About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, February 25 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
lol Ed, the user who posted the video states in the description that he isn't Moore. The user intended it to suggest that we was (and, perhaps, still is) a Michael Moore in spirit.

Though, you're probably just being silly.

Also, I think this video was my first exposure to Milton Friedman.

I thought it was a good rebuttal to the question. Friedman argues the moral case (his case is Utilitarian in the video)instead of the usual "practical" case many of his predecessors and contemporaries argued.
(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 2/25, 9:10pm)




Post 1

Monday, February 25 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Kyle.

Glad you liked it. Here is another that is just as good if not better.

Friedman may not have always argued in the best way for capitalism -- or for the best version of capitalism -- but he is likely the most entertaining and possibly the most rhetorically-effective champion of capitalism that the world has ever known. His combination of light-heartedness and intellectual clarity and consequent certainty is appealing.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/25, 9:33pm)




Post 2

Tuesday, February 26 - 4:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Milton was awe inspiring in his defence of the free market. I would love to have witnessed how he would have reacted to all the Obama-drama.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, February 26 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Milton Friedman helped to end the draft. He had opposed the concept on moral, practical, and economic terms for the longest time. In 1966, at the University of Chicago he presented a paper at a conference on the draft (remember that at this time we were in the Vietnam war - a time when the streets would sometimes be filled with anti-draft protestors).

Here is a quote from Friedman's "Two Lucky People,"
I have attended many conferences. I have never attended any other that had so dramatic an effect on the participants. A straw poll taken at the outset of the conference recorded two-thirds of the participants in favor of the draft; a similar poll at the end, two-thirds opposed. I believe that this conference was the key event that started the ball rolling decisively toward ending the draft.
That conference was attended by some key players in this national debate. Senator Edward Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (then a congressman), and Margret Mead.

Friedman was tireless in his opposition to the draft - producing countless articles, columns and interviews, including his column in Newsweek. He was instrumental in turning around Secretary of Defense Melivn Laird, who started moving the military away from conscription. When General William Westmoreland said that he didn't want to command an army of mercenaries, Friedman asked him if he'd rather command an army of slaves.

In 1970 Friedman was one of 15 people Nixon chose for the Gate's Commision - a commission to study the feasability of an all volunteer military. In the beginning, that commission had 5 anti-draft members, 5 draft supporters, and 5 undecided. You want to know how powerful Milton Friedman was in persuasion? At the conclusion of the commission, it was 14 to zero. (The fifteenth person was unable to attend most of the commission meetings, but said the would go along with whatever they recommended.) (Nixon's interest in ending the draft came from a paper written by Martin Anderson, one of Ayn Rand's inner circle and a student at NBI, the Economist who later became Reagan's advisor).

Friedman personally lobbied congressman and senators and that was the only issue where he every did that. He continued to battle using his Newsweek columns. He joined with Marin Anderson as the prime movers in the Hoover Institute's conference on an all volunteer military force.

Friedman was to write that of all his achievements and all of his activities, the one he was the most proud of was his work to end the draft.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/26, 11:36am)




Post 4

Wednesday, February 27 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, instead of the draft: We are conscripted to work for and produce the means by which enough wealth can be redistributed (via tax & fiat inflation) to the military industrial complex participants in order to have pay & benefits to motivate some citizens to volunteer to work for and fight non-retaliatory wars.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, February 27 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean that was going on when the draft was still active. Don't kill the messenger!
Milton was awesome.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, June 9 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The uplink to the video no longer works for me. I get a message saying "This video no longer exists." Here is the link to it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyKAIhLdNs

Here is some text which shows Friedman's reasoning against the argument from intimidation by the "young Michael Moore" regarding the 'dastardly deed' Ford did by placing the cost/value of human life at $200,000 per life when making a Pinto susceptible to gas tank explosion on rear impact, implying that the value Ford used was 'too small' to be moral:

Nobody can accept the principle that an infinite value should be put on an individual life. Because ...

You want the policy that maximizes the situation overall.

You cannot accept the situation that a million people should starve in order to provide one person with a car that is completely safe.

This reasoning shows that you cannot effectively argue against people placing values on the cost of human lives -- i.e., because valuation is always a good thing, in-and-of-itself. Instead, what you have got to do if you want to argue against such valuation is to utilize an argument from asymmetric information (e.g., fraud). If Ford were "forced" to place say, $300,000 of value on each human life, then people may starve. For sure, if all car companies were "forced" to place say, $300,000,000,000,000 of value on each human life, then people would definitely starve.


This is because economics is a science of hard facts, rather than merely being a science of your whims or feelings. If each life is valued at 300 trillion dollars by a value-producing corporation, then certain life-promoting risks will not be taken in the process of value production. If certain life-promoting risks are not taken in the process of value production, then people will starve.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/09, 9:15am)




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.