http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4
Haven’t seen anyone really emphasize this point. 
If interviews with Milton Friedman were played in every classroom, our future would look so much brighter.
In the free market, one’s man gain is not another man’s lost. The pie is not fixed but grows as more and more people get wealthy. Envy is no justification for propagating the myth of social injustice.
Now, since we don’t have anything near a free market, there is no doubt that there are many wealthy people who have become wealthy by real injustice. But your friend has it all backwards. Injustice and the concept of one man’s gain at the expense of another really does exist, but only in the sphere of government action. Whether it is manifested by regulations that favor some well connected producers at the expense of others, or by outright direct services provided to the government itself, i.e., profiteering by providing goods and services supplied with tax payers money.
So if envy is at the heart of your friend’s objection to freedom, then I’m afraid you can’t help him. But if it is true injustice he’s concerned about, then he should consider that his entire theory is exactly backwards.
one time I had a debate with someone on the issue of minimium wage and why I am oppossed to it. Basically what happened was that I went through my premises one by one and asked that person if he agreed. What ended happening was that he agreed to with all my premisses but disagreed with my conclusion that minnimium wage was actually harmful to the poor. When asked why he still disagreed he only stated that people who work at the bottom should be paid more because it would be just (which he adimitted was not just in the premises)
Some people are not willing to learn in a debate but merely prove they are right (I admit I do this to sometimes but I am trying to stop). This is especially true in the soft sciences like politics. Keep in mind you may not change your friend.
Read Rothbard’s essay Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature. You will not understand the left until you do. Most importantly, Rothbard exposes in this essay how conservatism has discredited itself by conceding the moral high ground from the outset. Socialism/communism/etc do not have “good ideals”. Also check out Bryan Caplan’s recent Mises daily article to this effect, here.
Clayton -
Interesting that Milton Friedman was talking mostly about the lack of high order goods that a society would see with an inheritance tax. To my knowledge, he didn’t seem to focus on it much when it comes to business cycle (at least in comparison to Mises or Hayek)
Brian,
Be careful. Stef says alot of STUFF, some of which makes sense, some of which is questionable to say the least. Beware of his DEFOO philosophy. Grayson Lilburne actually debated him in this forum. Maybe someone can provide a link to the thread for you.
Stef is also one of those people who claims to understand ABCT, but doesn’t.
People who have more “marketable” traits also get a head start in life. There should be a talent tax.
Isn’t there already an income tax for that. They also have programs for those who lack talent… welfare. So basically, the state punishes talent and rewards lacking talent.
Sometimes I truly believe socialism is what happens when the talent pool in society begins to shrink.
I agree 100% that socialism happens when the talent pool shrinks. There’s a girl at my college who actually believes socialism works and that capitalism is some kind of scheme set up in order to give evil people more money. I don’t understand that one bit. Shows how stupid people are on the left.
I’m not sure if anyone will agree with me on this one, but I feel that if all taxes were set to 0 - pretend there are no implications of such, and everything runs the same as it does now - Fortune 500 companies would feel much more compelled to hire a lot of people and create better working conditions and everything. The reason I say this is because our government has been so anti-business for such a long time that all people at the top want is money. I wouldn’t say there’s necessarily something wrong with that, but I feel that people would have more pride in their own company if society didn’t view them as “fat cats” from the get-go. What do you guys think?
I think that the subjective value theory would make it impossible for us to know whether or not people would feel more pride in their companies or whether or not companies would be more philanthropic. However, with no taxes and regulaitons, companies would be able to higher more people and use more of the existing capital to produce more products that society wants, thus cheaper prices.
As for better working conditions, it is possible but not certain. With the barriers to social mobility gone, more businesses can hire more people. Demand for labour will increase as more businesses require labour to use up thier capital. Since more demand for labour equals more pay and better working conditions for labourers, then your theory could hold.
However, events may occur that are reminicent to America’s so called gilded age where companies actually used to chain people to their workplace. There was a famous case where one such company set on fire and all the people working their were unable to escape. However, I don’t know much about that era except that government intervention and merchantilism were the norm. So you have to leave up to someone who knows the histroy of that era better than myself so you can understand cause and effect. I would be happy to know since I am pushing towards anarchism but their are somethings like the mistreatment of workers that concern me (in terms of positve actions taken by a company that directly harms the individual worker not wages or conditions).
Brian Anderson - “Shows how stupid people are on the left.”
It may not be that she is stupid. Smart people often hold on to ideas that are wrong. The person you are talking about could become a defender of liberty, but she must discover the errors in her thinking.
If you should choose to discuss the issue of socialism with her, your challenge will be to first have a solid understanding of sound economics, not the economics taught in college.
/end random thoughts.
“If interviews with Milton Friedman were played in every classroom, our future would look so much brighter.”
Not so fast. Milton Friedman did a lot more harm than good.
I don’t think he did ‘more’ harm than good.
“I don’t think he did ‘more’ harm than good.”
Can you explain? I mean, he was only one of the biggest advocates for government controlled paper money.
I think that’s a realm in which his influence largely wasn’t relevant
Read this.
Here’s the thing about Friedman. If one stumbles upon him, and as a result, is enlightened by his message of economic freedom, then It’s hard to see why that is harmful.
On the other hand, there is no reason to purposely “plant” him as some intermediate stage towards the real deal as some here have suggested. It’s far better to guide people directly to Mises or even Rothbard.’
Honestly, one good essay by Mises on the market economy will probably leave a more profound affect on the newcomer then the entire “Free To choose” stuff.
Well I was one of the people who Milton influenced and he got me more interested in free markets. However, I don’t think that somehow cancels out the negative impact he’s had on policy. The point was he’s done more harm than good.