 I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing. And it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding. But if you step in to try to do them, you not only may make them to do something about them, you not only may make them worse, but you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere. You know, another answer to your question as to why you seem to have the drift of collectivism is along these lines. The argument for collectivism, for government doing something, is simple. Anybody can understand it. If there's something wrong, pass along. If somebody is in trouble, get Mr. X to help around. The argument for voluntary cooperation for a free market is not nearly so simple. It says, you know, if you allow people to cooperate voluntarily and don't interfere with it indirectly through the operation of the market, they will improve matters more than you can improve it directly by appointing somebody. That's a subtle argument, and it's hard for people to understand. And moreover, people think that when you argue that way, you're arguing for selfishness, for greed. That's utter nonsense. The people who are in positions of power in a political hierarchy are also selfish and greedy. Mankind is selfish and greedy. And one of the interesting features about the 19th century that we were talking about, I wonder if you realize that there is no century in human history in which charitable and alimonyary activity has been as widespread and on a larger scale as it was in the 19th century. The charge used to be made that there were so many people trying to buy their way out of hell. Well? Or into heaven. It's not too bad to have a... can you think of more innocent ways in which people can be employed? Yes, but it interests me that you just said mankind is selfish and greedy. And that has always been the battle cry of those who have said, therefore we must impose controls upon them. Therefore we have to put power in the hands of other selfish and greedy men. Now, I want to apologize for what I said. A great bulk of mankind. There are always conspicuous exceptions, not everybody. And also, for each person there is an exception. People are selfish and greedy in what aspect of their activity. They are unselfish and generous in another. No, I understand. But I don't mean to be making a... I understand. But again, that is the philosophic basis of the argument that government must step in. But it's a false argument because it assumes somehow that government is a way in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men. But government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men get into a position of controlling them. Look at the record of government. Where are these philosopher kings at Plato supposedly was trying to develop? Limited to that Athens you've been talking about. Well, they never got power there or they wouldn't have been philosopher kings either. Acton, Lord Acton, of course, made his famous comment, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. So that I do not believe that that argument will... That base will sustain the conclusion. Well, isn't there a major question, though, related to those who say that Lord Acton really was saying that power tends to corrupt and I suppose that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. And that it's too simple to say that power corrupts and that there's a trade-off here and a balancing which leads me to ask you, literally in these last few minutes, where are we going in your estimation? Quite honestly, quite strictly. There is a balance here, quite right. I am not in favor of eliminating government entirely. I think government is growing all out of proportion to its scope. Where are we going? I believe that that depends on us, that that's not in the cards. We are masters of our own destiny. But if you take the road we have been on, we are heading toward a destruction of our free society and toward a totalitarian society. We are, unfortunately, headed down the route which Chile has already taken essentially to its end, which Britain has taken much farther than we are. Now, we still have time to appoint it, but we will not appoint it unless the people of this country recognize the danger and take very difficult and important steps to set a limit on the extent to which they are going to permit government to interfere with their lives. If you thought that we were not going to avoid it, that we were going to continue down the present path, the path to surf them, perhaps, would you then try to develop some different kind of philosophy, some different kind of approach that might enable us to make the jump from the freedom that you embrace and the near-surfdom that seems likely in the future? I don't believe so, because I think if you go down that road, I don't believe there is any philosophy which will enable you to avoid it. My own reaction is very different. Just to say, we don't have to go down that road. I may think the chance, I really do think, that the chance is a good deal less than 50% that we'll be able to avoid it. We may well be fighting a losing battle, but if it's the right battle, if it's the only alternative to surf them, then we ought to fight it and try to convert that 15, 25, 30% chance, whatever it is, into a certainty. There are some sources of support on our side, fortunately. Tell me, give me the name of two, please. I will be glad to. Number one is the extraordinary ability and ingenuity of the American people in finding ways to get around wars. That's a major source of strength for freedom. And number two is the inefficiency of government. People go around complaining about waste in government. I am always reminded of a wonderful saying of an old teacher of mine. He was a teacher of statistics, and I read this statement about statistics in which he said, pedagogical ability is a vice rather than a virtue if it is devoted to teaching error. Well, I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it's only the waste that prevents the harm from being graded. And the waste government has two very important elements. Number one, if government were now spending the amount it spends, which is 40% of our income, governments, federal, state and local in the United States, have total spending, which equals 40% of total national income. If they were spending that efficiently, we'd be slaves now. And in the second place, the waste is so obvious that it arouses a counter movement on the population at large. People are disillusioned with government, and it increases the chance that they will recognize where this road is taking them and get off that train before it goes all the way. Well, I'm glad that we end our program on such a positive note, Professor Friedman. I'm delighted to have had you here with us today. I appreciate it very much that you give us the wisdom of your counsel once again. And thanks, too, to you and the audience. I hope that you'll join us again on The Open Mind. Meanwhile, as an old friend used to say, good night and good luck.