Milton Friedman - Why Tea Parties Are Important

[vparonto]

When was this filmed? The guy that asked the question looks like he is from the '70's.

[ElJefer]

The largest obstacle to freedom today is voter stupidity. We can either inform stupid people or we can change the political system. I will plan for failure but expect success.

[NowPleaseReadThis]

The difference between the Tea Party and the OWS movement is that the Tea Partiers are anti government and the OWS folks are anti corporate control of our government. So one wants less government the other see's the unfulfilled potential of governments ability to create a better world.

It's not failure of government, it's failure of governing because of corporate dominance of government policy for their private gain.

[kriskats19]

@NowPleaseReadThis You make some big assumptions about the Tea Party being ANTI government. That equates them to being anarchists. Many of the anarchists are in OWS and you can see the anarchy symbols all around there along with the anarchist fist symbols. The Tea Party is actually more for small government, lower taxes, and more local control.

[NowPleaseReadThis]

@kriskats19 One wants less government the other see's the unfulfilled potential of governments ability to create a better world.

It's not failure of government, it's failure of governing because of corporate dominance of government policy for their private gain.

[ElJefer]

@NowPleaseReadThis By that definition then, the OWS crows is misinformed. When has a government created a better world?

[Texfield91]

@NowPleaseReadThis We are NOT anti-government. We are pro-limited and smaller goverment, and pro-free market. The government has it's roles, but too often does things it has no business doing.

[fleetcenturion]

Whenever I wonder what Professor Friedman what would have thought about something today, he always manages to find a way to speak from beyond the grave!

[n8style]

@jacktheputrid the tea party goes back before Ron Paul was born

[read1communications]

What! Friedman would not have supported the yahoos of the tea party.

[torstenunh]

When did he mention "tea party" or something like it? Sorry I missed it.

[bobshenix]

@torstenunh

If you can comprehend what Dr. Friedman is saying, conceptually, the connection should be crystal clear. The Tea Party has been manipulated and presented in the media as something different than what it started out as.

The "Tea Party" -- at its roots -- is NOT about social conservatism no matter how much MSNBC, FOX, and CNN want you to believe this so you can make fun of them. it is about FISCAL SANITY and keeping our out-of-control government in check.

[ca1cifer]

@bobshenix Oh come on, you can't tell me that if I randomly picked out some tea partier that that person is not going to be anti gay marriage, pro-life, and a border building enthusiasts. I believe in small government, but I think that's just a tag line for the tea party and not what they actually believe. If we libertarians don't separate from the people who hate social freedoms, no one's ever going to respect us.

[bobshenix]

@ca1cifer

I see where you're coming from, but you gotta keep in mind that if we [libertarians] separate completely from the "Tea Party", that renders our political power to reduce the size and power of the Federal Government that much weaker.

From a libertarian viewpoint, it's good that the Tea Party is as multifaceted as it is. The MSM can label it whatever it wants-- and there certainly are bigots in the mix -- but regardless, the core principle remains individual/economic liberty.

[tonyteb]

@bobshenix or in other words THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION

[Texfield91]

@bobshenix Although most in the Tea Party are social conservatives, you're right. The main focus is our fiscal well being.

[Texfield91]

@bobshenix But it is important to form a strong alliance with social, fiscal, paleo, security conservatives and libertarians, and not shy away or dismiss one another, or it will be difficult if not impossible to change anything.

[UponInfinity]

This is so much better than listening to Krugman say we need to fake an alien invasion to stimulate the economy.

[datsellur]

It wasn't a quotable sound bite. It is the basic theory that we, the people are in charge of what we want this country to be and how the course of history can be achieved. Smaller government, individual accomplishment on a personal, local basis is what most people want. Allowing a few temporary, elected people to force our hand is also up to us. If that is what the country wants, that's what we'll get. Hope that helps a little bit.

[Dancolehawk]

Great video

[hennypenny247]

@jacktheputrid

Democrats weren't always liberal and Republicans weren't always conservative. Most Democrats today, and especially the progressive wing, have the most illiberal attitudes toward everything except moral debauchery. Classic liberalism, as developed by John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke and others has more common with today's "conservatives" than the so-called liberals.

I prefer the term "statist" as used by Mark Levin in his book Liberty and Tyranny.

[louiethegreater]

Yes, Friedman is an advocate of getting rid of government, so business can run rough shod over labor, and enviroment. All his ideology has accomplished is to bring the U. S. closer to third world standards.

[TheChunkyAtheist]

@louiethegreater You realize that 99% of third world countries have heavy government interference, right? The places with the fastest increasing incomes for average citizens are the kinds of countries where free markets aren't burdened with heavy taxation and regulation.

[louiethegreater]

@TheChunkyAtheist NO, I don't realize that. Matter of fact there is no evidence of that. China has a booming economy today, because the investment class offered their workers to foreign investemnt as cheap labor. Actually China, uses the power of the state to inhance the lives of the investment class, and actually legislates against, worker and enviromental protections. even labor unions are state controlled. Labor in China has not prospered, but the investment class is doing better than ever.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

Locations where the GDP (PPP) per capita is lower than the world average: Central America, Caribbean, Regions of South America, Parts of the Former Soviet Union, Almost all of Africa, Parts of the Middle East, Almost all of the Far East, Almost all of Souteast Asia, and Oceania.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic All the countries you mention has a separate history of the successes and failers of their economies. I am sure that all the desperate countries on your list, especially Central America, could be traced to colonialization, neo-liberal policies imposed on them by the IMF, or World Bank. In many cases actually having their nationalist leaders removed and replaced by petty dictators, friendly to colonization by multinationals, and the establishment of free trade zones.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

Yes, many were colonized and had petty dictators. Being exploited by an imperial power or dictator is quite bad for economies. Probably Latin America seems to be split between being poorer than the world average, and richer than the world average. But there's nothing I really disagree with in this post.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

It's worth noting that the areas I didn't list there (the ones that are comparatively doing well) either have free economies, or a lot of valuable resources (usually oil).

In Africa, there are 5 nations that aren't desperately poor. Libya, Equitorial Guinea, and Gabon have large oil industries. The other two, Botswana and Mauritious, have the two freest economies in Africa.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic African nations that open their markets to foreign investment, and play by IMF, and World Bank rules will appear the be doing quite well. However the growth of an economy is based on GDP, which does not nessarily mean the citizens of that country has prospered. For example: In the U.S. when CEOs would announce that they were moving their operations off shore their stock would soar, but at the same time 30,000 workers would be left jobless, the serge in stock is factored in the GDP.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

I understand GDP doesn't cover everything. I chose a GDP (PPP) per capita. While I may not know all the math behind it, it's worth noting the China is below the world average on this. China has the second largest GDP. So I figure what I was using is a much better indicator at how the average person is living.

But I'm no economist, so if there's something wrong with what I'm using, please tell me.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

In Asia, the places that aren't poor are South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. All of these are also the freest economies in the region. On top of that, they are also among the fastest growing.

In the rest of the world, regions that are mostly rich, all have (relatively) free economies. Yes. No evidence what's so ever that governments messing with economies hurt the people more than they help.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic Well yea, these economies are, thay became what they are because of tariff protections,government subsidies central planning, cheap labor, and including patent violations and reverse engineering of popular products. Hong Kong and Singapore has a different history but generally these economies were built on protectionism and state owned industries. Now that they are prosperous, they are jumping on the neo-liberal bandwagon because they desire the resources of the third world.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

I don't know the economic history of each of these nations. It sounds like you're describing China, but I'll admit I don't know if South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan all prospered using similar methods and have only recently changed.

Hong Kong and Singapore have had the freest economies in the world for a while now, so I'm doubting their success is because of state-owned business.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic Economist don't know the history of these nations either. They just pick the highest GDPs and use them as the shining lights of free trade and neo-liberalism. A good book, written by a very creditable Asian author is : BAD SAMARITANS by Ha-Joon Chang a South Korean. Mr. Chang lays out the history and development of these Asian Nations often used by free traders as they attempt to convince others of the ill conceived glorious attributes of free trade.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

I'll check it out, it seems interesting but not necessarily contradictory to what I've believe in "free markets." His biggest issue seems to be a lack tariffs, which I'll admit seems to not do well when the trade is between developing and developed nations.

It's the ease of starting a business is what I think is most important in development though. If tariffs make it easier for the average person to start a business, I see no reason why a tariff wouldn't be a good thing.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic Heres one problem with starting a buisiness. If your are over 40 and you have say 3 children, your health insurance will cost you $1,200.00 a month. So in spite of the neo-liberal rhetoric, it is tough to start a business in the U.S, but not because of regulaton.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

Here's the great thing about starting a business. If you are young, willing to take risks and have a marketable idea, you'll do just fine while also providing employment to others.

Did if ever say starting a business was an easy job? No, especially for the kind of person that already needs a stable life. But government regulation/corruption only makes it harder to start a business and a business benefits more than the business owner.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic What regulation are you talking about. Could you give me a few examples. You would not want to build a pig farm in the middle of town would you. You would not want to dump toxic waste in the enviroment would you. You would want your employees to earn a livng wage wouldn't you. Would you want your employees to work for you, and have them appeal to social services for rent, and food. Walmart does, they issue directions to social services with their employees paychecks.

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

No pig farmer would build in the middle of town. An environmental issue you have some argument for. Their wage is based on a trade between what the workers is willing to work for and what the employer is willing to pay. It sucks that they might not be able to live on a Walmart wage, but a walmart employee makes a hell of a lot more than the average person in India where regulation of business is quite perverse.

[louiethegreater]

@TombaFanatic But what regulation are you talking about. Workers are willing to work for about anything other than starve. In the Free Trade Zones along our souther borders they live in shacks make of the shipping cartons discarded by the State of the Art Factories they work in. No running water, no sanitaton, no worker protecitons at all. Labor unions are heavily regulatied by the state. GM is Mexicos largest employer, who get the profits from the difference in wages, auto parts not cheaper.

[seppsters]

@louiethegreater

If you're 40 with 3 kids, it would be much easier to start a business if the government didn't have such heavy taxes on business, so much beaurocracy, and the imposition of minimum wage. It would become much easier to make it profitable. The money you would save would balance the health insurance

And don't condescend those workers, because they're much better here than where they were before and if their cousins could come to those shacks they also would

[louiethegreater]

@seppsters That is true, it would be much easier to start a business if, one could own slaves, dump toxic chemicals into the enviroment, burn fules that produce toxic gases. Makes one understand why China is such a thriving economy, they allow all those labor, and enviromental abuses to take place. The U.S. is not the place to start a new business, that is why investment is flowing to China, we are a retail market only. It is apparant that that will not work, by the condition of our economy.

[seppsters]

@louiethegreater

Your exhageration is based on nothing. I'm not a libertarian, but your comment is just a bunch of non-sensical sensationalist catchphrases.

Better a slave than a starving person. You realize that those people were much worse off in their place of origin ? Your comment was completely irrational, I'm not going to answer any further replies, sorry.

[louiethegreater]

@seppsters And your comment is based on one brain dead person, who knows nothing, and is to stupid to recognize facts when they are presented to them. You would make a great southern plantaton owner. I am sure they had a similar attitude. Hey by the way they were against tariffs also. Why because they owned their labor. A bowl of beans, or grits, and a shack to live in. Stay alive you will get here.

[louiethegreater]

@To You must admit it is in the employers interest to have large amounts of labor available. For example in the late 1960s when the elitist needed a plan to finance globalization, free trade and neo-liberalization became the message of global media. During that period the softening dialog toward communism (no longer seen as a threat) ushered into the workforce 4 billion more workers Asian wokers, the globaist place them in direct competiton with american labor through the ideology of free trade

[TombaFanatic]

@louiethegreater

Seems probable.

[n8style]

@louiethegreater think you'll find the chinese government are actively trying to improve workers rights, especially since the recent middle east up-rising which made lots of countries think more about getting the common person on their side

source:

clb (dot) org (dot) hk/en/node/100206

[SclafaniBagni]

Libertarianism is conservatism minus the urge to do the opposite of whatever liberals do.

[EriPages]

@SclafaniBagni

Libertarian-ism isn't conservatism at all, conservatives as I understand them here in Canada are people who want a very intrusive government, the type that enforces a police state where almost anything can be criminal (marijuana, jay-walking, homo-marriages, etc.) in addition to heavy foreign intervention.

Libertarian-ism on the other hand doesn't stand for foreign OR domestic intervention, it maximizes personal freedom & minimizes government intervention. True Liberty!

[SclafaniBagni]

@EriPages Canadian conservatism sure isn't the same as American conservatism. Especially the bit about jay-walking. Can't you guys get anything right up there?

[brixcity17]

Libertarians i think are simply old republicans. True Republicans. The republicans are farther left than ever.

"One man with Courage is a majority." Thomas Jefferson

[ridiculusstimulus]

I don't want...

[ridiculusstimulus]

I don't people to misunderstand Milton. He's not saying continuing more government control is the same as continuing prosperity. That was a strange edit.

[ulyquime99]

Socialism, communism, capitalism, free market don't work 100% because of our human flaws we need a system that is more organic in adapting and fixing system flaws.

[SaulOhio]

@ulyquime99 But it is ONLY capitalism that can be organic. Any government control over the economy becomes stagnating, oppressive. It prevents the economy from adapting, reduces competition. When the government makes laws, it is VERY hard to change them or remove them.

[ulyquime99]

There is no such a thing as free markets because corporations are run and own by people and people are greed so manipulations of the market occur all the time.

[ulyquime99]

@ChristopherAdderley the difference between Brazil and US is that in Brazil you hear about it and US only through wikileaks

[ulyquime99]

@koahzvika "America has had much more of both than Canada for a while now, but with the libertarian movement, not for long. When we restore our free markets, we're going to eat Canada alive. You can bet on it... oh wait, you can't bet."

Yes we will have better schools, better health, better wages, live longer and be happier.

[ulyquime99]

2008 the year that Milton Friedman was prove wrong. Hayek was the true genius. Friedman has to many bias.

[EriPages]

@ulyquime99

Milton Friedman hasn't been proven wrong in 2008 l-o-l, infact, Milton has been proven right not only in 2008...but 2004...2000...1996 and so on.

Government expansion will be the downfall of the once great ol' United States, Milton had the foresight to say it himself back in the 50s/60s. 2012 may be your last chance of a turn around assuming it's not too late.

[TheSlothook]

@EriPages Friedman's been wrong about one thing though. He believed monetary policy was the only necessary tool needed to fix an economy and that hasn't been the case. However, the general principles hes argued for have revolutionized economics and in that regard, he is 100 correct.

[HomelessOnline]

Usually Milt's got some thought-provoking message in these videos, but this is just common sense.

[MirageScience]

Ourfuture obviously depends on the peoples attitudes, that is not evidence against determinism. I like Friedman, don't get me wrong.

[ctonyp]

Sociopath



[ChristopherAdderley]

Read about Moral Hazard - when you make a statement like "At least government is interested in what we think so they can get re-elected." my god. The Governments responsible for allowing their citizens to take on excessive debt.. to promote home ownership in the recent crisis (fannie mae & freddie mac) .. Government interventions which have enormous costs and have produced a dangerous hybrid system. THE SINGLE BEST REGULATION - YOU FAIL - YOU LOSE - YOU DON'T GET BAILED OUT.

[ChristopherAdderley]

"corporate back scratching, corruption, exploitation of workers, unfair competition, subsidies" .. Governments do not take part in the same activities?? Have you been to Brazil? And Brazil is not an exception.. Would you describe punitive taxes against workers that are transferred to the better off and better protected public sector as fair? What are you getting at?

[glibglabgloob]

You guys know why Canada avoided most of the fallout from the recession? Because we have very tightly regulated banks. We know what they're doing, you people however STILL don't have regulated banks. They regulate themselves. Free market and all that right? You never hear libertarians speaking of the shortcomings of the free market because as far as they are concerned it is a perfect system. These people are ideological and dangerous. They are not looking out for you, you naive fools.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@glibglabgloob Your being extremely naive in your assessment of the financial crisis. Regulation is a very general term.. you need to be more specific...

[koahzvika]

@glibglabgloob "Because we have very tightly regulated banks" Oh if only it were so, that central planning and regulation could save you, because you have plenty of both. America has had much more of both than Canada for a while now, but with the libertarian movement, not for long. When we restore our free markets, we're going to eat Canada alive. You can bet on it... oh wait, you can't bet.

[glibglabgloob]

Do any of you care that the recession was largely a result of increasingly unregulated financial industry. UNREGULATED. What in your inferior minds makes you think regulation is a bad thing? If a corporation makes it's profits while destroying important ecology or environment, that's ok with you? Hey they are just trying to make a profit right? Regulations PROTECT consumers from big business. You want to tear down those protections? Because corporate America told you they weren't needed?

[glibglabgloob]

You people that think corporations live or die on merit are so fucking naive it turns my stomach. Between corporate back scratching, corruption, exploitation of workers, unfair competition, subsidies, etc etc etc many of the largest businesses exist while also being managed horribly and without a shred of ethics. Your free market, like many ideas, only works in the hypothetical. You know what the free market gets you? Monopolies, outsourcing, worker exploitation.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@glibglabgloob Your confusing several issues together.

[glibglabgloob]

Those of you who jerk off to the idea of the free market, does outsourcing bother you? Do foreign interests owning America bother you? Does exploitation of workers bother you? How about environmental devastation and short term profit thinking instead of sustainability, do those things concern you? No?  I didn't think so. You people are pathetic, you listen to a few lecture snippets from this blithering idiot and suddenly you're all economic experts.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@glibglabgloob "Do foreign interests owning America bother you?" what does that mean? In a globalised world where perhaps Americans are shareholders in the foreign companies that purchase their own companies.. what exploitation?

[glibglabgloob]

Do you want to be owned by the government or corporate America? You think government and teachers caused this recession? Use the word socialism a little bit more I don't think you're thrown it around carelessly enough. You people would rather have private interests owning everything instead of YOU the people, who ARE the government owning your country. You would sell it off piece by piece in the name of the free market without realizing the harm you're doing.

[cathrasher1974]

@glibglabgloob you sound like an idiot. Milton use to eat people like you in a debate in his sleep.

[glibglabgloob]

@screwsocialism you're a fool. What are you blabbing about? Since when does the government want to take all your freedoms away? What have you been huffing? We need taxes. Essential services need to be available to everyone, not just the rich and powerful. Do you even know what you're talking about? What makes you think corporations have your interests in mind more than the government? At least you can vote and have a say in government. What power do you hold over the affairs of a corporation?

[glibglabgloob]

You're all going nuts over socialism when you don't realize that any healthy modern economy MUST be a hybrid of both. Pure any system is a BAD BAD idea. Capitalism can become extremist like any mode of production. Socialism is the counter balance to capitalism. You know what pure capitalism and a "free" market in this day and age means? It's means a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the complete subjugation of the rest of society.

[glibglabgloob]

LOL, I will never understand how you people figure that corporations and big business are somehow preferable to government. At least government is interested in what we think so they can get re-elected. There are paths to recourse when it comes to the government and we can elect new representatives, presidents etc. What power does the average citizen have over a corporation? Voting with their dollars? Don't be naive.

[ScrewSocialism]

The socialist "Big Gov't" Liberals and Republicans will be the downfall of the US dollar. All socialist gov'ts eventually fail. Big gov't types want to tax and control the people. This leaves less and less incentive to work. Why work if all your money goes to a gov't that wants to take all your freedoms away? A gov't that causes inflation on purpose? One that uses my money to fight wars on the ohter side of the globe in the name of OIL. A gov't that is Socialist now anyway and will fail?

[111sunder]

I can think of 1 reason: his initials are B.O.

[HoGraz]

@111sunder Good one but remember when they started, my friend. It was under Rino Bush.

[Tnat1on]

WE ARE CREATORS OF OUR DESTINY!!!

Sadly, NWO grows bigger and stronger and people become dumber and divided...

[SomeLittleShoe]

why do all LibertyPen videos have these annoying introductions?

[fzqlcs]

@SomeLittleShoe Hopefully, this is the most unpleasant eight seconds of your day. Stiff upper lip now!

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo so what in your opinion is the role of government?

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo I was explaining how corporations must answer to the consumer in a society free of government intervention, as outlined by the works of Ludwig Von Mises. if you already know that then ok, no need to get personal again. just because you may not like my response doesn't make it any less a response. so far it would seem to me that we merely disagree on semantics. I'm looking for common ground and to learn a bit but it's kind of hard to do that whilst being insulted.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo thank you for your answer. I would agree with everything you said except the part about "private programs". perhaps I don't have enough information (please clarify what programs), but I do know that any for-profit private entity succeeds or fails based on results and MERIT, unlike gov run programs that are never held to account for failure because government in fact is unable to create any wealth, and it creates monopoly by law which seeks to negate natural supply and demand.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo in a truly free market the consumer is king, since they must produce in order to consume (no welfare/paying people to fail, no government intervention). a corporation must produce something that people want in order to make a profit, so they succeed or fail based on their ability to please their customer. the government however can take freely of whatever they like (and redistribute), so long as it is currently popular. that is what must be stopped for us to be rich and free again.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo were it up to you would you take away the freedom of those YOU deem "stupid" to vote? if so you have a lot more in common with the neocons/progressives than you think; they too believe that freedom is a privilege granted by government to those they deem "qualified". I voted for Ron Paul last election, because only in a truly free society to the people have the right to dissent. Libertarians are fighting for the rights of ALL; Republicans, Democrats, socialists(& stupid people)alike. 

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo you didn't attempt to answer my question. could we possibly have an intelligent discussion without calling each other namers? I'm trying really hard to be respectful, I only ask the same in return. if I am stupid please EXPLAIN why and how using facts and evidence to support...I take it you're a Libertarian; I am one as well (an unabashed pot-smoking lover of Austrian economics and economists Mises and Hayek). I understand quite well the danger neocons/progressives pose to freedom.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo do you have any examples? which of them are neocons? let's judge them as we (should) judge our representatives; not on what they say but what they have done. who has done more to degrade or preserve liberty, the tea party or the progressives? remember the massive national debt has the potential to make us slaves, as does socialized medicine and the plethora of other intrusions into the private sector. it may not be pretty, but the tea party is waking people up to these problems.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@joeschmojo the real problem is that (thanks to the great power of the federal government) we no longer have an economic system that allows for people to reap the consequences of their own actions. it would be much easier to accept the stupidity and laziness of your neighbor if you were not paying, and thereby creating incentive, for him to stay that way. btw it's not just Americans who have abandoned truth and freedom, we have adopted many policies from other nations. we have forgotten history.

[tantrikwizard]

Wow, increasing freedom, imagine that. When was the last time the Federal shithouse, err, Federal Government passed a law granting more rights or freedoms to individuals? NEVER. The only result of the US Federal tyranny is to gradually reduce freedoms and liberties.

[n8style]

Where did he say that Tea Parties are important?

[pretorious700]

@n8style literal minded people are tedious

[n8style]

@pretorious700 well done for winning the non-sequitur of the year award

[Hoschi0913]

@n8style

seems to me you dont understand the concept of "Tea Parties" ,it means as Friedman states,less goverment and more personal freedom (and responsibilities that comes with it)

[n8style]

@Hoschi0913 it seems to me that you don't understand the concept either. it may have started out like you say, but now it's a thin veneer over christian fundamentalism, racism and elitism, which ironically actually means more government and less freedom. i'm all in favour of less government and more freedom, but the tea parties can't do it. research the koch brothers.

[Hoschi0913]

@n8style

i think it is a good thing,meaning that not all agree on one set of believes / points of view,there will be always some differences ,like in said christian fundamentalism,racism etc,case and point you can not make it right for everyone,still as long as it leads to less gov't and more responsibilities / freedom for the individual,iam fine with it,oh and i will research the Koch Brothers as you suggest,might be interesting to see what they said / come up with

[Hoschi0913]

just looked some up of the koch brothers,well seems to me they have the right idea,but i also think they have the "wrong" approach to it,instead of having "secret" meetings (kinda like George Soro's),they should have included the american public,which gives way more leverage to the ideas,this way you easierly loose the sence of "elitism" at work,which is not desired at all,thats my first impression

[n8style]

@Hoschi0913 wow you made my day! it's good to meet someone willing to research :) we may not agree but kudos for reading stuff!

[Hoschi0913]

@n8style

no need for the kudos (thanks anyways),but how am i suppose to argue or contribute to a conversation when i dont know anything about whats been talked about,unless i pretend to know everything and lie like crazy.....lol,which would be very obvious sooner or later

[jaeLAX23]

@n8style "i'm all in favour of less government and more freedom, but the tea parties can't do it." - at this point in history you are correct that they cannot do it alone. But they are a necessary first step for anything to get done about it.

[n8style]

@jaeLAX23 if you can tell me how people like Michelle 'psycho' Bachmann, Herman '3 page reports' Cain, Newt 'cancer-stricken-wife-divorcer­' Gingrich, Rick 'lets-pray-for-rain' Perry or Mitt 'magic-underpants' Romney "are a necessary first step for anything to get done about it" you're a better used car salesman than I'll ever be

[jaeLAX23]

@n8style These parasites are just spitting Dr. Paul's rhetoric and will flip-flop as soon as they get the chance. Dr Paul is "father" of the current tea party movement. Also, Jefferson said himself revolution is desirable every 20yrs or so to keep government tyranny in check.

[n8style]

@jaeLAX23 Ron Paul ftw!

[Texfield91]

@jaeLAX23 no one person is "father" of the Tea Party movement

[Texfield91]

@n8style If you can tell me how Dr. Paul (see, notice how i mentioned his name without giving it some stupid insult?) can compare the atheist nation of the USSR to the radical islamic nation of Iran (whose said purpose is to kill as many non-muslims as possible) in the nuclear weapons argument, I'm all ears.......

[bobshenix]

@Texfield91

You're claim is completely unsubstantiated... just because a few fringe elements say fucked up shit doesn't mean you start WW3. We infringe on other nation's sovereignty at the drop of a hat, so it's ridiculous to think Iran is at war with every non-Muslim in the world.

[n8style]

@Texfield91 care to provide a source so you don't appear to be just making crap up?

[Texfield91]

@n8style Try the Iranian constituion

[n8style]

@Texfield91 let me spell it out nice and slowly for you so you don't get distracted and the conversation can have some resemblance of a direction...

please provide a source that shows Ron Paul comparing "the atheist nation of the USSR to the radical islamic nation of Iran", it will help people to see that your claims have a basis in reality

[Texfield91]

@n8style Sir, i wasn't rude or condescending to you, so there's no need to direct that at me. Paul's defense in the debates for not dealing with a nuclear Iran was that the USSR had thousands of missles and we didnt prevent them from gaining them. I was simply saying that we're dealing with a different situation with Iran than we were with the USSR.

[cantonaorey]

tea party are not important no more with people like sara palin, Scott Brown and so on....

[megagagnon1]

@cantonaorey The tea parties are very important. Although Palin and her ilk are neocons in sheeps clothing, the local tea parties are a great setting for ron paul libertarians to spread the word. And it was the local tea parties that had the greatest effect on this past election - over 500 tea partiers were elected as state senators, state assemblymen, state attorney generals, etc. And a few birthers were elected as well.

[RunLiberty]

Ron Paul 2012

[tantrikwizard]

@RunLiberty The biggest problem with Ron Paul is his supporters. All the conspiracy nuts join the Ron Paul camp. Oh, and his isolationist, pacifist foreign policy. As the greatest super power in history it's only natural and appropriate that we infer our system upon tyrannical civilizations around the globe.

[IKSDoomie]

@tantrikwizard You are mistaken about Ron Paul. His policies have nothing to do with isolation nor being a pacifist. Non-intervention has nothing to do with either. Ron Paul never stated and has always said that isolation is not good for America. What we should not do is enter in tangling alliances. As far as conspiracy theories....well so many have come true how can we know what else may come out if enough people take time to investigate.

[n8style]

@tantrikwizard be careful about what you think is "natural and appropriate", in a couple decades China's gonna be more powerful than the US, I doubt if you'd be ok if they said the same thing and wanted to put their system on the US.

[EGarrett01]

@jacktheputrid

My concern is that Friedman himself, in another of LibertyPen's postings, specifically asks the students not to attribute conservative views to him. Referring to his comments here as though he would support the Tea Party movement seems like the exact thing that Friedman himself did NOT want and specifically asked people not to do to him.

[selfrealizedexile]

I'm still undecided whether Milton was a closet anarchist and did the libertarian, "limited" gov't because the next step was seen as too radical by the sheeple or if he genuinely was that naive to ever believe an organization with a monopoly on taxation and force would ever satiate its appetite. His son definitely 'got it', so I have to wonder if he was guided by his father or in spite of him.

[selfrealizedexile]

@selfrealizedexile

libertarian, "limited" gov't dance*

[yammyspeed13]

If he run's in 2012, I'll be voting for Ron Paul and I won't be looking past my shoulder before I do so.

[selfrealizedexile]

@yammyspeed13

Indeed, I will do the same; Ron Paul is actually a closet anarchist who would start sabotaging all the 'legal plunder' laws from within. His son is probably the same way though I doubt you could get either one to explicitly state it publicly; no family grows up around Murray N. Rothbard and doesn't eventually become anarchistic.

[theredraven]

Friedman wouldn't support the Tea Party as he's a Libertarian and they're a bunch of populist right wing authoritarians.

Also, you could probably argue that the Tea Party isn't really "Conservative". Conservatives believe in the rule of law whereas some in the Tea Party movement seem to be advocating some kind of rebellion.

[EGarrett01]

@jacktheputrid

As most libertarians, Friedman also probably embraced legalized drugs and same-sex marriage, among other things, unlike the tea partiers.

Conservatives/Republicans/Teab­aggers only claim to be about "small government," when in reality they want BIG government when it comes to your personal life. Friedman saw through this double-talk and wasn't one of them. So please, again, don't put words in his mouth to make it sound like he supports tea parties or other conservative movements.

[krillin876]

@jacktheputrid great comment about Friedman be liberal, people have this linear thinking problem where they think everything is 1+1=2. It baffels me that " liberalsuckdick" is praising Friedman. The Neocons want nothing to do with liberty, just look, War on drugs, Gay marriage, Abortion, Nation Building.

[krillin876]

THE TEA PARTIERS ARE FRAUDS!!! I went to a tea party last summer and guess what their biggest complaint was. Obama making medicare cuts. They are mad because their entitlement will be cut. Sounds like socialist to me. Also where were the signs to repeal the Patriot act. There were none. Where were all the liberty people then. They are just a part of the NEO- CON machine

[EGarrett01]

LibertyPen, please don't spin Friedman's words to be supporting the republicans/conservatives or democrats. Friedman said himself in another video of yours that he's not a conservative and doesn't want to have those views attributed to him.

[TheLiberalssuckdick]

Milton was a good man. Good American. Freedom!!!!

[fei83]

@TheLiberalssuckdick  was?

[whoo689]

Tea partiers may well be swept up in so much anti-Obama fervor that they forget just how statist the GOP is as well and go back to being fooled that idiots like John McCain are somehow the equivalent of Ron Paul.

[fzqlcs]

@whoo689 Let's hope that is not the case. But, even Ron Paul understands that the Republicans are our only shot.

[whoo689]

I think the worst thing about the tea parties, though, is that they don't really STAND for much of anything. Yes, they're angry about excessive taxing and spending and growth of gov't, but so are a lot of people. If that's their MAIN issue, they're really gonna fall short of achieving anything meaningful. They need a REAL set of worthwhile pro-liberty limited gov't stances on the issues. Tea parties need to broaden their focus. Hell, I'm afraid most tea partiers will vote GOP this year.

[fzqlcs]

@whoo689 As a libertarian, I hope they do vote for the GOP this year. Otherwise, it will just be more Democrats.

[Minnesnowtakid]

@fzqlcs You don't wish they voted for the libertarian party? Or someone other than the GOP?

[fzqlcs]

@Minnesnowtakid I don't think the Libertarian party can grow fast enough to be relevant in 2012. My hope is that a libertarian candidate can emerge within the GOP.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 Unfortunately, it's a very sickening vicious cycle in our 2-party system of politics. We are perhaps the ONLY republic in the world, let alone a functioning true republic, that has just two parties. Most have at least 3 or 4, like Canada. How can just 2 parties represent 300 million people? It can't be done effectively! Napolitano says it best: there really is only ONE party- the big gov't party. It has two wings called GOP and DNC.

[theredraven]

@whoo689 Canada isn't a republic, it's a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

God that's a mouthful isn't it? Even so, Canada has been run either by the Liberal or Conservative parties. No one else has ever claimed power. In the UK only the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties have ever been in power. This idea of only two or three parties ever being the main ones in power isn't unqiue to the US. Even in PR systems it tends to be dominated by two big parties.

[whoo689]

The tea parties of 2010 seem like a far cry from what tea parties might've been in 2008 or 2007 when Ron Paul was getting national exposure and ran for president. I can't in good conscience align myself with them nowadays, esp. when they do crap like spit on Congressmen, threaten people w/ violence, and send nasty voicemails, among other things. Supposedly using anti-gay and racist slurs. Plus, a lot of them in the 2009 and 2010 tea parties seem dumb as rocks and very misinformed on issues.

[fzqlcs]

@whoo689 Maybe no one deserves to be spat upon. But, if anyone does, it is tyrannical congressmen.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 And in so doing they'll ignore countless third party and Independent pro-liberty candidates who are WAY better than that GOP candidate and certainly far better than the Democratic ones. The tea parties need to stay focused on Independence, not become swept up in partisan furor. The minute they do, it's all over. They'll become as captured by the GOP as a regulatory agency by business.

[whoo689]

I dunno anymore. I'm not a huge fan of these tea parties in the current period. It seems like the tea party is mainly just an overaggressive extension of the GOP anti-Obama coalition, rather than a real coalition of Independent libertarians and voluntarists. Fox News keeps claiming, with what evidence I have no idea, that tea partiers are disgruntled Dems and Indies, but I really doubt most of them are. A lot of them act too ridiculous and have such weird signs to be that.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 A lot of them when asked seem to think stupid crap like "Obama's a Muslim" and whathaveyou. Or compare Obamacare to Hitler and the Holocaust.

I'm afraid nowadays tea parties are little more than an extension of the Republican establishment. Lord knows the GOP nutcases like Michelle Bachmann have had their fair share of attendance at these rallies. Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo, two of the worst Republicans I know and VERY much establishment types, spoke at their convention.

[fzqlcs]

@whoo689 Tea Partiers are primarily those that oppose the government takeover of the economy, ranging from Ron Paul to Sarah Palin. They are simply Americans who want to retain what fragments of individual liberty still exist. Libertarians and conservatives make an uncomfortable alliance, but without it, we are doomed to socialist oblivion.

[freedominsomalia]

no... they arent... civil disobedience is needed. that means not obeying. not listening. and ignoring.