David Friedman | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union 

So true!!! Aren't we the modern slaves?

Yup

Yes. Everyone who screams for social programs only look at it from the benefit side but never the cost side. If we factor in the cost we will never rely on the government to do anything at all.

HopelessMunz However, the market alternatives are unseen. It’s entirely theoretical

Economics? Just wait till you see how badly governments ruin _demographics!_

David is an anarchist, Milton was not.

but just better!

@@buster117 I secretly believe Milton was a closeted anarchist, simply because it would have been way too radical for his time and age

@Soldat Intelectual I don’t think Milton was anywhere near anarchist but he did not praise Keynes, I think he just respected him as a economist.

Milton's main comments on Keynes were that he believed Keynes showed signs of changing his mind in his last writings before his death..

he is even smarter although less eloquent

He is not like his dad. I agree with his dad. Because want he wants don't work. You need a government, but it must be limited. Anarchy doesn't it becomes chaos.

@@LittleImpaler read Chaos Theory and Machienery of Freedom

@@nickblack7910 bob murphy is the jam

David is more extremist in his views than his father.

The scientific hairstyle

He crushed Richard Wolf in that debate. Loved to see it.

They tuned out because Universities, especially Oxbridge, are socialist indoctrination camps.

His son actually

Irrelevant

I thought of the same thing, nice to see someone else realised that. Which makes you think, how many fixes for market failures create other market failures? :)

I know I'm late to the party, but a simple extra decision could possibly solve the problem: the spouse who's cooking also cleans, but the spouse who's not cooking chooses the meal, knowing the positions will be switched tomorrow. In most relationships, I imagine the idea that they'll have to be held accountable for their decision by allowing their counterpart to make the same decision for them tomorrow will make them more reasonable about what they choose, plus they can't complain about what they're eating because it's what they asked for. Seems like a good compromise. Or both people help eachother cook and clean every day.

alas the free markets.. He's right it's the best way to optimize the production line. The only issue is what R.Werner puts forward in his book "Princes of the Yen". Seems to me at least to show that most of the time, the free markets are pointless, because central banks can arbitrarily steal capital from global currency markets if they are able to create new money without currency traders proportionately devaluing their currency. To fix this issue we need currency traders to take such actions into more careful account.

You missed the point.

Also, the restaurant owner can choose to structure the room/building such that less sound moves through. If restaurant-goers like this enough the owner can amortize the cost across all the meal prices and make their decision profitable; and if the restaurant-goers don't like it to the tune of what it costs, the resources spent doing it are better spent elsewhere. If shared spaces have owners who charge for (and thus benefit from) use, they will tend to do what's cost-efficient for the users provided they have stable property rights and competitors.

@@jonaskoelker that's the entrepreneurship solution to this type of market failure. There's a misesmedia video about game theory and how entrepreneurship and profit-incentivized suppression of time preference creates beneficial outcomes.

Actually economics is about common sense, but nonetheless very difficult to make people understand it.

I think if you explain anything well enough it sounds like common sense Just goes to show how comparatively bad other arguments or explanations are

It is in my nature to speak up mainly when I disagree with something but I don't want that to detract from the other hour of discussion you provided here. I hung on to every word you said, I appreciate very much what you and your father have done for the principles of liberty, and I do want to thank you for making this freely available for anyone to hear!

The more truth you spit the longer they get😂

I can’t handle it.

He's gone full laissez-faire on them! :D

In principle, yes. The hard part is applying property rights to, say, the air, or the oceans.

@@anarchic_ramblings walter block actually talks about this in his lecture on the case for privatization of everything

@@anarchic_ramblings Why is it hard to apply?

@@plasmazulu6643 How would you do it?

@@anarchic_ramblings Everyone could own a certain altitude above their property or a certain distance of water from the coast of their property.

it's the kid sitting at the desk with him

His conclusion is that the cook-cleans arrangement produces less mess, not that it produces the optimum ratio of meal elaborateness to mess. Moreover, if we assume cetirus paribus with regards to meal planning then the 'race to the bottom' ceases to be a factor. IOW, _for a given meal_ the cook-cleans arrangement produces less mess. Good comment though!

@@anarchic_ramblings > Good comment though! Thank you. I enjoyed your thoughtful reply.

"If the person who cooks also cleans, the additional cost to themselves might make them prefer simpler meals which require less cleaning. Those meals might be less enjoyable than more elaborate and labor-demanding meals." This is flawed logic. If the meals are less enjoyable, you have a cost-benefit balancing. At some point, the "costs" you save in cleaning by making simpler meals are smaller than the "benefit" you receive with a nicer meal. You scenario would only come to a race to the bottom, if all meals are equally enjoyable, but in that case it is the true optimum to just cook what makes the less mess.

Coming back to this with a clearer head, here's my current analysis: If the cook also cleans, there's an externality to everyone else who eats the meal in the form of meal quality. If the cook doesn't clean, there's an externality both in meal quality and in the mess to be cleaned. In addition, if the cook also cleans there may be efficiency gains because they can juggle their time and use idle cooking periods for cleaning instead of doing non-leisure idling. The presence of externalities makes social optimality questionable. When you have a positive externality, adding a negative externality may make the situation better or worse, depending on their relative magnitudes. Still, if the cook also cleans you can address the residual externality by talking to your family if you care about them, i.e. be a normal person ;-)

its so distracting

Wow. Only a libertarian could wear nose hair like that.

Michael Go 😂😂😂

We already have gazillions of practical creative solutions. What we don’t have here in the USA is a critical number of individuals who are well-informed, free of disinformation and misinformation, on all the major issues of today AND devoting their time, energy, resources, and talents to the political process to make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise among us become our public servants.

Then and only then will we be in a position to actually implement them on a grand scale and finally begin the process of transitioning to a Whole New Way of Living rooted in Love and Wisdom, with little or no need for government.

Here's my proposal: First the cities, then the states, then the nation and then the world. See my group on FB called "Creating a Wonderful World. (let's get it done already)".

I agree with your post, but what do you mean in harmony with nature? I know the percapita emissions of CO2 have declined and cars are significantly more ecofriendly than horses, but it is no secret that this way of growth is unsustainable. Yes, we are yet to see if a technology saves us, but the way we are progressing will very likely end with human civilization. Don´t you agree?

Milton wasn't an anarchist.

America may get selfishly sociopathic enough to get round to it.

Which ideas in particular?

@@anarchic_ramblings at least in the last 60 -m100 years: legalization of drugs; no income tax; end public education; governments receipts no more than 20 percent of GDP.

@@9879SigmundS Libertarian ideas such as you listed are virtually antithetical to the state. So we'll be waiting a long, long time if we want to see governments implement such policies. Hence David Friedman is an anarchist, as am I. As such I believe the liberties you speak of will inevitably result from innovations that make government increasingly unable to justify its existence, or enforce its its tax laws. The Internet has already done a lot to move us in that direction, and this is precisely the mission at the heart of the cryptocurrency movement. It's a longterm project though.

@@anarchic_ramblings Not too long before he passed, Milton Friedman, like you, became more optimistic because of innovations, particularly the internet. I’m rather pessimistic because it seems the impulse towards group control and secular religion has proved to be stronger than the impulse towards liberty. Combine this with the incredible firepower the state has, and I see things getting much worse despite technology.

He is, though he is an atheist, as were his parents.

biagnisinturon haha I knew it

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L_ZNoPONhqw.html

No

no, It's not

How would you change the incentives?

I think there is some decent evidence to suggest that politicians can be made to act in a way more favorable to the public good by adopting political and electoral systems that are more robust to corruption and mass ignorance. I also think there's reason to believe the systems in the US are less robust to mass ignorance and corruption than some other OECD nations. Take healthcare costs, for instance... clearly being driven up by market failure in the US, and costs are not growing nearly as quickly in EU member nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... etc. So that suggests they have experienced an obvious public good that the US has not due to their systems (since i don't think it's plausible to assume those nations simply elect more public-minded politicians ceteris paribus). There are a lot of theories put forward that could explain these things in comparative politics literature, but personally i think the most obvious improvements are firstly the parliamentary system, which encourages voters to vote for a party, rather than a candidate - potentially reducing some candidate-personality-derived short-term moderators that impact swing-voters in particular (the most ignorant voters), and make the content of party platforms and performance more prominent in the voter's calculus. The second improvement (re: electoral system) would be to abolish single-member districts (responsible for two-party system, see Duverger's Law) and adopt proportional representation wherein a vote is never wasted because a small portion of the vote can produce some representation in the legislature, rather than none at all. This also encourages coalition governance rather than obstructionists. Not to mention, with a greater number of viable parties involved in the vote and debate, policy would even more so be magnified as a consideration people make when they choose which party to vote for. I could go on about how the US obstruction-based legislature diffuses blame and promotes incumbency and lack of progress, how external and internal political efficacy are increased or reduced as a result of rules-changes (thus changing voter turn-out), or be more exhaustive in general, but this is getting too long! Summation - there are clearly ways of organizing government that make it more robust to mass ignorance and perverse incentives, so our goal should be to improve government, not burn it to the ground. The perfect is the enemy of the good (or the better, in this case). P.S. realized that was pretty long-winded and didn't concisely answer your question. So here goes: For the aforementioned reasons and more, I would adopt proportional representation, and a parliamentary system to change incentives.

crypto ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hyh3h_yX-S0.html

But what's the incentive to invest high costs in political entrepreneurship? If I spend my life working out and introducing a great replacement for the Electoral College system, then I see a tiny proportion of the benefits and a much larger proportion of the costs. If I spend my life working out a solution for a big market failure e.g. how to make a huge amount of money out of online newspapers, then I can retire rich. Sometimes beneficial political entrepreneurship DOES occur (1688 in the UK and 1776 in the US are a good examples) but the necessary conditions are rare.

I absolutely agree that the conditions for political system reform are rare and that if people behave in rational self-interest exclusively then it would be an unsolvable problem. Fortunately, I think there are plenty of examples of people who think of the maintenance of society, and creative endeavor in itself as compensation enough to incentivize choosing reform over rent-seeking and opportunism. Not to mention, great wealth can be very helpful when it comes to reforming the political system, so I don't necessarily believe that one must choose between taking advantage of market failure and reforming the political system - you just need a handful of highly effective Machiavels to use their powers for good once they reach such a level of diminishing margin utility of increased wealth that tinkering with the quality of society becomes an increasingly feasible and preferable goal; something akin to the notion of noblesse oblige. Unfortunately, i think the American ethos has led the great majority of people to believe that when they become wealthy it is solely a case of the math of their extreme personal merit, and that what is best for society is for people like them to collect as much capital as possible and to value little else. If the general narrative were to be changed in this way, we could develop the organizational effectiveness and funding necessary to promote the successive seizures of ever higher skilled tiers of comparative advantage by building a society of an ever more highly educated, internationally competitive, and civic-minded people. The good news is i think that the as societies perfect this advantage they become more economically viable, as cultivating a large and highly skilled work force requires the widespread abolition of poverty and ignorance, and I can't see any state of affairs other than a state robust to general ignorance, with a civic-minded ruling class, and an intelligently designed welfare state that could bring about this state of affairs; which is bound to inspire and incentivize imitation. This kind of progress is a slow, ratcheting process, but I think it has been shown to be a persistent trajectory of history.

He grabbed the attention of everyone in the room for an hour. Sure he doesn't propose policy, but his aim is to educate on theory and explore complexity. He doesn't have to be his father to still be cool.

Oh, we can't all be as smart as you, Marko.

You are missing the point with that sarcasm. To me, it is genuinely fascinating that people as smart as this speaker (and many other libertarians) cannot see how obviously impossible and harmful and I would go as far as to say pathological would be for a human society to be based on private property.

Yes, oh wise one.

You assert that a private property society would be both impossible and harmful (somehow). You offer no support of this claim, and instead use insults. On the other hand Friedman has offered a great deal of reasoning and argumentation in favour of his views over the years, and is unfailingly polite. That's a bad look for you.

+bitbutter Absolute private property society is a fantasy of undeveloped human ego (me, mine). That ego believes itself that it is the creator of its own thinking and actions. That's in collision with scientific facts as everything moves in unison, according to the laws of nature. Human bodies are superficially and partially "separate" but individuals do not exist without other individuals (and environment). Creating a society based on private property would self evidently bring us backwards into the jungles of the past, instead of pushing us forward for the betterment of all. Simply said, private property society is both harmful and impossible because it fundamentally relies on *delusions* of human ego which believes that it is "free" when it is not and cannot be.