Damn. You guys are mean. He was offering to have a conversation based on something people on SD may be interested in, and he’s actually trying to start a productive thread by narrowing down the semantics. It’s not so much different than, “Hey, let’s watch this miniseries together,” or “Hey, let’s read this book together.”
I’d rather take a few points of MF and go from there as I don’t want to watch all the videos, but it’s nice to know they are there.
Personally, I’m not the type who is afraid to listen to people that I may not disagree with. I’ve read Closing of the American Mind a few times and it’s on my permanent ‘must-read’ list for politicos…and I’m a self-professed liberal weenie.
I’ll take some time and watch them Sam unless it begins to devolve into Free markets=infallible, all government regulation is bad.
I used to feel that way but unfortunately business has proven that for the most part they will chase after every single last dollar and damn the consequences unless there is at least some regulation from big brother.
Where the line is drawn is very much up for debate.
After seeing the direction the thread had taken, I wondered: what are the odds Sam will return and actually refer to something specific and substantial that Friedman has said that we can discuss - as opposed to getting huffy and making it clear that his purpose in starting the thread was to slam critics of libertarianism for not understanding the Tenets of the True Faith. I figured that odds favoring the latter approach were overwhelming, but maybe, just maybe…
Not to speak for Sam, but I’ve been making a similar point for years (ie., that libertarianism is fine and dandy, but in practice libertarianism manifests as conservatives who smoke weed)… and he responded to the effect that libertarianism doesn’t really make sense if you view it as a complete ideology. Like communism, a Libertarian Society wouldn’t work. However, libertarian principles can still be helpful in formulating policy. To that extent, I agree.
Yeah; I can go with that. There are some libertarian ideals that I can actually get behind, like reasonable measures of personal liberty and personal responsibility. But there are also socialist ideals I espouse, i.e. government being the playing field-leveling agent and that floating all boats makes us all better off. Where libertarianism gets off in the weeds for me is when they start espousing doing away with major functions of government willy-nilly and leaving vulnerable people hanging.
In the first video Friedman’s arguments mostly seem to come to these conclusions:
Hong Kong is successful because they adopt neoliberal trade policies
The choices are authoritarian totalism or neoliberal economics (he seems to imply those are the choices, not considering that many of us like it when the government tells our employer to not make us work with dangerous chemicals, or pay us a living wage, etc).
Cooperation and economic trade that transcends race, religion, politics or personality is something only neoliberal economic policy can claim credit for.
Anyway, the real debate isn’t between markets and totalism (I don’t know where Friedman got all that), the real debate is between how much regulation a market has. Friedman seems to sidestep this and debate with a strawman throughout the video.
Like I said in my reply, countries like Singapore and China have very heavily regulated and heavy government intervention in their economies, but they grow just as fast as Hong Kong.
The biggest myth libertarians believe is that government is the sole source of oppression. Which pretty much demonstrates how few libertarians have ever had a real job.
If businesses could get away with it, they’d be telling their employees what to eat and drink, where to live, what products to buy, what they were allowed to say and do, who they could get married to, and pretty much everything else. The reason businesses can’t do this is because the government prohibits it and protects the rights of individuals.
That’s not quite right. Libertarians believe that the government is a source of oppression that you can’t escape. If a business is oppressing you, you can get another job. It’s much more difficult to get another government.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic here, but in case you are, the truck system included much of this. Lots of the rest were regular parts of the employment relationship.
Unfortunately you don’t have a lot of company hereabouts.
Many lefties won’t read anything that doesn’t come pre-digested for them. Too much danger they might hit on something they haven’t been told how to refute.
In a thread on Free to Choose, that’s priceless. It’s the most pre-digested pop economics I have read in a long time. Simplistic drivel for the masturbatory fantasies of market supremacists.
“You load sixteen tons what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me 'cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store.”
In a thread on Free to Choose, that’s priceless. It’s the most pre-digested pop economics I have read in a long time. Simplistic drivel for the masturbatory fantasies of market supremacists.
[/QUOTE]
Psychological projection. The Right is most definitely full of people who refuse anything but “pre-digested” propaganda, to such an extent that there’s an entire national right wing media machine that lets them live in their own bubble of fantasy. Since they live like that, they assume everyone else does too. It’s like the creationists who try to make Darwin look bad; because they base everything they believe on what prophets and priests tell them they can’t imagine anyone else thinking differently and believe that if they discredit Darwin they’ll destroy evolution.
Of course, they are wrong. For one, they assume that under a libertarian system that there will be any business that isn’t exploitative and oppressive. They also assume that businesses won’t get together and cooperate in their exploitation, with price-fixing and blacklisting and so forth. You can’t just get another job if every business you approach refuses to hire you because its been decided to make an example of you.
But then I would have been accused of poisoning the well, or something.
As previously mentioned, Sam’s call on us to view the Friedman Libertarian Video Cavalcade reminded me of a tactic used by a certain Ron/Rand Paul aficionado I spoke of earlier (the late lamented jrodefeld).
“As you all probably recall, I created a thread about Ron Paul and a few threads about Libertarianism. I was a strong supporter of Ron Paul in 2008. I have read extensively from economic literature, history, and constitutional law. How many of you can say the same?..I know that very few here will actually take the time to read the literature and educate yourselves on the essentials of the libertarian philosophy that Ron Paul and his son adhere to… I know it is easier to stay in your comfort zone and become simply a passive “zombie” allowing your world view to be shaped and molded by external forces like the hilariously incompetent “reporters” on tv (both Left and Right). Its easier and you don’t have to do any serious work. I am not satisfied with that, which is why I took multiple economics and statistics classes in college as well as classes in Constitutional Law. Furthermore, simply on my own, I have immersed myself in history books and economic literature in the past four years or so in a concerted effort to better understand the world around me I want to stress very strongly, I have read each and everyone of these books cover to cover. I used a highlighter, took notes and I truly believe I have conquered some of the most challenging economic literature written to date.”
By the same token, since Sam has immersed himself in the Friedman videos (I don’t suppose he used highlighter, though), we skeptics and cynics apparently cannot pretend to be able to criticize Libertarians and the philosophy they espouse (to whatever extent) if we have not done the same.
