Milton Friedman - On Libertarianism and Humility - The Turney Collection - Libertarianism.org 

The holiday inn has never had such an eminent speaker

"There’s no doubt in my mind, that no-one has done more to spread the fundamental ideas of free-markets than Ludwig von Mises." - Milton Friedman

How acurate are his words even today. If you dare speak of a monetary system other than the gold standard to the Von Mises Institute, you'll be called an idiot and a fake libertarian. I have yet to find any solutions proposed by them to the flaws of the gold standard in today's financial reality... That's what happens when you adhere to a school too religiously; you're right and everyone else is wrong. If those libertarians had any humility they'd have listened to this great man.

This is such an important talk from Friedman. It is too easy for us to get so wound up in our ideologies that we forget the point of it all. Humility and tolerance are fundamental if we are to avoid turning into ideological zealots.

"Inflation is a form of taxation."

Thank you! I think this is his best video. It exemplifies what I admire most about this man: his tolerance. Sometimes you disagree with somebody and you might just feel tempted to want to “force” the other person to accept your view. Thats is absolutely the opposite of liberty. If everyone keeps labeling people as socialists that just destroys any bridge of communication. It turns everything into tribal war. Thanks uploader and thanks mr Friedman. Friedman and Carl Sagan are the best regarding tolerance in such different fields of study

This was a really good talk. Thanks for posting this!

Thank you for uploading the video! Milton Friedman is a genius!

Great Piece indeed. It seems to me than everyone considering to be libertarian should watch this and think about it as it addresses the important issues of the whole idea of libertarianism and it also brings out the difference between the various thinkings.

Video starts at 2:30

Reading Karl Popper's "The open society and its enemies" (vol. I and II), was a life changing experience for me. A real avowal of truly liberal (not of the contemporaneous, radicalized type) idea(l)s. My "transformation", as a Constitutional Conservative, soon followed my reading of Popper and the full scope of Austrian School economists.

His "Free To Choose" changed my life. Truly, a great and gifted thinker. A great man. Was he always right? Nobody is always right. But he came closer than almost anyone else. His fundamental beliefs are irrefutable, I believe. Milton, we wish you were still with us. Mankind could sure use you.

Wow. Milton Friedman was spot on the button.

well it's almost impossible to agree on everything with one person. and I love how libertarianism is recognizing that. Mises, Rand, Friedman etc had differences in philosophy, but recognized how individuals are all different.

8:48 this man is speaking the truth. Why I disagree with both sides so frequently. Seems like so much today is in Dickensian terms- good guy, bad guy. This side, that side. " by being tolerant. By recognizing, and welcoming the opinions of people that fundamentally disagree with us" What unbelievably underestimated quote in today's world. This is the fundamental of our country, and why it's so beautiful. I could possibly add two words to this speech to be included "respect and understanding" What an unbelievable speech.

Amazing.

Did anyone find that article he talks about at 37:10 (on political entrepreneurship and economic entrepreneurship)? I Googled it, and I Googled Alan Wallace, but I couldn't find anything.

Awesome man! What a hero!

Love the parts about transitioning (from the Statism we have now to a Freer System). I don't know how many times I've argued with Libertarians and Objectivists about (my view) of taking an incremental/ practical approach, but they want a wave the wand Perfect system or just accept the march toward Tyranny.

There are actually some libertarians putting that idea into practice.

21:19 Though Dr. Friedman butchered the surname and the name of the organization, Mr. Jacob Hornberger and The Future of Freedom Foundation are mentioned just a couple of years following the founding of FFF. Despite Mr. Hornberger's viewpoint about Dr. Friedman's school voucher program, Dr. Friedman fittingly praised FFF.

Are you referring to my comment as intellectual vomit? If yes, I will agree to some degree. Milton Friedman helped me become a libertarian which is a long part of the way to become an Anarcho capitalist. So in so far as he helped people some of the way he did a great job.

Rand did talk about how one should learn to think in prirnciples and essentials in which she always didn't follow through on in the sense of practicing when in a discussion. She would get upset but many times individuals would always say she would get over such and even invite you back because she loved the discussion of the ideas! This seems intolerant and may be at times but its how we arrive at action in the thought process.

What about the cost of dealing with my body if I commit suicide?

I think, one of his finest speeches.

@needtoalwayslearn Obviously I own the money in my hand, however as I pointed out, there are alternatives to using it in some circumstances, some people want to pay taxes and again, there is the income tax threshold. Now consider this; what if there are no taxes, but the issued money carries a user fee to pay for infrastructure, courts and defense?

(con't).. and that, in disrupting any subjective valuation (i.e. consumer activity) in the marketplace, you are necessarily choosing a means which the individual deems inferior for achieving his or her goals.

What "extremes"... I didn't mention doing any extremes... I believe in a balanced. Like a car engine, it needs to be worked on once and a while. I agree Milton is pointing out a extreme... but I think he was simply doing so out of example. He continually says it.. "I don't believe my system is perfect" and.. "I believe things work best when a system does not solely depend on one person. It's the simple premise of, "Consolidated power corrupts"; and it does!

On Friedman's question about stopping a suicide attempt (around 8:00), I'd add another dimension: who owns the bridge? Is there a difference stopping a suicide on in your own house, or on someone else's property?

Just need to ad something of the part where he speaks about Ayn Rand: If (which i strongly disagree with) her ideology is merely based on the simply observation that A=A, and all her theorems derive by logical deduction from this Axiom, then two people who disagree about the deduction, just need to understand the logical rules to find out who is right (sry for my bad english)

You're blathering on.

@LogicalFlawDetector Do you even know what the negative income tax is?

2013 and Libertarians are still just saying, "here's the ideal."

It doesn't matter how you define private property. It is an answer. It says a single person has ownership of something and will therefore work to keep its value. The details of private property are important, but regardless of the nuances of private property it will solve the tragedy of the commons. But, Milton, you were called a Statist because you believe in taxation, not because of where you wanted the funds to go.

What was the name he mentioned "ludwig ..."?

Hitch said on numerous occasions that after he got disillusioned from the Communist ideal, he found a great source of kinship and common ground with classical liberalism and the libertarians. Which shows at least in my opinion, since he supported the Iraq War on moral grounds. Even if you don't agree with him, his arguments for going in to Iraq was better than any i've heard from official spokesmen ever.

Wish we could hear the questions.

I use the word preference is a strict sense, as that which is revealed by voluntary action. For instance, If I chose to sell an apple for an orange, one can conclude that I assumed to benefit greater from the orange than the apple. My "preference" is for the orange. I assume you're dying to rehash arguments from Steve Keen. I assure you, I come from a largely different framework of economics than the one he criticized, so they're not going to be of much use against the points I make.

@needtoalwayslearn Well if you with to discuss terms it is simple; involuntary = compulsory, forced. Voluntary= The opposite of involuntary, freely chosen, not forced. Money= A common medium of exchange used for payment of a product or service, commonly issued by governments or banks, historically precious metals. Property=That which is owned, assets which usually carry a monetary and/or sentimental value.

Good one, dude. Nice argument.

No man is perfect, but this guy I agree with almost 100 percent. Wouldn't it be great to have a Government leader with his insight?

The whole point is that we can't answer with any counter-factual, and even if one could,you'd have to prove that the path in which government played a role was a better outcome. That is a value-judgment, not science. We can infer from the fact that the market participants essentially chose the destined paths of resources, that they subjectively prefer (assuming no gov't intervention) such means to pursue their goals. You could reject their preferences, but I don't see on what basis.

He WAS, but he changed his mind, thankfully.

Maybe Milton ought to ask some math professors what they do when they disagree.

@needtoalwayslearn Not all taxation is involuntary; one can barter to avoid sales tax (and people do), where there is no flax tax one can work below the minimum income tax bracket. So strictly speaking, many taxes are voluntary. Undesirable, unwise, unethical perhaps, but voluntary. You are right in saying lowering taxes is a policy point, but so is eliminating all taxes, both based on slightly different philosophies.

Exactly. He has been ignored. Hence the situation we are now in.

Shallow? How so?

@LogicalFlawDetector Libertarian anarchism is appealing for precisely this reason - it does not admit of "exceptions" to the rule of non-aggression and make ad hoc concessions, sacrificing consistency for mere palatability. As for the practical propriety of anarchists, that's an entirely separate issue. We can endorse anarchism as an ultimate goal, all the while working to redress the state's most egregious violations of individual rights first, and do so in a politically responsible fashion.

I will restate the only argument I intend to make, and that's that there is a perfectly possible method of resolving disputes within a deductive framework of economics, just as there is in geometry, and other forms of math. Economists don't have to "fight" when they come to a disagreement in logical reasoning, as Friedman says.

Hmmmm.... while I absolutely love and miss uncle Milt... and I really do... we need him now more than ever... I think he somehow missed something simple in his visitation of the paradox of allowing someone to "sin". To me, the answer is simple, and different from his. If you are free, then you are free to do as you will, except when it violates the freedom of others. Therefore, if we see someone "sinning", they must automatically be violating the rights of others. With that in mind, we can take action against the aggressor, simply by answering the call of the victim for their help, which we are free to do. It is not a question of tolerating a "sinner" or not... it is a matter solely of coming to the aid of someone who is being aggressed against, at their request. Now if sometimes they can't make that request... (a drunk man, passed out, having his wallet stolen, for example), then we can let it be a jury of our peers (and even the drunkard, supposing he lives) that decides that we made the right choice in presuming that our fellow man would ask for help if he could. So its not an issue of tolerance of "sinners" ... it is an issue of helping victims. As such, it is not a question of initiating force.

Jefferson said that the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance. Franklin when asked what kind of government the framers had produced replied "a republic, if you can keep it" The founders understood that maintaining a free society would be a perpetual struggle or battle. Like any battle there are twists and turns, and like the American Revolution itself, there may be times when it may seems as though the battle is lost Battles aren't won in a night, and a perpetual one certainly is not

what did you meant then??

Regarding the question of resolving disagreements on praxeological statements (aroud 15:00), how is the problem different than resolving disagreements in geometry or logic? Experimentation is simply not an answer. Furthermore, how can Friedman claim that all scientific knowledge is empirical, when that statement is itself not empirical in nature?

But how can a contract be enforced without someone beeing there to enforce it?

(con't).. The gov’t didn’t know it was going to “create” the internet beforehand. The relevant question is to ask what the best allocator of resources is, given a future of uncertainty. Risks need to be calculated, opportunity costs need to be decided between by actors who actually bear the implications of their actions, and it’s been demonstrated rigorously through sound economics that the market is the best, and perhaps only way to do this.

I'm a big business... I have 3 choices when someone either sues me, or razes the taxes.. or makes a regulation that I need to pay for. Those 3 choices are... 1 Fire my employees so I don't have to sustain their incomes 2 Raze prices so I can make up for the loss(YOU pay for this by the way). 3 I'll take it out of my own paycheck and be (noble). snicker*

"Rand didn't use facts to reach or challenge her ideas. she started with A is A and everything flowed from that" this is total confusion. A is A means that a fact is a fact. The whole philosophy is based on properly identifying and integrating facts of reality into a non-contradictory whole. A is A just means that a fact is in fact a fact, and if it contradicts your belief, that it is the belief, not the fact that should go. Her focus on the law of identity only helped her in identifying and integrating facts. it didn't replace them.

Indeed.

@LogicalFlawDetector I have to disagree. It was the very elegance and principled consistency of libertarian anarchists like Rothbard and Block which attracted and ultimately convinced me, the very fact that they were unwilling to concede anything simply to pander to people's emotive reservations about the apparent (and often merely apparent) implications of the position. People I think are attracted to principle. It's a natural intellectual virtue. People tend to apply Ockham's razor.

Friedman, the man who gave us the payroll tax withholding and pushed for the taxpayer to supplement laziness (the negative income tax). The reason why Mises called him a socialist at The Mont Pelerin Society meeting was for this very idea of subsidizing incomes with taxpayer dollars. His intolerant explanation of Austrian economic theory is typical of a central banking monetarist like many from the Chicago school.

Isnt that a form of government, a way to enforce the social contracts and other stuff? But arent these calns fighting a lot?

@LogicalFlawDetector I tend to agree. Anarchists, and I hate to say it, many Austrian followers are more concerned with the notion of argumentative purity and saying things like "All Taxation is theft", or "All copyrights and patents are wrong " rather than looking at practical ways of at least reducing taxes or exploring more sensible copyright law. Fine principals but one must walk before one can run. An all or nothing approach is far too radical for the vast majority.

I think the argument from fallibility is weak. You can make a stronger argument for libertarianism based on the argument from autonomy, consequentialism, or Lockean natural rights or the non-aggression principle, or whichever principle is derived from rule-utilitarianism.

Arguments please

Yes, he won the Nobel Prize. You know what for? For saying that the Federal Reserve should print money to keep steady inflation. He didn't win for saying government should have less control, but more control. BTW the negative income tax is essentially a minimum income proposal. It is destined to be increased until it collapses the system. But so far as he was against government I like him (he was one of the main people to put me down the path of libertarianism)

Quite so. I wouldn't presume to disrespect property rights or conventional morality. But I do like to think about where those *really* come from, just as Friedman does. Especially I'd like to keep this idea of rational debate between both sides of the liberal/libertarian movement alive. The consequentialist, and the natural rights ones. As you can guess, mine is the older, friedmanite, consequentialist viewpoint. (The recommend dialog didn't work right, sorry. Pastin as a comment.)

If there is no intervention in a marketplace, who chooses the path of production besides market participants? I mean, c'mon, are you for real? And it's not just that they chose the path - the market necessarily moves resources into the most productive possible paths, as deemed by market participants. (con't)..

@needtoalwayslearn Well, Noah Webster, do you want to have a discussion on semantics or on the nature of taxes? You have made your position clear; you believe all taxes are theft and I disagree. I maintain SOME taxes may be theft or at the very least, unjust, but not to those who wish to pay them, and not in certain situation or with certain products.

Let’s take for granted that the internet was an investment that, if not marginally improved the lives of most citizens, it greatly did so, and let’s assume there is great uncertainty over whether the market would have produced such a revolutionary outcome. Well, it’s easy to reflect in hindsight, but how does this bear on our future determination of the use of scarce resources?

Absolutely fantastic video.

I gotta say that sounds pretty nice(although I resent the term mob rule, seems like a terme used to uphold tyranny). It almost sounds pre-capitalist almost anarcho-syndicalist...

Public places would still exist. They get most of their funding from estate donations anyway. Besides, people can sell things anywhere.

@LogicalFlawDetector yeah, Rothbard is the easy target when it comes to the anti-positivists. What about Hayek? He is held as largely responsible for Thatcher in England and was one of the most important neoliberals during the post WWII era. I would think it much more likely that we would have "planned in peace as we planned in war." if it wasn't for him. Oh, and he's got a nobel under his belt too and spoke out as opposed to Friedman style positivism. It's a big tent, live with it.

The only reason He points out the extreme, is because that's the nature of systems... no matter what the system, they seam to have a extreme nature about them. I agree America is more balanced than any other, but that balance is VERY sensitive.

No problem. Sorry for being hostile. I get a lot of messages that try to twist my words and be used against me.

Somali people arrange themselves in social units called Clans. Each social unit has its own judge. The judge carefully chosen by clan elders. If he makes unsatisfactory judgments, he will no longer be asked to judge particular cases. When an offense is committed, the victim goes to his judge, who will approach the judge of the aggressor. If they cannot resolve the conflict, they will create a court with additional judges from their extended family.

Not state donations. Donation of public places. It happens all the time right now.

you said utopia, I gave you a example of real place without coercion!

@needtoalwayslearn Involuntary; adjective 1. not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude. 2. unintentional; unconscious: an involuntary gesture. 3.Physiology . acting independently of or done or occurring without volition: involuntary muscles. And by barter I mean verb 1.to trade by exchange of commodities rather than by the use of money.

Tragedy of the commons: People use public resources more wastefully than private resources. Case study: news.unt. edu/news-releases/property-rights-save-animals-unt-study-says Private property makes people care about keeping it's value high. Private property even helps conservationists like you. All you have to do is, as a group, buy up large amounts of land you want to save. The profit motive is too strong, you can't fight it. You must channel it.

"a poor little scare animal alone in a universe you can't explain." Yet you cower at the sight of the cross.

*chuckle* One can only punch the wind so hard. Make a coherent argument of your own, and I will make as rigorous a counterargument as you would like.

V. ...of humanity's "preference" in the broadest context? Please, do afford me the amusement of arguing the affirmative. I'll park it there for now but know that I have anticipated anything you might possibly say, and a great many others besides. Cheerio.

What justifies stopping a person, aka initiating force, when they are apparently sinning? You assume he will consent. if after the fact he doesn't, you owe them restitution for limiting there freedom based on your judgement.

@LogicalFlawDetector Your responses are quite intolerant if not ignorant of many if any economic axioms. Secondly, it was Koch who allied with Crane to kick Rothbard from CATO many years ago. So, no, I don't support any tax breaks for Koch.

(con't).. You can’t use the fact that it’s nearly impossible to determine the alternative outcome as evidence that the actual outcome is better. Last argument. Okay, so take the internet. There is a wonderful case to be made that the government actually harmed the bringing forth of the internet (and surely wasn’t solely dependent for its outbreak), but I refuse to argue that at the moment.

The fact that I want to reply says a lot more about my stupidity than any political belief I could have. But just imagine how stupid I am to think I can just walk into Walmart. Everyone knows that it is private property, and therefore I can't be on it!

(con't).. You can't aggregate movements in utility and you can't compare possible outcomes (even if you could do both, gov't intervention would still not necessarily be justified), so I wonder how you justify what I presume are your prescriptions.

Because of progressive liberalism, that's why. So yes, it has been forced even though it shouldn't be. We should change it back.

Am not! ( :

He's right on this one. At least his little bit of attention is earned this time.

There is no government in Somalia and the markets are thriving. Of course they have a very long way to go, just as Hong Kong and Singapore did. But your assertion that free markets require government is incorrect.

@LogicalFlawDetector And you don't find anything socialistic about that? Check yourself, this is a seminar about libertarianism. Yes, Milton called himself one. But he didn't practice much of what he preached. He said I should be "Free to Choose" and I agree. But, his monetarist ways won't let me choose the most important thing in a free market economy; the money I want to exchange in. He got his feelings hurt when Mises called him and the others out. Mises was right.

If there is someone who is a legit minarchist, then it is no good to call them statist if they truly want limited govt. If however you are trying to debate the drug war or the welfare state, I do think pointing out the gun in the room is and important part of the argument.

etc. etc. if you are interested at all in anything else except disruption, take a good look at Practical anarchy or Everyday anarchy

To bring it back to reality, pointing to the results of a gov’t investment doesn’t do us any good. It says nothing useful in itself. Firstly, we don’t know the result of the alternative production path that the market would have chosen (using “market” as a metaphor), and secondly, even if we could know it, we’d have no way to claim (with conviction) it’s the “better” path (at least not within the realm of economic science). (con't)..

Okay, we're getting off topic. You may be right, that there is some tech effect... but then you are by default agreeing with Friedman about methodology. So our initial point of discussion is over. However, you don't have to go as far back as the Vikings to see the potential gains of conquest. See the Nazis and their invasion of Europe. If you do the work of aggregating a vast number of conquests and societies statistically to prove your assertion, I'll take a look... best of luck.

"prosperous and wealthy, small business owner = prosperous if lucky, wealthy = capitalist" Wealth is rather relative... You can say someone who owns a rock is wealthier than someone who doesn't... and when it comes to rocks you would be 100% correct, but if own a house.. your rock doesn't count for much. "Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from a man’s envy of his neighbor. This also is vanity and a striving after wind." ecl.

26:30 - I feel sorry for the people that was directed at. Ouch.

Now perhaps I might have some problems with ego(who knows?), perhaps not for all you know, but the point being it's irrelevant to your case (as it's a logical fallacy to bring up). Me calling you, "Morally Bankrupt" wasn't an attack on you're character (as you might act very moral for all I know) but the fact you've confessed a very vague standard for what you consider, "just".