Professor Friedman explains the dynamics of “doing good” with other people’s money http://www.LlbertyPen.com
Duration : 0:2:42
Professor Friedman explains the dynamics of “doing good” with other people’s money http://www.LlbertyPen.com
Duration : 0:2:42
Copyright © 2009 GiveHelpTree. All Rights Reserved.
Designed by | Ported by | Brought by .
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
This man should …
This man should have been the president of every country everywhere.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Just because it is …
Just because it is not an absolute doesnt mean either that it isnt the overwhelming majority for which we should act accordingly. You dont dictate policy on the outside chance. Non government institutions have to be for profit, otherwise they couldnt exist unless totally altruistic so there is no reason to be corrupt, their interests are always aligned. Just look at the last two presidents. Only the color of their skin and the hype around them is different. All else remains same. Or WORSE!
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Also …
Also non-governmental entities would also use force to exercise their rights. If you don’t pay your loan they will take your house/car by coercion if necessary, because you don’t fulfill your side of the agreement. When you are a citizen of a country you automatically enter an agreement, where you pay tax and receive certain services. You can change this agreement by changing the laws. (This is done through representation). Or you can quit it, by moving to another country and gain citizenship.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I have read the …
I have read the animal farm and I really enjoyed it. Its also true, that such transformation can happen (and did many times), but that doesn’t mean that a government inevitably leads to tyranny. Non-government institutions would also go corrupt (as they do) because they are from the same corrupt people. The only difference is that a non-governmental entity is not entitled to support the ‘well-being’ of the entire public just certain parts of it.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
No offense but in a …
No offense but in a free market system the people have the money that they are willing to spend “provided you give them a good deal”. Transactions are never zero-sum. You need to keep in mind that the people can choose (with their money) who, what, which entity or corporation to support by means of giving them money in exchange of goods.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The government …
The government starts by representing the people and gets turned into an alien force through self-interest. If you have never read animal farm, i highly suggest you read on this accurate step by step transformation of government into a tyrannical entity.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The idea that it …
The idea that it creates dependency has been proven, it is called learned helplessness. Second of all look at how they obtain the money for giving to the 10% they want to help. Through taxes, and as we all know, if you don’t pay taxes you go to jail. So it is through coercion and force that we are somehow doing good to this people. Second of all. When you take money from 75% of the people you are now making that 75% worse off than before creating an artificial class conflict.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
But how do you …
But how do you enforce the law on Police Co. when there is no other police?
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
“if I give a nice …
“if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong.”
you are wrong, due to the fact that libertarian policies allow free market enterprises “as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of other individuals”. The nice sum of money that you’d give to a corporation to jail an individual would also require evidence. Since according to our constitution, the accused has habeas corpus, and the right to a just and speedy trial
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
you are right that …
you are right that government is not fundamentally evil. Government is an institution, like religion, and corporations. However these institutions are flawed because they are not built by perfect individuals, their own flaws mark the very systems they create. Government will ALWAYS be rife with self-interest, is not because the “government” is self interested, is because the people IN government are self-interest and corrupt. Government is a means to an end. So the less government the better off
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
No, absolutely not, …
No, absolutely not, I said I believe one of the functions of a government should be the police. I want to be able to dial 999, and I’m sure Americans want to be able to dial 911, and know there is someone on the other end who will come and stop a criminal regardless of whether you’ve paid them.
Don’t ume the same goes for medical care, its important the police are neutral, medical care is a different matter.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
But who make laws. …
But who make laws. The government that represents the majority. Even in the case of the constitution you could say that it was tyranny (tyranny of the Philadelphia Convention in that case). Democracy is not perfect, its just we don’t know any better system.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
In that case the …
In that case the main problem is funding and corruption and not the fundamentals of a state police system. I guess the corruption just get worse with the introduction of private security companies, they still have to pay those companies for their services. If they did not have the money in the first place they must pay in other ways, looking the other way when this security company does something illegal for example.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Democracy does not …
Democracy does not protect individual liberty. It only protects majority rule. Liberty must be protected by law —- the Constitution in general, and tthe Bill of Rights, in specific. Otherwise, you have tyranny by the majority.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Laws are proposed …
Laws are proposed by the government, the government is elected by private individuals. The police enforces these laws with its “powers” that derive from a public agreement. This democratic system guarantees the protection of individual liberty.
The aim of my ’scenario’ of a private police was to show how the private sector could threat individual rights if they gained control over particular functions.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I do support the …
I do support the idea of private police, but to supplement the services of the government run police. South Africa is a good example, crime is so out of control and the police so corrupted and understaffed that private security companies have been able to carve out a place in the market.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Police and the …
Police and the justice system are not the same. Even if it were thought that private police were the way to go, you could not operate outside of the justice system. That would be anarchy. Law should be what protects individual liberty, not a weapon of government.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
You are the one …
You are the one supporting the idea to build a system legally on these oligarchies. Those corporations are the result of free market operations.
Remember Adam Smith: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.
The Bolivian water privatization was a good example of such adverse effects on the public. The system only works when there is competition, but with just a few big company, no guarantee.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Ok we are talking …
Ok we are talking about police and the justice system. Those are functions controlled exclusively by the government. Imagine the police being controlled privately, in that case if I give a nice sum of money to Police Co. you would go into jail regardless of you having done anything wrong. And I agree that the majority of the people done a poor job regarding control over the government. If they stopped voting retarded monkeys into office the resulting government policies would be different.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Firstly, I never …
Firstly, I never said companies should control these services I said none governmental entities should, that could mean a charity or another not-for-profit.
If you disliked the type of education your children were receiving you could move them to another school, if you disliked your healtchare package you could move to another provider, under the current system in the UK you cannot choose another healthcare provider than the NHS, which is why I envy Americans
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Guaranteed to have …
Guaranteed to have control over it? Most countries in the world are oligarchies, not democracies.
Companies who don’t provide the service people want will soon go out of business, the system holds them accountable.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Not true. …
Not true. Government can take (is taking) your liberty. No private sector entity can do that! I have no control over government. If you do, I suggest you have done an extremely poor job.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The government is …
The government is not dangerous compared to the private sector because you are guaranteed to have control over it. In the case of a private company you can just hope for pareto optimal allocation.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Lets suppose that …
Lets suppose that all functions are transferred to the private sector. (could be possible) In this case the public would have no control over those functions. You cannot influence their decisions unless you have a stake in their companies. Ok this will sound a bit extreme: To regain control you would need to buy stakes in all those companies schools, healthcare etc. that is a lot of money so you would need to take out a loan and pay it back monthly/yearly. Same system with different names..
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I just cannot think …
I just cannot think of any function the government performs, with the exception of the police and armed forces, which could not be done by a non-governmental body, either a charity or a corportion.
I think when people have to pay for things it encourages accountability, even the government recognises this, look at the tax on a pack of cigarettes (in the UK anyway, I don’t know about the US), its so high because smokers end up costing the government money when they get ill.