Milton Friedman - Persuasion vs Coercion

In response to a question, Professor Freidman discusses the line between persuasion and coercion. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Source: Milton Friedman Speaks
Buy it: http://www.freetochoose.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=152

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• economics
• conservative
• libertarian
• coercion
• exchange
• capitalism
• laissez-faire
• command
• compulsory
• free
• enterprise
• threat
• liberty
• freedom
• force
• physical
• mental
• mind
• brainwashing
• cooperation
• society
• individual
• choice
• business
• indoctrination
• choose
• channels
• views
• diversity
• monopoly
• FCC
• radio
• television
• advantage
• advertisers
• information
• costs
• benefits

[weavermama]

@Teranex Milton Friedman would probably remind us that there is a sense in which every nation is capitalistic; that is, they all use and require vast amounts of capital to function and grow. The question is who controls that capital, a mosaic of free individuals or a monolith of central planners. When we understand the difference between state capitalism and individual capitalism the inherent coercive nature of socialism is exposed.

[bombkangaroo]

@kaziqbal

When one understands and can articulate the truth it should come quickly, as there is no alternative to consider. That's the beauty of his message, it can be spoken with eloquence, haste and brevity, because it is objectively true. It needs no dressing up, no weasel words, and no sound-bytes inserted in order to sound good.

[UCSDEngineerDoctor]

@bombkangaroo You are right, when I listen to Milton he is straight forward, logical, & straight to the point. NAOMI KLEIN, when I listen to her, does not even make 1 coherent statement. Her idiotic statements are a bunch of illogical blathering nonsense.

[UCSDEngineerDoctor]

@weavermama Well said.

[heavym3tal]

@Faerlon123 In order for the "Big 5" to maintain their station would require coercion. Such a system would be impossible to maintain without fear of violence.

[Faerlon123]

@LucisFerre1 Answer this hypothetical question then. Imagine a world, where 5 people owned everything. And the 6999999999995 others were working in a diversity of shops,farms,factories, in essence doing the dirty work. Those 5 people, lets call them "Big 5", they liked having everyone else work for them, and not doing shit. And no one would say anything because they labored under the illusion that they one day could be part of the "Big 5". Not unfair you say?

[stebecool]

Looks like a young clueless Al Franken

[LucisFerre1]

@weavermama When people talk about a "nation's wealth" and how it's unevenly distributed, they give the impression that this wealth was created & belongs to everyone equally. Not true. Say, of the infamous "1%". How much of that wealth that they own did they themselves create? And if that wealth is in the stock market, say, then workers and consumers benefit from this. If Wealthy bob buys a car & I and others commute in that car to work, then why is it unfair if Bob owns the wealth of that car?

[LucisFerre1]

It blows my mind that this dumb bastard kid can't understand the difference between, say being offered a persuasive argument and that of being coerced into a certain behavior or position. But then again, it seems that this is one of the things that liberals blank-out on. They tend to think if it's a good idea for rich Bob to want to give to poor Stan, then it's a good idea for the government to forcibly take from Bob and give to Stan, blanking out the coercive element of the transaction.

[Billstiller23]

Genius

[weavermama]

@ChristopherAdderley Right back at ya! I've found that people froth at the mouth in anger toward Friedman in direct proportion to their misunderstanding of his ideas. That being said, I feel the Austrian critique of his monetarist theories is justified. Peace.

[ChristopherAdderley]

@weavermama Precisely! There is a sense in which all types of society are capitalist - the real question is who controls the capital! Kindest Regards