/liberty/ - Liberty

>>62870

There it is. You're so fucking retarded… If you think the negative income tax is worse than what you currently have in the US, you're real fucked in the head.

The negative income tax is a pragmatic decision seen most in the US will push for the government to insert itself into all aspects of daily life, like health care, education, etc. He was for a free market on everything, including those areas, and he saw that, since people will push for all these things in the name of "help the poor people", he masterfully said "then make then have money for shit instead of growing government".

If you believe government is terribly inefficient at everything it does, and you notice the fact that most people will push for that sort of thing, and that social care will only increase, then you must see, his answer is brilliant. Unless you only SAY the government is inefficient as an excuse.

He was basically saying, take all of the budget the government spends in "social benefits" and give them directly to the people, instead of having the government have a monopoly on those fields.

He noticed that the areas that are monopolized by the government, don't evolve anywhere near as quick as any private company would, because they don't have to compete.

He also defended that people spend money they own much better than any government official can.

Therefor, give the people what they are going to push for with mob violence, and let those areas compete in a free market.

Of course, this is not perfect, because you have to tax the successful to give the shit-stains, but what you currently have, is exactly the same, except instead of giving it directly to the turds, you're giving it to government enforced monopolies.

>>68901

>There it is. You're so fucking retarded… If you think the negative income tax is worse than what you currently have in the US, you're real fucked in the head.

You are aware that a negative income tax does exist in the form of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, right? The law has practically become the corner stone of the modern welfare state, so I fail to see how it's any better than "what we've got" when even on a rational level it's just a welfare proposition with Friedman proposing it, which doesn't make it any better.

>The negative income tax is a pragmatic decision seen most in the US will push for the government to insert itself into all aspects of daily life, like health care, education, etc. He was for a free market on everything, including those areas

I'm amused by the fact that you call me retarded and yet you've failed to write this whole section correctly, I can barely understand half of what you wrote, and even then it just seems like you're sucking his cock. Taking money from others and handing it to others is not a free market idea, in fact, this is akin to welfare. If "winning by losing" is your definition of being pragmatic, then by all means, Milton Friedman's proposal was very much a pragmatic move, but it didn't help the free market and didn't help his image as a free market economist (among many other things).

Also it's hard to say he was for a 'free market for everything' considering his views on school vouchers.

>If you believe government is terribly inefficient at everything it does, and you notice the fact that most people will push for that sort of thing, and that social care will only increase, then you must see, his answer is brilliant. Unless you only SAY the government is inefficient as an excuse.

What the fuck are you talking about? His answer isn't brilliant and it was bound for manipulation from the start. Government once given power will only attempt to expand it's powers and the people once made dependent on government income will seek to keep it or perhaps even increase it. You'd be delusional to think that giving the government the ability to take money and give money prevents the government from expanding it's roles in other people's lives in any manner whatsoever, in fact, giving it such power will only really increase it.

>He was basically saying, take all of the budget the government spends in "social benefits" and give them directly to the people, instead of having the government have a monopoly on those fields.

One does not actually prevent the other. Government still subsidizes and bails out certain industries, it still produces bills with the purpose of keeping it's competition out of the market and having a negative income tax has done nothing but kill the incentive to work, just like any program resembling welfare. That's what "Negative Income Tax" is, it's just a glorified welfare program, and it has nothing to do with the free market anymore than food stamps or medicaid.

>>68940

All of what you said is true, sorry for calling you retarded, and sorry for writing like shit.

While I know one does not prevent the other, one diminishes the other. The reason people can push for more govt intervention is because they see the system as being uncharitable to those it should, while I don't agree with them, they are in the majority, and even though republican candidates may be elected with minority votes, they ultimately can do nothing against mob rule.

More and more, people push for social benefits, always using the same arguments. At least Milton had an answer that would make the people pushing for govt power be satisfied without increasing govt public intervention in those areas.

I would prefer if people respected property rights, but that isn't and probably won't be the case. The trend is for more govt power, not less.

Given that people will push for social action, you have three options:

>1: make a hissy fit that the mob isn't respecting your rights, only to be ignored by "yes we can" slogans.

>2: say fuck it, since we can't get what's right, I don't care what happens, allowing govt to just monopolize those industries

>3: allow for a way in which people get the social help they protest for, while also allowing those industries to be privately run

While picking 3 does not eliminate people pushing for more social action, it does give you an argument of what you're actually doing to solve the "problems" leftists complain about.

If you think you can remove govt from healthcare and education and all other social benefits without having a fallback for the people who are already counting on those options, you're just delusional.

If you accept those programs will always be there, you can still say you'd prefer people to have the money rather than have the government decide how best to spend it, and who best to run monopolies.

>>68954

He was one of the first who really got me into libertarianism. Of course, I wasn't digging into policies.

In a democracy whose population is heading toward socialism, policies will be further and further left, and even when a free marketer gets into power, there's little he can do without the support of the people. In that way, I think inspiring people towards a free market is more important than defending certain policies. Because those policies have to represent the majority, or at least can't depart too much from leftist thought. If one gets into power and just starts representing his own ideology, he quickly gets overthrown.

Your arguments may be unhinged from the current mainstream politics, but policies can't.

Friedman is great. No he's not perfect but I'm not gonna act like /pol/ and denounce him because our views don't line up 100%. I recognise that even if he's not a free-market purist he's still more liberal than 99% of economists and has done a lot more for markets than 99% of hardcore Austrians.