Photo of Dr. Milton Friedman
I recently engaged in an interesting dialog on Facebook with (I assume) a Liberal/Progressive. We exchanged comments obviously disagreeing on some of the fundamentals when he asked me how I would run the Government. I thought my reply might be worth sharing.
Simply put, I would shut most of it down returning power to the States for everything except for the Departments of Defense, State and Justice, and Treasury (which would be a shadow of what it is today). I’m a Libertarian. That means I am fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, in favor of small Government, and a big fan of States rights and the 10th Amendment. While I don’t contemplate running the Government any time soon, you’ll find the logic I would apply to this question in the following videos.
Dr. Milton Friedman, the star of these videos, is (IMHO) the thought leader in Libertarian philosophy. I don't expect to "convert" anyone; however, I'm guessing you might think a bit differently about some things after you listen to Dr. Friedman.
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
“We” (Libertarians) have always been in the minority and forced to choose candidates who “offend us least” from either the left or the right. While I am not a member of the Tea Party, I sympathize with many of their objectives and am delighted to see Libertarians demonstrating leadership in the House (Ron Paul) and the Senate (Rand Paul) and pleased at the prospect of a serious Libertarian candidate for President in 2012. While we are a minority, we are part of that 29% of the population who identify as independent voters. We may not “win” elections; however, we do “decide” elections.
Compromise is a Libertarian’s specialty.
Rand Paul is on record as opposing the Civil Rights Act, as were many southern senators and congressmen back in the 40's-50's-60's-70's. As a libertarian-state's rights-proponent of small government, how would you have dealt with abolishing slavery (Lincoln) and obtaining any sorts of civil rights for the Afro-American community? Or are they simply SOL in a Libertarian world?
ReplyDeleteAl Alborn @Andrew... Slavery is, of course, the most unacceptable institution for a Libertarian because it violates our "don't hurt other people or take their stuff" philosophy. The starting point for any conversation is equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or whatever. I would have been an abolitionist. You didn't mention womens rights. They suffered unbelievable discrimination until they got the right to vote. I am also a proud member of the League of Women Voters and would have marched with the suffragettes.
ReplyDeleteDr. Friedman discusses civil rights in his videos (which I hope you watched). He correctly points out that it was the Government that institutionalized discrimination and enforced it with police power. This is just an example of the danger of Government at any level having to much power over it's citizens. States without Government enforced discrimination worked through the legacy and past the evils of slavery much quicker than those with it.
I hope you support elimination of "don't ask/don't tell". To a Libertarian (who happens to be a vet), the issues are the same: free choice and an absence of Government intervention in our personal lives and decisions. African Americans and women followed similar paths to equal rights and opportunities in the Military.
Who will regulate clean water, and clean air?
ReplyDeleteThese transcend state boundaries. How will scientific research be funded such as NASA?
What happens to social security? Who regulates the stock exchange? Who intervenes when the Banks Fail? (Did FDR New Deal provide any insurance?) Will international diplomacy be state by state?
(I will watch the video later BTW)
Niccolo,
ReplyDeleteI care about all of those things. The answer is "we will" through local, County, and State Governments and cooperation between and among those entities.
What good is a Chesapeake bay act if the Government is too "broke" to implement it?
Look around. The Government's expansive role in all aspects of our business community and lives haven't really worked out so well. We have funded the unnecessary wars that have taken thousands of lives, misused the money supposedly set aside for Social Security, destroyed our economy, perhaps taken the dollar off the stage as the International currency of choice, and taken us to the point of bankruptcy. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. I want Government to do less. I want to "pull the teeth" out of the Federal Government so they stop counting on "our money" to fund unnecessary military adventures and ill-conceived social engineering experiments that have a history of failure (HUD, for example, has torn down more homes than it has built).
Re international Diplomacy, The Constitution provides for a State Department (and that's one of the Departments I mentioned I'd keep).
Many of the answers to your questions are in the video. You really need to watch them to understand my perspective.
Thanks AL, I will watch the videos, with an open mind. Sorry, but cooperation between states has proven un-workable.(since the Missouri compromise?) States all compete with each other now. I am not saying government has worked in the past, or now-- that's for sure. You seem to be ideological, while I am practical and pragmatic. You want to start over, and I am an incrementalist.
ReplyDeleteI guess I give humanity more credit than you, Niccolo.... And agree to disagree on this point.
ReplyDelete