a hint; government will pay them a subsidy if they can claim themselves to be a victim group. That's part of what big government is all about.
Make no mistake, homosexuality is a choice. Bear in mind that some people want to make money off of it.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
"a standard bedrock of human behavior for millennia"
Which Millennia? Plural marriage has existed for thousands of years, as has arranged marriage, in some places and in some faiths, they are still common. And exactly how would granting gay marriage trigger claims of being a "victim group"? And even if they did, that's a separate issue. You do not restrict free speech on the assumption they *might* say something counter productive.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d Obviously if the state endorses their behavior, they can claim they're a victim group that's suffered centuries of discrimination based on their chosen lifestyle, and in so doing makes them a full-fledged civil rights group.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@kev3d Plural marriage has also been the principle domain of the wealthy, and has often caused more problems. But mind you that even plural marriage does not violate the basic definition of marriage. Plural marriage was ruled out by most Western cultures primarily due to the unrest and tumolt that is among the various problems in the Middle East and Africa right now. Never once has marriage meant anything but the union of man and woman as a family unit; until recently.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Well, strict mormons would disagree. The biblical patriarchs had multiple marriages and they were defined as marriages. Sometimes for reasons of wealth, some out of love, but none of that matters, because if the contract is voluntary, the state must abide impartially. If some married gays asks for a handout (a bizarre and paranoid fear if I ever heard one) THAT is a separate issue. The free market applies to more than money, it also applies to ideas, speech and social contracts.
kev3d 2 years ago
It is of utmost importance that people are not prohibited from voluntarily entering into contracts with others. Marriage, a contract as well as a sacrament (says the Catholic!), falls under this premise. The problem, as you have stated, is the government's involvement in the encouraging (i.e. through tax cuts) or thwarting (i.e. through legal bans) of these contracts. The type of marriage (hetero-/homosexual) is moot - what matters is the freedom to enter into such a union in the first place.
totustuus11 2 years ago 2
@totustuus11 But marriage is more than just a contract. It has a specific definition. What the homosexual activists want to do is legally redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@ThePenWolf I suppose it depends on the definition to which you refer (as a student of sociology, I know many a debate can stem from defining things). The state has a definition of marriage, certainly, and it has a rather Judeo-Christian heritage like much social law. I have a problem prima facie with legal definitions because I have a problem with burgeoning, invasive government. My advocacy of freedom has little to do with same-sex marriage support and much to do with limiting state control.
totustuus11 2 years ago
@totustuus11 It's not just a legal defninition. It's a cultural definition too. To suddenly cast it aside for the sake of a distinct minority who enjoys a chosen lifestyle ignores the millennia of experimentation that has led to good stable families which form the bedrock of a free society. It fosters and engenders good character needed to be self-responsible and self-reliant, rather than spawn illegitimate children and force your fellow man to pay for your misdeeds.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@ThePenWolf I guess it is fair to begin by asking whether or not the entity that has formulated or maintained the marriage definition is legitimate in so doing. I agree that we should not be forced to pay for anyone's misdeeds. You have rights, and you are held culpable for the consequence of the exercising of those rights. But can we really prevent "misdeeds" in the first place? Certainly "illegitimate" children are born into heterosexual pairings. Can we really "define" away evil?
totustuus11 2 years ago
@totustuus11 You cannot prevent the misdeeds, but you can make sure nobody else is forced to pay for them. By keeping government out of the charity business you prevent such misdeeds from being forced onto the public's fiscal responsibility.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Then why must singles and gays pay more in tax? Call it what you will, but a tax break is the same as a subsidy. You are arguing against the recognition of hetero unions more than denying homosexual unions.
As it is, petitioning the government is a protected right. Hence why every left, right and center group from Amnesty Intl to the NRA lobbies the government. How would gay groups have an unfair voice if they were suddenly allowed to marry each other?
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d I'm not against doing away with any tax breaks, provided we overhaul the whole system. But bear in mind that the homosexual activists do not want to do that anymore than they'd like to get government out of marriage in the first place. Understand that this is about money and power. Your typical homosexual couple would probably want government out of marriage altogether.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@kev3d And subsidies do nothing but create more of what is being subsidized. Subsidies to the poor encourage poverty, subsidies to the unemployed encourage unemployment, etc.
totustuus11 2 years ago
@ThePenWolf And just for the record, I am opposed to homosexual behavior morally (as per the teachings of the Church). However, I do not equate morality with legality, and I do not contradict myself when I say I am morally opposed to same-sex intimacies without opposing them as a voluntary exchange between individuals. Property is fundamental to freedom, and the exercise of control over that property - of which your body is most immediate - is the very meaning of property rights.
totustuus11 2 years ago
It's a HUGE coincidence that this video was posted two days ago: today I was in a lesson at university preparing and debating for an essay on historical approaches, roughly titled 'Is ethnicity different from culture' and being the kick-arse advertiser for freedom ad economics that I am, I raved about these precise issues Friedman discusses in this video, down to exact words and patterns of argument.
I schooled some statists this day, in the (precise) Friedmanite way.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago 2
Rock on, brother.
LibertyPen 2 years ago
Excellent, thumbs up. If anyone's interested, those precise words and arguments were that affirmative action, government racial-profiling, welfare and political correctness ruin peaceful 'race-relations' and that the concept of ethnicity is intellectually bankrupt because it is part of an imposition on individual freedom the sort from which we are weaned by the natural selection that creates individualHETEROGENEITY in the division of labour, property-rights and ever broader exchange of property.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
God Bless Milton!
melodymaker65 2 years ago
Racism - arbitrary exclusion of a group of people from a place of employment, for instance - is punished in the free market as the existing labor pool swells with this particular group of people, who will increasingly work for less money as their supply goes up (thus making them a cheaper investment for companies relative to other groups). The companies that do not exclude this cheaper labor source will have higher profit margins as a result and will drive their competitors out of business.
totustuus11 2 years ago
Human capital is not distributed equally among groups. If group X was willing to work for half of what group Y was willing to work for, there's no guarantee that companies who employed members of group X would drive companies who excluded group X out of business. For instance, group X might produce less than group Y making up for the difference in the cost of labor. Your hypothetical assumes that all groups produce equally.
scottvska 2 years ago
Correct - my analysis was based on arbitrary exclusion (not excluding because of a productivity disparity, but because of prejudice). If my analysis was based on non-arbitrary exclusion, as would be the case with laboring individuals with varying levels of productivity (a company would be justified in excluding them for lower productivity relative to other applicants), I would contend that employment differentials, pay differentials, etc, merely reflect productivity and not some personal bias.
totustuus11 2 years ago
The fact that some groups possess more human capital than others (and thus produce and earn more) is taken as evidence of arbitrary exclusion. All disparities in income and eduction among groups are ASSUMED to be the result of discrimination rather than innate abilities that lend themselves to productivity. If we had a free market, these same disparities would emerge, and we'd be right back to square one, with Affirmative Action and discrimination lawsuits. cont...
scottvska 2 years ago
So unless society abandons the assumption that all groups are equal, we'll never have a free market. Read Michael Levin's "Why Race Matters."
scottvska 2 years ago
You might be interested in Walter Williams's analysis of public schools and how they have kept racial minorities (particularly Blacks) unskilled, inefficient, etc, because the government machine (in all capacities) is not motivated by the profit/loss system (it cannot run out of funds as it coerces them via taxes). See, for instance, his book entitled: "More Liberty Means Less Government."
totustuus11 2 years ago
Does he explain why other races attending public schools outperform blacks on standardized tests? Why doesn't the absence of a profit/loss mechanism in public schools have an equally deleterious affect on the intelligence of whites and Asians, so their standarized test scores are the same as blacks? He's probably correct to some degree, but but his analysis can't fully explain differences in IQ and standardized test scores. There is also a hereditary component to intelligence.
scottvska 2 years ago
You might supplement the reading with some of the works of Charles Murray, who introduces a sociobiological component to racial analysis ("The Bell Curve" is a good example).
totustuus11 2 years ago
So, if religious entities are the only historically justified grantors of marriage, and if most religions consider homosexuality to be a moral affront, the historical/Constitutional case for legalizing same-sex marriage across the board seems lacking at best. But, on the other hand, I see no support for the government intervening to restrict marriage, either. It remains a decision for privately-operating entities, as every exchange should be.
totustuus11 2 years ago
To comment on the same-sex marriage debate, interestingly enough the "institution" of marriage had no state involvement - was strictly a religious phenomenon - in our country until the mid-1800s. For instance, George and Martha Washington did not have a marriage license. The state did not sanction such-and-such a relationship because the state did not speak to marriage AT ALL.
totustuus11 2 years ago
Social freedom is pretty important, esp. after you've already achieved economic. Social freedom is really the whole reason we have a republic vs. a dictatorship. After all, it's not that hard to get free trade and some capitalism under a totalitarian state, as we've seen with places like China and various other 3rd-world and developing countries. Even in the Middle East, they're very repressed, but they still can make a decent living there.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 Yes I know all this, but I'm wondering what you mean by social freedom. How can we further the rights of everybody, which is otherwise unstated in the guaranteed rights of the US constitution?
hannel19 2 years ago
What year is this, LP? Thanks.
SupremeInvigilator 2 years ago
After all, Milton Friedman was himself a libertarian. Friedrich Hayek may well have been one as well (even published an essay or book on he wasn't a conservative, and he certainly was no liberal). Tom Woods, from what I can see, is something of a libertarian (although he is Catholic and I'm not so sure is incredibly liberal on social issues). I hear that Thomas Sowell is at least a quasi-libertarian right-leaning economist.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
I think if you uploaded a few videos here and there on social freedom AS WELL AS economic, you could really weed out those who only view freedom in economic terms. Bring out the true freedom lovers to watch and be inspired by your channel. Not just conservatives.
I mean, your name is LibertyPen right? Not conservative or liberalpen.
whoo689 2 years ago
They have videos on social issues. There is more than 1 video about ending the failed war on drugs! Legalization/prohobitiom is a social issue that most people care about! If you are talking about a social issue that not a lot of people care about, like gay rights, then it becomes a special interest. Liberty Pen does not cater to special interests.
Dedhedted71 2 years ago 2
@whoo689 Please don't sidetrack these vids with comments like these. Not all of us believe that the right to kill unborn children or have special governmental privileges granted to you increases liberty. At least we can agree (for the most part) on the economic issues.
Dabba23 2 years ago
My apologies. However, I fail to see how gay rights are "special governmental privileges." They're just asking for the SAME legal benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples, after all. Disagree with that all you want, but let's not distort their intentions by saying they want "special rights", as if equality under the law is now a 'special right' for certain minority groups b/c they're all "sinners."
whoo689 2 years ago
There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage." There never has been in any culture in history, because it does not meet the basic definition of marriage.
strongbadXCP 2 years ago 3
@strongbadXCP The definition of marriage is quite elusive. What do you mean by that?
hannel19 2 years ago