Milton Friedman - Fairness Or Freedom?

Friedman looks at two competing concepts. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Phil
• Donahue
• government
• regulation
• federal
• communication
• air
• waves
• auction
• radio
• television
• stations
• compete
• airlines
• shareholders
• stock
• sell
• individuals
• private
• property
• fairness
• doctrine
• trust
• candidates
• equality
• liberty
• FCC
• fair
• decisions
• choice
• power
• reality
• book
• permission
• independence
• laissez-faire
• broadcasting
• networks
• economist
• cars
• profit
• loss
• Chrysler
• IRS
• taxpayer
• citizens

[666sigma]

Look at EVERY situation where the government regulates the economy. Only FAT CATS operate. ALWAYS.

I want to see one person name one situation where the government regulates where the FAT CATS don't dominate. The FAT CATS always run to government for protection: unions, Wall Street, lawyers, lobbyists, etc.

The whole premise of Dumbahue's question is wrong.

[fzqlcs]

@se7ensnakes Government is good when limited to protecting liberty. Corporations are good when they compete in the free market without government interference and favor. It is the blending of the two -- corporatism -- that allows political forces to interfere with the market, thereby corrupting the process. The answer is to remove this power from politicians. If it were gone, there would be no need for campaign reform.

[EricLynchSucks]

Wow..So weve been bailing out car companies forever...

[Fr8Puke]

Phil Donahue. . .once a Socialist douchebag. .always a Socialist douchebag

[MapleMeadows]

Great arguments from Friedman, but someone should have told him to comb what's left of his hair before going on tv.

[jffryh]

@666sigma I wish we had more Donahue's. at least he talked with people with divergent views and had real conversations. he allowed his guests to give full responses to questions. allowed ideas to be heard. As it turns out, people were not so interested in such things

[captaindiesalot]

Here's an example of a civil discussion between two different economic/political philosophies, so unlike today.

[davekeays]

@dibaterman I get more than you give me credit for. I never addressed the concern about the election process corrupting politicians or politicians corrupting the election process. I think you confused me and fzqics. You were comparing what some say is a constitutionally protected right (your right to LIFE which is implied by the DOI, not the constitution) to a illegitimate right (your right to make others listen to your POV which is neither implied nor protected by anything).

[dibaterman]

@davekeays

Okay and on an individual level I'm so okay with your position on this issue that I in fact don't care. However saying otherwise is no longer talking about a democracy and if you don't get it that then it's not my problem. Apples and Oranges? That only makes me want to respond "which came first the Chicken or the egg?" Does the politician do the unpopular move to get reelected or does he do the popular to get reelected. Any fair context of American history shows the latter is true.

[davekeays]

@dibaterman We don't have the tyranny of the majority you seem to think we do. I prefer the balanced republic we have to a bullying system that ignores fairness to the individual. Your attempt to compare apples to oranges is both absurd and distorted. We were both talking about political actions. How the government interacts with citizens is politics and the government sticking it's nose into individual matters is a political action.

[ImAznnn]

@dibaterman Of course we need the constitution and laws. Laws must be created to ensure freedom is given to every person.

When did I ever imply that I supported absolutism? Haha