 Government programs benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. Those are the terms on which many public welfare programs are sold. But is that really the case? The economist Milton Friedman doesn't think so and called this the Robin Hood myth. Friedman argued that instead of taking from the rich to help the poor, most welfare programs benefit the middle class at the expense of the very poor and the very rich. This happens because of a simple rule. Known as Director's Law. In a democratic system, laws are passed by 51% of the people voting one way against 49% of the people voting another. You might think the bottom 51% will pass laws at the expense of the top 49%, but that's rarely the case. Director's Law implies that the bottom 51% tend to not only be less fortunate, but also less likely to have the ability to organize themselves and be politically successful. The top 51% are able to use their power to control politics, but they are by definition also the most comfortable with how things are, and hence often the last to seek political change. The most effective people in political activity are running from the lower middle class through the upper middle class. They are the people who are literate, who write the news, who envy the very rich, and who seek political change. And what kind of policies do they want? Welfare programs for themselves. One famous policy that runs throughout almost all democratic societies is state financed higher education. It is sold on the grounds of providing equal opportunities to everybody to get an education. But what are the facts? Who is really benefiting? Who are the people who are attending public universities? It's usually people who come from the middle and upper class families. Occasionally there is someone from a lower class family, but that's a small fraction. Children from middle and upper class families often attend public education for the longest periods, gaining new skills, and building strong networks that enable them to get higher paying jobs. The taxpayers pay for it, including parents from the bottom of the income distribution, whose children are unlikely to attend college, and in the rare instance that they do so, often drop out. Freedmen called state financed higher education a program to impose taxes on the people in Watts to send the children from Beverly Hills to college. What are your thoughts? Was Freedmen right? And if so, what's a good alternative to help create equal opportunities in a democracy? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and read the description for more information about Freedmen and our work. To learn more, check one of our other videos. To support our work and change education, join us on patreon.com slash sprouts, or read more about us in the description.