Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.Forty Two wrote: Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market.
Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.Forty Two wrote: Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.
He sets forth specifically that he's not an anarchist. He does not deny a role for government. He sees no value at all in the wrong policies to alleviate poverty. His statement about the real problems of poverty and denial of freedom, almost every single one of them is the result of government action. He's right. Government policies intending to help the poor will often exacerbate the situation.Hermit wrote:Milton Friedman very much argues for pure laissez faire capitalism throughout the excerpts you linked to. For instance, he sees no value at all in government policies to alleviate poverty: "If you look at the real problems of poverty and denial of freedom to people in this country almost every single one of them is the result of government action and would be eliminated if you eliminated the bad government failures." (@1:56 in the second link).Forty Two wrote:I don't see where I said anything about "pure laissez faire" and neither did Uncle Milton, who explains throughout any of his writings and available videos that there is a role for government.
Hermit wrote: He goes on to oppose government regulation of (minimum wages) and government run education. Though he does not say anything about the health sector in the clips you provided, I expect he opposes provision of medical services and insurance by governments too. What functions does Friedman approve of other than national defence and enforcement of criminal law? Looks like he very much favours pure laissez faire capitalism, and to the extent you agree with his ideology, so do you.
Well, I haven't suggested what I would like. How do you even know what form of capitalism I subscribe to? But, why don't you just describe the form of capitalism to which you subscribe? That would be helpful and relevant to the discussion for sure. We can see where your preferred form differs from what Friedman is suggesting.Hermit wrote:Capitalism in social democracies is not nearly as "free market" as Friedman and you would like. Capitalism in social democracies is nothing like the type of capitalism either of you advocate. Stop talking to us as if we were opposed to capitalism. Apart from sandinista and redunderthebed, neither of whom have posted here for years, none of us are. Most of us just subscribe to a different form of capitalism to yours.Forty Two wrote:...free market capitalism within social democracy as the way to go, which, of course, is not socialism.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market? What economic system would you say is consistent with a free market?rainbow wrote:Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.Forty Two wrote: Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market.
Has Uncle Milton ever heard of the false dichotomy fallacy? Seriously, how can anyone value him as a thinker when he repeatedly presents false dichotomies? I can see why conservatives would, as the false dichotomy is their standard tool of argument.Forty Two wrote:He discusses that "the fundamental unit is the individual and the family, which is in sharp contrast to the notion that the fundamental unit is the state, that you have a nation state and that the individual exists to serve the state."
Market Socialism.Forty Two wrote:Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market? What economic system would you say is consistent with a free market?rainbow wrote:Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.Forty Two wrote: Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market.
This is not accurate, as suggesting that a market is only free if it is anarchic is not what any free market capitalist means by free market. Regulation is required for there to be a free market. We have to define the rules of the market, for example - an example cited by Friedman includes property rights, which are not self-defining. There is no automatic definition of "property" that applies without a law or regulation. The example of a rule requiring planes to fly a certain height above the ground. Before there were airplanes, the property concept was that if you own a piece of property, you owned the land, and the edges of the property extended up to the heavens, and all the way down to the center of the earth ,with everyone owning little cones, sort of starting at a point, and going to the stars. But, when airplanes were invented, the regulation changed. You can't prevent a person from flying over your property. But, you can prevent him from flying too low, because we can't have people flying planes 20 feet above your house. That doesn't mean the market isn't free. A free market doesn't mean the airline has to negotiate with every property owner in America for the right to fly over their home.Svartalf wrote:none, a market is either regulated , and then it's not really free, or not, and then the biggest players carve themselves monopolies or states of oligoconcurrence and they imprison the market as surely as would a marxist state.
Under capitalism "it? is allowed to accumulate and own the means of production? What's the "it" you're referring to?rainbow wrote:Market Socialism.Forty Two wrote:Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market? What economic system would you say is consistent with a free market?rainbow wrote:Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.Forty Two wrote: Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market.
Under Capitalism it is allowed to accumulate and own the means of production. This is anti-market as it removes free competition to sell one's labour.
Of course you know that.
Why are you acting dumb?
...you must be one of those highly advanced Dutch points.Scot Dutchy wrote:I see you have not fucked Milton sideways yet.
A good point.Svartalf wrote:none, a market is either regulated , and then it's not really free, or not, and then the biggest players carve themselves monopolies or states of oligoconcurrence and they imprison the market as surely as would a marxist state.
The general principle Milton sets forth is that the government's role is to avoid/alleviate harm by citizens against each other.Brian Peacock wrote:A good point.Svartalf wrote:none, a market is either regulated , and then it's not really free, or not, and then the biggest players carve themselves monopolies or states of oligoconcurrence and they imprison the market as surely as would a marxist state.
Also, if Uncle Milt endorses Mill's moral principle that the state may legitimately coerce citizens to alleviate/avoid harms, then surely it is right to tax in order to support the impoverished (unless one is to argue that poverty isn't a harm)?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests