Liberty Pen: Ted Ralls: 'We Get The Politicians We Deserve'

Source:Liberty Pen- As The Great George Carlin said: we get the politicians that we deserve.

Source:The Daily Review 

"CARTOON: Ted Ralls - We Get The Politicians We Deserve" 

From Liberty Pen

To sound like George Carlin, we get the politicians that we deserve. Most if not all of us have voted for someone who has been elected to public office. And for those of us who haven't who you might be able to set up a small club and hold your meetings in a bathroom. Those people probably don't bother to vote. Or vote for losers, or vote for good people in a jurisdiction that has a lot of idiots or crooks. 

So if you voted for a crook even an oil slick crook, whose fault is that? The crook who knows they are a crook and is just doing what they normally do until they're caught? Or the good person who should know better than to vote for crooks and let their dog eat their homework before they voted?

I at least would argue that voters are always responsible for who they voted for. For anyone who voted for George W. Bush twice for president and now sees him as the worst president in their lifetime, they only have themselves to blame. 

For anyone who voted for Barack Obama twice for president and now see him as some weak moderate, or even worst, you had opportunities to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Jill Stein in both elections and instead went with the establishment Democrat. Crooked politicians (as if they're any other politicians) don't get reelected over and over because they have guns to all of their constituents heads. They're not Saddam Hussein, or some Marxist who says: 'Vote for me, or go to jail, or even die.'

Crooked politicians, stay in power by buying off their constituents and taking a hell of a lot of money from groups that don't have the politician's constituents interests at heart and many times what they're protecting goes against their constituents interests. 

But the crooked politician always has to run for reelection to stay in power. And if they have a smart educated constituency they risk losing. Because someone steps up and says: 'I can beat this bastard and get the support to do it."And the crook can get voted out. But as long as voters still use: 'The dog ate my homework" excuse and don't bother to do their homework before they decide who to vote for, crooks will continue to get elected and reelected and not be held accountable for their crookedness. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Big Government Like A Jealous Boyfriend

Source:Liberty Pen-

Source: The Daily Review

Here are perfect examples of the dangers of big government. Not government in general, just government that attempts to do too much. Which is try to manage people's lives for themselves and try to protect people from themselves. Like a jealous boyfriend who hasn't gotten the memo, or letter, or phone call, or email, or text message, or v-log, that Sally or whoever, "is so not into you" anymore. Joe, or whoever the guy is, "like totally awesome", or whatever before. But now Joe reminds Sally of her Uncle Sam, who at times tries to take the place of her father, or even herself. As far as what responsibilities that she has for her own life.

Big Government and Uncle Sam, sometimes twins sees people as stupid. Well, at least Americans as stupid and I'll admit there are too many Americans who at times look like they've escaped institutions for the mentally handicapped and couldn't name their own mayor, or governor to save their lives, even if they were spotted the last name and perhaps even first name. But people by in large are pretty bright and don't need Big Government watching them to make sure that they don't eat too many potato chips, or watch an adult movie, buy a home, talk to people they might approve of, use too much water in the shower, or whatever the case. This is not a Marxist state, government doesn't need to protect the people from themselves. But the people from predators who would hurt them.

I'm not a Libertarian and I have a real role for government and not just as it relates to criminals, terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes, that would like to attack us. I believe government does have a role to play to help people who are down get themselves back up so they to can live in freedom. But that is called limited government and limiting government to doing what we need it to do and where it can play a constructive role. Where it doesn't grow so big that it can no longer be audited. Like the Defense Department today and the Education Department several years ago.

Government should serve as a public referee and insurance system. Not as a national babysitter trying to prevent people from making mistakes with their own lives and trying to help us by sending us to the worst place possible for humans. (Which is called jail) Simply because we're involved in personally dangerous activities.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: Special Report: Donald Trump-Then & Now

Source:Liberty Pen-

Source:The Daily Review

The so-called success and popularity of Donald Trump and no one knows especially The Donald how long it will last and only time will tell and back to Bob and the whole bit, has to do with dumb voters in America who are simply looking for someone to represent them. And at the very least take them back to a time where the country looked and acted like them. The Donald, who is more qualified to run for uses car salesman in chief, or narcissist in chief than Commander-in-Chief, sees a huge financial opportunity here to create his new realty show. Who Wants Donald Trump For President? Which should also be his campaign theme by the way. Because it would actually be accurate.

You have a group of Middle-America, or Silent Majority voters, old dumb Anglo-Saxon Southern/Midwestern Protestant voters to be more accurate, who are looking for someone who talks like they do. Who doesn’t speak in terms of diversity and that diversity is one of our greatest strengths and immigration is what built America and we need make America great again, as if we’re not currently great and go down the line. The reason why a Donald Trump can replace a Mitt Romney as Flip Flopper in-chief, is because he’s speaking to voters who don’t bother to look at the records and careers of politicians. Because that would require reading and perhaps having a computer. What they do instead is go off the latest soundbites and speeches.

Anyone who follows and takes American politics seriously, knows that Donald Trump is not only not a politician, because he’s never held office, but if he was a politician he wouldn’t get away with perhaps half of the flip-flops he’s had in his career. If The Donald could only speak to Americans who take politics seriously like the real activists on both sides who bother to looks at candidates records and see if what they’re saying now matches up with what they said before. The Donald would have to run a completely different campaign. And he also couldn’t run as a Republican because of his long support for Planned Parenthood, the Clinton’s, saying Democrats do a better job of managing the economy and again go down the line.

How else can you explain someone like Donald Trump, who has been multiple choice on most of the major issues in the country, getting away with being about hundred-percent pro-choice on abortion and even in favor of Planned Parenthood, who once supported the flat tax and called Bill Clinton a good if not great president and said that single-payer is the way America should go when it comes to health care reform and these are just a few examples, getting away with changing every single position that he’s had on these issues. Because the voters he speaks to don’t bother to look at the records and past policies of their candidates. Because that would require effort and work and perhaps intelligence as well. And besides they are just soundbite voters who breathe a lot of hot air. Even in Minnesota in January.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand - Reason & Atheism (1974)

Source: Liberty Pen- Objectivist Ayn Rand-

Source:The New Democrat

If it wasn’t for so many anti-religious militant Atheists in America and Atheists who tend to get linked with Communists and other statists, I might be an Atheist myself. This is a tough issue for me even as a Liberal who of course believes in reason and evidence which is what liberalism is built around. At least the real and classical versions of liberalism. Because I haven’t personally seen a God and don’t know of anyone who actually has. And if everybody especially religious fundamentalists regardless of religion were honest about this issue, they would say the same thing. And state the obvious and say, “of course I’ve never seen a God before and I don’t anyone who has.”

The main reason I’m not an Atheist and not religious, is because I don’t know that there isn’t a God. All I know is that everyone has never seen one. And if I was forced to take a stand on the issue I would say God doesn’t exist. But what keeps me from being an Atheist is the good that you see from religions and good work that comes from churches. Not saying that non-profit secular groups don’t provide the same services. But with religious people who sometimes are so far-right they might be better suited in Saudi Arabia politically than America, they do these good works like helping out the disadvantage from their religious core. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick and so-forth.

There’s a lot of good work that comes from religious communities and religious charities. And to that extent at least there’s a lot of good that comes from religion whether God exists, or he’s some made up figure that people feel the need to turn to every time they’re in trouble. But I don’t believe in God, because again I’m more about reason than faith. Sure I have faith in things and people who I know and trust, but that is different in having faith in someone you’ve never even seen and don’t even know exists. I don’t want to consider myself to be an Atheist, because Atheists at least from what I’ve seen sound and look like the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across. And perhaps aren’t religious, because they don’t believe in live and let live.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: Megyn Kelly: 'Free Speech Under Assault'

Source: Liberty Pen-

Source:The New Democrat

Hate speech, which I believe this anti-Muslim event and their drawings of Muhammad clearly falls under, is protected by the First Amendment. Government, can’t shut someone up, because they, or other people disagree with what someone is saying. Or are even assaulted and even find it hateful. You don’t like liberal democracy and our liberal First Amendment, perhaps America is not the country for you. And you would be better off living in the Middle East, or some place where you won’t have those issues to deal with.

And another great thing about the First Amendment, is when some asshole says something hateful about some group, guess what, that person opens them self up to replies and responses. People being able to tell that person what they think about what that person has to say. And even hold rallies against that person. Bill Maher, who I don’t generally put in the asshole category and tend to even agree with him when it comes to his criticisms about the Christian-Right and Muslims, when he doesn’t lump all Christians and Muslims as bad people, or whatever. Found out how liberal our First Amendment is last fall. About his comments over Islam.

When the Far-Right in America, whether its Rush Limbaugh or some other fathead, says provocative if not derogatory things about Latinos, Muslims, even women, Americans let Rush know exactly what they think about him. When Megyn Kelly even, accuses President Obama of trying to bring socialism to America, or whatever she’s complaining about the President, or says that he’s governing like a dictator, I correct her on my blog, when I don’t have anything better to do. You know Free Speech, is not for everybody. Meaning not everyone can handle it as far as listening to it. Of course all Americans have the First Amendment right, but not all Americans can handle other Americans having that same right. So they try to shut the other side up.

To quote President Andrew Shepard from The American President, which is one my favorite movies. “America is hard. You have to want it to be able to handle it.” More of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. And President Shepard played by Michael Douglas, was referring to Free Speech. He said that we all have this right, but that right protects all Americans right to Free Speech. And he basically said that the Free Speech is only worth something if Americans are willing to fight for someone else’s right to speech. The right for someone to say and believe things that you might find disgusting.

Insulting speech and hate speech, we have to fight for those things to. Because when Americans are no longer able to be critical and even say things that are offensive, we lose the ability to be individuals. And end up just agreeing and loving each other and never learning anything new. Because we see everyone as perfect. And there’s nothing perfect, or collectivist about liberal democracy and Free Speech. It’s a very imperfect system and form of government. But it’s still the best system in the world and why so many people leave their country that doesn’t have these rights to come here. Instead of going to Europe, or Canada. Actually, people still leave Europe to come to America.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Cool Commies & Other Myths

Source:Liberty Pen- Communist leader and revolutionary Che Guevara. 

Source:The New Democrat

I believe this so-called movement towards Communists and communism from Hollywood and their fans, has to do with pop culture and faddism. Che Guevara, is considered cool with this community, especially with the Far-Left in Hollywood and outside of Hollywood. He was a revolutionary and every time you’re a revolutionary from the Left or Far-Left in this community, you’re automatically considered cool, or awesome. And people want to be seen as supporters of people like Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, because they want to be considered cool, or awesome as well.

And as far as Hollywood, if something is considered cool, or awesome and it doesn’t come from Hollywood and especially if it comes from the Far-Left, like lets say Communists, to use as examples, you’ll see actors and other entertainers jump on the bandwagon so fast, that the bandwagon will collapse. And people will have to walk to the latest rally supporting this cause, or that figure, or whatever it might be. The whole so-called political correctness movement, that today’s so-called Progressives support, is a perfect example of that. Where you’ll have a Ben Afflect, or someone else, jump to the defense and try to censor anything that is critical about who this community supports.

The so-called cool commies rave, or whatever, is exactly that. Che, is considered cool, because he was against individualism and private enterprise, was a revolutionary, he wore a thick hipster beard and perhaps went years without shaving, or even trimming his beard. Which is a common theme with Americans under 30 right now, especially on the Left. But there’s no real hard-core political support for communism and a lot of other New-Left movements in America. At least not coming from Hollywood. Which is as about as individualistic and capitalistic a community that we have in America. That is always looking for the next profit and would probably fight to the death to prevent America from becoming a Communist State.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: Megyn Kelly: 'The Fuzzy Math of ObamaCare'

Source: Liberty Pen- Megyn Kelly & Brit Hume.

Source:The New Democrat

The FOX News specializes in fuzzy math. When they hear government reports that back up their argument, whatever it is at the time, they say, "Hey, see, we told you this is not working and we need to repeal it!"  But when government figures come out that contradict their arguments, they claim that government conspiracy exists. "See the government that we don't trust, that said ObamaCare is failing, is now saying that it is working!"

There are people, both in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and fringe independents, who only listen to news that backs up their political beliefs. I give you the FOX News audience on the Right and Far-Right. And MSNBC on the Far-Left.  The Right uses FOX News and the Far-Left uses MSNBC for the same reasons that other people use The Onion. To see what is not happening in the world and to make fun of it.

Listening to FOX News is like listening to kids trying to convince their parents that if they allow them to have cake for dinner, it won't spoil their appetites.  They'll say "Hey, I had cake before and it didn't spoil my appetite then. Why would it spoil it now?"  When you point out that the last time they had cake, they had an upset stomach and had to stay home from school the next day, they say, "I hate you! You're always saying no and won't let me do anything!"  Seriously, why would anyone interested in real news take FOX News seriously?
Source:Liberty Pen 

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'A Conversation On The Minimum Wage (1980)'

Source:Liberty Pen- this is from Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose documentary series.

Source:FreeState Now

"A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I'm in favor of a living wage for multiple reasons, but I'll give you a practical one: if you want to low-income workers to work, instead of staying home and just collecting public assistance, you not only want a minimum wage, but you want low-income and low-skilled workers to not only be able to at least get a minimum wage, but have that wage higher than what they could get if they didn't work at all. 

For practical reasons, we should not only have a living wage, but have what Professor Milton Friedman called a negative income tax or have subsidize employment, where low-income, low-skilled people would not only work, but then get that income matched by the government up to a point, to encourage these folks to work and not stay at home, even if they have kids or other relatives to take care of.

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Real Life Journal- I believe that's Ally MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: 'A Story Of Enterprise (1955)'

Source:Liberty Pen- from the 1955 Story of Enterprise film.

“Is success in business largely a matter of luck? Do real economic opportunities still exist? Those questions were being asked in 1955, stimulating the production of, “A Story Of Enterprise.” Clifton L. Ganus Jr. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

This is clearly a propaganda film from people who believe in American capitalism and private enterprise. But the message is correct that people themselves are better off working and producing things and seeing what they can do for themselves, based on hard work and production. And not relying on government to do it for them.

The more people you have working and paying their own bills, the more tax revenue that you’ll have for people who go through rough times and need public assistance that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) speak so highly of, to help them out.

But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you’ll have for people who aren’t physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you’ll have more money to help people who truly need it.

Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I’m big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible, to have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: Harry Browne- 'Maximizing Personal Freedom (2002)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Harry Browne, ran for President for the Libertarian Party multiple times. 

"Harry Browne lectures from his masterpiece book, "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World." From Liberty Pen

From Liberty Pen

I love the message of maximize freedom as a Liberal. Because I believe people have the right to live their own lives. Again their own lives not trying to live other people’s lives for them. But that we should be able to live our own lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing.

It’s the anti-statist, or socialist, or fascist message, because it says that it’s not government’s job to protect us from ourselves. But to inform the citizenry of what the consequences of our decisions are. And then it's up to us as the people to make these decisions for ourselves. Again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing.

It doesn’t say that we have the right to hurt people, just the right to make our own decisions and then holds us accountable for our own decisions that we make as a country. Rather than government trying to live our lives for us.

It’s the ultimate message of pro-choice, but it just doesn’t relate to abortion, but how we live our own personal lives. What we can do with our own money, rather than government trying to make these decisions for us. The message of personal freedom and responsibility. That the people aren’t prisoners and not the job of government to direct our lives for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- 'Saving American Liberty (1959)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on the Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959. 

Source:FreeState Now 

"Ayn Rand delivers a message that has never been more needed than today. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. 

We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that Cowboy Capitalism doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers, because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that we're on the books and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. 

Because of Cowboy Capitalism the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. 

You need to have a referee in the economy especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. 

The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. 

Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. 

What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. 

What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that. 

Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Self-Interest & Self-Ownership (1979)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Professor Friedman explains fundamental principles of self-ownership and self-interest to Phil Donahue. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I have a lot of respect for Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman, but we don't agree on everything. 

I believe under the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that government has a right and responsibility to look after the safety of its people. I believe that government has a right to regulate free enterprise. In this sense to protect the safety for its people. Like forcing them to make cars that are reasonably safe. And this is where Dr. Friedman and I disagree. But government doesn't have a role to tell auto companies what kind of cars to make. Except in how it relates to public safety.

If people want to buy something, there will be market for people to buy it. Government doesn't need to come in and try to force things on people. And shouldn't try to prevent people from doing things, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their activities. 

The power of American capitalism, is that if people have something to sell and then are able to market it and convince other people that they should buy what they are trying to sell, then they'll end up selling a lot of what they have. 

You don't need government to step in and force people to buy their products. The people know better than anyone what they should be buying, what they need and what they can afford. And if people have products to sell and convince a lot of people that what they have is worth buying. Then they'll be able to sell a lot of what they produce and make a very good profit off of that.

I make this case to supporters of single payer health insurance on a regular basis that if single payer health insurance is so great and that we need a health insurance monopoly in America, that they should have no problem convincing people of that. And that they should take their message to the people. 

What single payer supporters generally do is instead of trying to get the Federal Government to force single payer down the throats of the country giving us no choice in where we have to go for health insurance or how we pay for our health care. 

But as long as 3/5 people in America like their health insurance and don't want the Federal Government to come in and force them to switch health insurers, single payer supporters are going to have a very tough time at convincing people that they are right.

And then single payer supporters have to try to convince 3/5 Americans, that they are wrong about their own health insurance that they have selected for themselves. So what single payer supporters have to do, is take their message to the people instead state by state like what is going on in Vermont and convince Americans state by state, that they are right about health insurance and the rest of the country is wrong. 

This is the power of the market: if people want fast cars, then fast cars will be made. If they want to eat healthy, a lot of healthy food will be made. They want to stop drinking, the alcohol industry will lose a lot of money. 

Government shouldn't try to make these decisions for us by mandating them on us. If they want us to do something, provide some incentive instead of trying to take the freedom we have away to make those decisions for ourselves.