All About Multimedia
He said so much , yet so little.
The only people seeking free lunch are African Americans. Perhaps, this is why they have not progressed for years now.
@9:47 ear pain@9:48 ear destruction@9:49 def
Ownership is just entitlement, without itself being enforced by force. To use the same example as milton "the freedom for me to extend my fist" – good luck living in a overcrowded society.His version will undoubetly end in totalitarianism in the end, because ownership limits as much as it creates. People will not be able to move freely when all land is owned privatly.
It's there in black & white, begging to be followed by those who TOOK AN OATH to do so.
Suite is black af
I don't get him, will someone help
Friedman failed to mention that the american people was not ask to give an opinion on global free trade. Actually he never mentions that the MSM never allowed the word protectionism to be spoken on the airways. If it was spoken by someone like Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot the media quickly silenced it. Remember Al Gore holding up the picture of Smoot – Hawley on Larry King live and accusing tariff for causing the great depression. Friedman was a believer in throwing US Markets open to the world. That approach to trade has been proven wrong, and it was government that liberalizing our markets. Which Friedman never condemned. Know why — because he was carrying water for a entity that had taken over our government since the end of WWll.
Friedman completely upheld the concept of dumbing down america, through open borders, inferior education and total liberalization of our schools. Friedman was completely willing to exploit the ignorance of the American People concerning the fact that the US was founded on protectionism, NOT free trade.
Free means absence of coercion! whether it is government or social institutions1
It seems like he is saying that everyone should be involved in important decisions in this country and not just the Government.
while certain banking familys are here on this planet it does not matter what system you have it will always be corrupted by those familys and inevitably become oppressive and controlling through control of banks and the media.
This is why in my language free from sth. and free of cost are different words
AT LEAST take out the music
Can you please take out the noisy music and the intro it's really annoying and I don't want to explain why if you want me to explain why then I'd say you never watched your own video seriously
Lots of anarchists in the comment section I see.
Government is based on violence because it was violence that the creation of government was designed to respond to. If your community is completely stateless, two things will most certainly happen: firstly enormous economic growth, resource creation, and prosperity due to the implementation of laissez faire capitalism, and secondly weak-minded people with evil intentions that will happily use force to take their undeserved portion. How will the individuals of this rich society defend themselves? Ostracism? It only takes a few ostracized people to get the bright idea of banding together in an organized effort to return to the community that drove them out and start pillaging. One option is for each individual to arm themselves and fight for themselves, but an individual even if armed is no match for multiple attackers. The only response to an organized group using force is with an organized group to respond to force. But since evil people like using force, they will probably be more skillful at practicing force than a good person who doesn't like using force (practice makes perfect), meaning that in a conflict between good and evil groups of people with equal numbers on both sides, the evil group will always have a better chance to win. So this organized response to force by good people will have to be specialized in their practice of responding to force in order to stand a chance, and you now have the beginnings of the military. I can't see how this can be any other way so long as humans have the potential for evil
I don't think this military body should have a monopoly on force, and individuals should be free to arm themselves for protection against minor attacks as well as having a last resort if this military body becomes corrupt (founding fathers weren't stupid), but an organized effort by outsiders with bad intentions needs to be responded to with a more than equal force, meaning this military body (although vulnerable to corruption just like any one person) is necessary.
Here again, Milton avoids acknowledging the thinly veiled political agenda behind the "economics" of his corporate sponsors, among them. Exxon-Mobil. General Electric and Olin Arms. This antigovernment demonology was originally scripted by the economist for the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign in 1964. Friedman continued recycling this conversion narrative about the wickedness of government thru the Reagan Administration in which he served as a senior economic advisor. While pontificating on the evils of the public's "improper role" in influencing public policy, Friedman himself forgets that his career was devoted to doing just that, beginning with his role drawing up the Federal policy program permitting payroll withholding, while working at the Treasury Department in1942.
Milton's case against the welfare state is a straw-man argument. The only items in the federal budget that are comparable to social spending levels in countries like Sweden or Norway as found in the US would be in the ratio of public spending to GDP, for the Justice Department and Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Defense. A cursory examination of the public record reveals the existence of something more like a national security state, functioning as a global protectorate that has displaced colonialism to install a regime of "free-trade" in its place. In fact, Friedman's market fundamentalism rests on a theory recognizable to historians of Fascism as the doctrine of Social Naturalism, which seeks the overthrow of democracy to allow "natural forces" originating in the market to govern society, Social naturalism. demands that the political sphere be subordinated , so the market can reach a natural equilibrium once it is permitted to regulate itself. In effect what market fundamentalism seeks to enforce via the legislation of social naturalist practice is the transfer of powers to unaccountable, private interests who seek to reorganize and regulate society in their own interest,. Milton as an ideologue was skilled at performing this kind of rhetorical fast shuffle and it can be seen to support the covert political agenda of marketization which is, the promotion of a political regime, antithetical to majority rule. If accumulated capital provides access to the power to rule society by a minority who circumvent popular sovereignty by effectively assuming ownership of the resources of society, then holding those necessities of life for ransom. This is obviously an agenda that opposes "the government" if that means the right of citizen to choose public policy and its representative institutions to serve the public good, rather than a state retooled to serve the private interests of that elite already empowered by accumulated wealth…
This is where Milton was utterly wrong, and his son David perfectly right. The proper role of government is in the dust-bin of history. Period.
Everything the government does is based on violence, aggression, coercion and perpetual theft, that is to say, its essence is criminality. Everything it does is done orders of magnitude better and more efficient and at a lower cost, by voluntary consensual spontaneous self-organization in the free market.
There IS no free market under government, how can that be so hard for people to understand?
Does anyone know where I could get a transcript of this?
Arrogant as they come.
When did Friedman give this talk? Does anyone know?
Clearly Friedman isn't familiar with the iron law of oligarchy.
Property is theft.
and this is one of the few things where friedman went wrong. government is an inherent immoral unnecessary evil that will always grow in size, he understood the efficiency of the market when it came to food or cars, but not with a legal system or roads (as if expecting the government to be less bureaucratic when monopolizing these two commodities), thankfully his son david knows better
The end conclusion inevitably means that mass immigration of foreing cultures must result in the abolishment of "welfare state" and a radically educed government. Or society… wont be stable.
Man like this are rare these days…..
Probably one of the top 4 or 5 economists the country has known. Just my opinion.
The one who made the subs was surely drunk hahaha
"Totally disregard what the actual WILDLIFE EXPERTS"
…Actual wildlife expert:
telegraph . co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists . html
Has captured & studied more polar bears in person than any other human alive. Pretty sure the video mentions him, did you watch it all?
That video you linked to is an insulting farce "But these Polar bears appear to be doing all right" well I guess that's case-closed, here is a 5 second clip of Polar Bears… ON LAND! Totally disregard what the actual WILDLIFE EXPERTS have concluded on ALL aspects.
I'm not going to be sucked into a denier's trap of simplistic 500-character arguments that favour snide accusations and not reasoned responses. You ARE a denier, you deny the severity of consequences and the mode of warming.
"Look at the NASA website."
Look at these NASA scientists who developed the measurement apparatus NASA uses for compiling climate data:
Let me be clear; I, nor they am denying Global Warming exists, what I'm saying, is that we don't know how, or to what extent, we contribute to it.
I wasn't speaking of their recommendations, I was speaking to their data. That's in the video too.
As I said "Look at the NASA website. Check out potholer54's youtube channel. See New Scientist magazine, the Royal Society. "
This is not alarmist, this is cool sober analysis of the evidence. You are misrepresenting the IPCC's recommendations. Climate concerns are NOT at odds with air-pollution and Malaria, stop giving a false dichotomy.
"IPCC has done more than that"
I've read their report, I know exactly what they've done, I can give you the link TO their report demonstrating the finding I just talked about.
Sorry, but the alarmist view is bunk, Global warming is happening, but even according to the IPCC's own report it's far too gradual to be a pressing concern.
There are far bigger environmental issues that take precedent, like ACTUAL air quality, and malaria, which kills far more per year than Global warming ever has.
IPCC has done more than that, you know it. And it has been meticulously scrutinised.
My point still stands, you can make snide accusations in 500 characters but yo ucannot defend from such accusations in 500 characters. THIS IS ALL EXPLAINED… but I cannot in 500 characters.
People pay though the nose for energy and starve NOT because of the conclusions of climate scientists.
"You will find robust peer reviewed and theories"
The best the IPCC could do was a prediction of the oceans rising MAYBE 2m, in a century.
And once again, even their models were not falsified. If there was ever a time for climate data to be so, if it were possible, it would be with them.
"Your "all or nothing" "
If you don't have falsifiable evidence, so it's at best a consensus.
And if you're going to ask people to pay through the nose for energy, and starve, you need better than that.
The comment you are replying to said it said to you when you read it.
You will find robust peer reviewed and theories built entirely on facts that have been tested and are far more falsifiable that "oooh, what if it's somehow fine".
Plate tectonics theory CAN predict earthquakes, it just cannot predict the exact day they are going to happen due to lack of sensors, they can model overall seismic activity in the long term over a given area.
Your "all or nothing" demands are unreasonable.
"I have told you"
Nothing, this is the first exchanged I've had with you, you're thinking of someone else.
"There you'll find the answer to those questions"
I'll find theories, but not ones that have been falsified. And unfalsified theories, aren't much to put stock in.
But then again, environmental science is less developed than plate tectonics, latter of which still can't predict many earthquakes. So I suppose expecting the former's models to work is still too early.
I have told you, check out DETAILED resources like from examples I listed.
There you'll find the answer to those questions is unfortunately yes, certain activities that humans do are the causative factor and the results are overall negative FOR HUMANS.
Global Warming exists, yes, and were probably contributing to it.
Bu that only the first two questions, the second two are:
3. Are we the majoritive contributor? And
4. Is warming itself a bad thing? Or is it just a trade off?
To insist on "action" where we control people's lives, is thus far unjustified.
If I came across this video an year ago, I probably would not grasp the contents at all.
Only because LearnLiberty and other libertarian channels educated me with some key ideas, I could now understand what he's saying.
While the video itself is great, I think it's likely not understood by general public.
May need more polishing how to present ideas more comprehensively.
Click 'show comment', and the adventure will begin.
Greenland wasn't green: scienceblogs(dot)com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green/
The Medieval Warm Period turns out to have been colder than today: scienceblogs(dot)com/illconsidered/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm/
The current warming is NOT natural: scienceblogs(dot)com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle/
I keep telling you that scientists have answered all your objections. You're simply paying no attention.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.