Government Interference

Milton Friedman discusses fallacies, defects in logic, history of tyranny, subtle arguments, power, corruption, and the path to dictatorial government.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ron
• paul

[FletchforFreedom]

Of course, on planet Earth, the causes of the current economic crisis (and the resultant unemployment) were entirely of the government's making (Fed policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.) and were not even remotely related to anything resembling laissez-faire capitalism. It is those same government failures that have created so much "social need" including a Welfare State that has unequivocally INCREASED poverty.

[benallen9]

Surely Milton is a libertarian. He believes in peoples rights to go about their lives without government interference. Just look at his view on drug legalisation, he promotes the legalisation of drugs and their cheap sale to reduce the crime that goes with addicts need to aid their addiction. By making drugs legal, addicts cease to be a drain on the economy and therefore can actually contribute to the economy.

[DraughtOfPeace]

@quadcatfly

Quit skipping school, and stay off the drugs, junkie. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[quadcatfly]

mo welfare free for al tax the rich !

[daobagua]

@IrminC You keep saying subsidize a lifestyle? What exactly do you mean by that? If they adopt a kid from a government run orphanage, then they reduce the cost to the government (i.e. the government is not having to raise the kid). Furthermore, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RIGHT TO MARRYYYYYYYYY. Yes, capitalization was necessary, you do not seem to argue this point, you always turn it to adoption.

Finally, what if science allows homosexuals to reproduce, would you mind?

[IrminC]

@daobagua That's fine but it's not relevant. If homosexuality was the norm we would cease to exist, the topic at hand goes beyond human asset into a biological imperative to procreate. If homosexuals could procreate it wouldn't be an issue. If they're able to pursue a private adoption (surrogate) then that is their right but they do not have the right to force the government to subsidize a lifestyle the vast majority of people find unnatural and a cause of degeneracy.

[daobagua]

@IrminC Did you choose to be straight? If you did, was it a 50/50 choice, or did biology play a factor in here? Imagine being told, by the state, that homosexuality is the only proper lifestyle and that you are expected to find a suitable same sex mate. Imagine the thought of having to choose between living alone or having to have sex with another guy. Just imagine how you feel about having sex with another guy. That is how a homosexual male feels when we tell them to have sex with women.

[IrminC]

@daobagua Race is not sexual orientation, it is behavior and lifestyle.

[daobagua]

@IrminC The state does not have to give homosexuals the right to adopt children. The state has to get out of their way. If the state monopolizes the adoption process, then they need to allow all individuals the same rights to adopt. Which means that unless they have a criminal record, financial problems, or a history of abuse, they should be allowed to adopt. For the state to be biased on race or sexual orientation is ridiculous.

[daobagua]

@IrminC First, we are not argueing whether homosexuals can "have" children, we are aguing if they can raise them. Raising has nothing to do with biology.

Second, your statistics are absolute bunk. The same risk of pedophilia exists with both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Third, mariage is not a government subsidy for gays (unless it is a government subsidy to straight). ALL individuals should be the same in the eyes of the government.

[IrminC]

@daobagua What is biologically necessary to make a child? Male & Female.

No need to elaborate on what is self-evident. You elaborate how an alternative lifestyle with extremely disproportionate levels of pedophilia, drug abuse, depression, and suicide should be state sanctioned?

Gay cant naturally produce children, if they are so stable there are ways to have children like a surrogate. That is no ones business but they can not demand the state subsidize a universally regard unnatural union.

[IrminC]

@daobagua As I said before, people can legally enter any contract they want.

There are several lifestyles not suitable for having children. And people have every right to pursue them but that does not give them to right to contract another human being as an accessory. The state has no obligation to provide them with something they cant provide themselves! In that case there is absolutely & rightfully so societal norms that come into play on the rational of collective morality.