Ep. 5 - Created Equal [1/7]. Milton Friedman's Free to Choose (1980)

In this program, Milton Friedman visits India, the U.S., and Britain, examining the question of equality. He points out that our society traditionally has embraced two kinds of equality: equality before God and equality of opportunity. The first of these implies that human beings enjoy a certain dignity simply because they are members of the human community. The second suggests societies should allow the talents and inclinations of individuals to unfold, free from arbitrary barriers. Both of these concepts of equality are consistent with the goal of personal freedom.

In recent years, there has been growing support for a third type of equality, which Dr. Friedman calls "equality of outcome." This concept of equality assumes that justice demands a more equal distribution of the economic fruits of society. While admitting the good intentions of those supporting the idea of equality of outcome, Dr. Friedman points out that government policies undertaken in support of this objective are inconsistent with the ideal of personal freedom. Advocates of equality of outcome typically argue that consumers must be protected by government from the insensitivities of the free market place.

Dr. Friedman demonstrates that in countries where governments have pursued the goal of equality of outcome, the differences in wealth and well being between the top and the bottom are actually much greater than in countries that have relied on free markets to coordinate economic activity. Indeed, says Dr. Friedman, it is the ordinary citizen who benefits most from the free market system. Dr. Friedman concludes that any society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. But the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with both greater freedom and great equality.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Milton
• Friedman
• free
• market
• capitalism
• India
• Britain
• equality
• justice

[Howsonify]

Cont: Moving away from that silly NFL analogy, is it not the same when dealing with a market system? There are few laws, if not none, that prohibit an individual from entering or exiting any given legal market. But the market system itself has its own design which promotes some and prohibits others: it promotes the self-assertive & competitive. My point is this: we all have a "fair chance" under the laws but that doesn't necessarily mean we also have a "fair chance" under the market system, too.

[Howsonify]

I too can appreciate the desire for "fair chance," but isn't that like saying we all have a "fair chance" at playing in the NFL? Indeed, there are no laws which prohibit us all from playing in the NFL. But the game itself--its very design--determines who best will play the game (i.e. the persons weight, height, athletic ability). Therefore, the design of the game favors, and also limits, who plays the game.

,

[freedomthrough]

Also... In the US, a fair chance isn't given. There's a huge statistical difference in outcomes depending on in what type of family you're born. Social mobility is low. If you're born poor, you're likely to remain poor. If you're born rich, you're likely to remain rich. That's not a sign of freedom. In the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, we're actually given that chance for real. Like going to the university almost for free and being trained for a better job if we lose ours.

[freedomthrough]

@freedomthrough cont'd: Many of these freedoms fall short if there's no gov't intervention. For an example, a person from where i am would be frightened to walk your streets for fear of being murdered. That's not very free. A person here can trust they won't fall into poverty if there's trouble and they won't have to take that crap job at McD just to survive. That's being free. These are just a few examples.

[freedomthrough]

@ProudConservative2 Well, the technology we have today, the systems we have today, we owe to our forefathers and they won't claim anything anymore, so it should naturally fall into the hands of the common good. I have never given away any freedom. I'm here on youtube, my country doesn't censor the internet (which your country does, when it suits it's needs), i can walk freely on the street, i can marry and start a family or start a company or go to church or all of them if i want.

[ProudConservative2]

@freedomthrough We are entitled to a fair CHANCE to go after our share of the fruits.. .this is the problem with many in our country and the world today... you think you are "entitled" to something for nothing! There is not such thing. When you give away your FREEDOM to make your life whatever YOU can make of it... you are a SLAVE!

[ProudConservative2]

@freedomthrough Anyone who compares the results that America has reached (when left unencumbered by government) has surpassed anything that the world has ever seen! Period. The things tearing that down are interference by government in the attempt to help poor people. It is good and right to truly help one another... however, that is not and should never be the role of government re-distribution of wealth.

[freedomthrough]

@yamahaU3 It is due to others' actions, so in a sense it is artificial. Natural would be for society to take care of and calue the individual, both as him/herself and as a part of society, like it did long before feudalism and capitalism. Globalist capitalism needs to change course from the one we've been on for 40-50 years now, which is "let's see who can get to the bottom first".

[freedomthrough]

@ProudConservative2 You do realise that what you're saying is bullshit? Statistics and simple math proves it. Compare your results to other nations around the world. Where is the wealth and income more spread out? Compare that to other indicators such as social and health indicators and you find an interesting answer. More equal societies do better and not just a little :). Besides, we're all born onto this earth and should all be entitled to our share of it's fruits.

[yamahaU3]

@Howsonify No you missed my point, the question is not whether it's man-made or natural, the fact is everyone has to live with what he is born into, and the real question is how can he best improve his situation. It's not like he can go back to the past and choose who's his parents, so it doesn't matter if it's man made or natural, the fact is he has to live with it.