What Libertarians Mean By 'The Free Market' – YouTube.
Every time I hear someone talk about the free-market and how much they believe in it whether its Aaron Ross Powell or Mitt Romney or anyone else. I think they must believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Ferry as well because if I were to take them seriously. I have to assume they believe in a fantasy because there’s no such thing as a free-market in any developed country. And a reason why a developed country is a developed country because they have things like rule of law and they. Regulate not run their economies so people do not buy cars that have faulty breaks to use as an example. Or eat a meal in a restaurant that s poisoned to not protect people from themselves. But people who would hurt them either intentionally or unintentionally. It’s not the job of government to run the economy in a developed country, that what central governments do in. Developing countries and we see the results everyday but one of the jobs of government in a developed country. Is to set the rules that are understandable and designed to protect consumers, workers and. Employers from bad actors or people who hurt them just by being irresponsible.
What developed countries have and take the United States to use as an example. And one thing that separates developed countries from developing countries is what’s called private-enterprise which. In a private-market where the people run the economy as far as managing the production and producing goods and services. Including even for government that we all use and then sell them for what they are worth. Meaning what people are willing to pay for them based on how much they want and what they are willing and can afford to spend. But this is not a free-market because the business’s that produce these goods and services have to operate under a certain set of rules. Rules that the company created for them self but also rules that the localities, states and countries that they operate in. Also created to again protect the workers, consumers, and business’s from bad actors as well as irresponsible actors.
The private-market and private-capitalism are not free. Because they are subjected to taxes and regulations by governments as well as the consumers who purchase these products. But they along with the consumers control the market and operate it but they do not run it. And what we pay for things are based on what we are willing and can afford to pay for them that will also allow for. Companies to be profitable but this is not the free-market.
Fact or Fiction
Why Inequality Is a Problem and Growth a Red Herring.
I really dislike the term income inequality because it assumes that with some people making a lot more money then others. And with income rising with part of the population and falling in others that is somehow unfair. That it’s unfair for a CEO of a company to make five million dollars a year let’s say when that company is doing very well and where the employees are paid very well. With benefits and everything when employees in the fast-food industry are making let’s say eight bucks. An hour or a delivery person for the Post Office is making forty thousand dollars a year and if they live in a big wealthy area. They would be struggling but if let’s say Social-Democrats were in charge in America and wrote our constitution. That these things wouldn’t happen because the Federal Government would collect most of the nations resources. And then give them back after keeping a big chunk of it to spend on our behalf for us. And then give the money back to us based on what they believe we need to survive and live well.
American-Capitalism does not work like that, in this country workers are paid based on what they bring to the table. Meaning skills and what they do with their skills meaning how productive they are. The problem with America is not that we have too many rich people but that we have too many poor people and too many people. Who are technically in the middle-class but struggle just to pay their bills and have huge debts. And are an injury or sickness away or getting laid off from being in a huge financial hole and having to collect public-assistance for the first time in their lives. You want to have fewer lower middle-class Americans and fewer low-income Americans. Then we need a better skilled workforce and stop tolerating failing schools and students being stuck in. Failing schools just because of where they live. And we need to make quality affordable education. Available to everyone universal so all Americans have the opportunity to be successful in life.
Rising poverty, falling wages, rising personal-debt is not good for anyone especially the people who are experiencing those things. But taxing successful people more just because they are doing so well and you somehow see that as unfair. Is not what we should be doing but instead encouraging people to be successful in America and empowering more Americans. To be successful and be able to build their own wealth which benefits the entire economy. Better skilled workforce, more consumers and more consumers with money to spend who can afford to spend.
Milton Friedman – The Escape From Collectivism – YouTube.
I’ve been blogging a lot about individual-freedom that combines both economic and personal-freedom but that also goes with individual-responsibility. And what’s ironic about this is that I’ve been debating with right-wingers who are supposed to be Conservatives. Who are supposed to believe in these things and yet when I talk about things like taxing junk food and soft drinks to pay for. Uncompensated healthcare for irresponsible people who do not take care of themselves and pass their healthcare costs onto people with health-insurance. Because they do not have the health-insurance to cover their healthcare-costs and of course can’t pay for it out-of-pocket. I find these so-called Conservatives instead of arguing for individual-freedom and responsibility taking the. Collectivist view that we are all members of the same society and when someone messes up we should all have to pay for that. Which is why political-labels do not mean a hell of a lot when you do not know what it means to subscribe to Conservatism or Liberalism to use as examples.
But what I believe in is still the same thing that all individuals should have the individual-freedom both personal and economic. To live their own lives as long as they are infringing on other people’s freedom to live their own lives. But then have the individual-responsibility to live and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. So people who do not take care of themselves wouldn’t be allowed to pass those costs onto others. That the job of government is not to run our own lives and tell us how to lives and force others to pay for our own mistakes. But to provide and environment where we can all obtain the information and education that we need to be successful in. Life and what we do with our own lives is up to us. You had the information or it was in front of you and you still messed up or you made the best of it and are doing well. But at least we would all be in control of our own lives.
That would be my escape from Collectivism it would be a Liberal-Democracy where we all have the freedom to live our own lives. Again as long as we aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives with all the information and skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held personally responsible for the decisions that they make in life for good and bad. Not being forced to share their wealth or be able to have others bail them out.
Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth! – YouTube.
Redistribution of wealth is something that we’ve had going back to the entire history of the United States. And is something that perhaps only Anarcho-Libertarians are against but the fact is it’s always been with us and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. When right-wingers talk about redistribution of wealth they tend to talk in terms of taking from the successful to take care of. Poor or the unsuccessful in America through welfare-programs and so forth. That we punish the successful to take care of the unsuccessful as if that’s all that wealth-redistribution of wealth. Is about and Progressives actually tend to do the same thing but use different terms then punish the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful. And say things like why should the wealthy be allowed to have so much money why we have so many people who can’t feed their families and so forth. But the fact is the safety-net that we all pay into is only part of wealth-redistribution and. Wealth-redistribution really covers the whole economy in every developed country.
The fact is anytime an American is taxed and that money is then later spent to build a road or a bridge. Or pay for law-enforcement, the military, the justice-system and so forth. Government is redistributing wealth in America and the overwhelming majority of the country is in favor of that. Form of wealth-redistribution because we are all protected by police, the military, we all use roads. Hospitals at some point most likely will be in court for one reason or another. And all of these public-services that Americans use all have to be paid for, as Milton Friedman said there’s. No such thing as a free-lunch the money has to come from somewhere to pay for everything that government does for us. And unless you are an Anarchist or an Anarcho-Libertarian, you want government providing these services. And you know they have to be funded and chances are you are willing to pay your share for if even if that means taking money from you that you earned.
So if the young person in this video who I’m guessing was in his early twenties if that at this point. Was more experienced or more knowledgable about wealth-redistribution he would’ve laid out the whole history and existence of wealth-redistribution and made that as part of his argument. With Milton but Milton would’ve still disagreed with him because he knew exactly what wealth-redistribution was. And made some case that we should do something else instead but this young guy would’ve had a very good case to make.