What is Reddit's opinion of Free to Choose: A Personal Statement?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Fascinanto mi je da neko moze jos uvek da veruje u komunizam iako JE POSTOJAO i bukvalno svuda gde se nalazio je pravio masakre i terao ljude u bedu. Bukvalno sem nas nema jos jedan primer da nije bilo katastrofalne tiranije nad narodom, iako je i ovde bilo tiranije da se razumemo.

Evo ti jedne kao sto bi ti rekao vrhunska knjiga, pa bih ti preporucio da poslusas drugu stranu,cisto da bi bio objektivniji. free to choose, Milton Friedman

> It's hardly a bold claim

Evidenced by your word and a clip from a movie. Very convincing.

> Not really.

Listen, you can cite all the theory you like about Marx, Lenin, or anyone else. That doesn't negate the fact that it has utterly and completely failed under every circumstance. This points to a structural failure. And there is no shortage of explanation. It's not like economists just call socialism a failure and end it there. This is plenty of (political and economic) literature and math to show why it's structural, but it all is centered around the nature of power. Since you're into using paid books as references, here's a book by one of the biggest names in modern economics.

There were several Milton Friedmans.

As an academic economist, he made important contributions to business cycle theory, monetary history, and consumption theory. For an overview of Friedman's scientific contributions to economics, see here. These contributions have largely stood the test of time.

But there was another Milton Friedman: the policy advocate. In this role, we can look at his popular books like Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose. Whether one accepts the conclusions of his popular work is nearly orthogonal to whether one accepts the contributions of his scientific work. For a critical account, see Krugman.

I feel that there is one thing that anybody who is questioning their beliefs can do: research. I used to lean fairly Authoritarian, and hardcore Right-Wing. However, I decided that it would best to purge all of my previously held opinions, and base them strictly on facts. After about two months of research, I found that Libertarianism is the most logical ideology in modern politics. I would recommend that you read or watch Free To Choose (book) (miniseries) by Milton Friedman, and it change your view of the world.

You seem to be looking at content mostly from the left but if you'd like to see something from the other side defending capitalism, Milton Friedman did a Book/TV Show in the 80s called "Free to Choose", which he made to promote the idea of free markets in a way your average joe could understand. It was apparently a response to John Galbraith's "Age of Uncertainty" which was a similar format. They have debates at the end of each video between rather important people on the ideas presented so you can see the other side's take as well.

Anyways heres the TV part I found on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4&list=PL0364ACCE6C7E9D8E&ab_channel=CommonSenseCapitalism

and heres the book on Amazon if you'd like to buy it: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431390061&sr=8-1&keywords=free+to+choose

Free to choose

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=36f2d7e9-0f25-46ef-b2dd-8de1379ee1a1

Here's a good book. https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607

this right here.

> This was copy-pasted from above, dude.

Actually I made subtle changes in flow and syntax that fit the situation 😤

>I cba to through each point entirely, but for the certain points that Jorgensen does want, (i.e. no min wage, free market healthcare), it’s due to her reasoning that this will result in the most optimal net benefits to society.

Obviously? She wouldn’t be saying them if she didn’t believe in them lmfao. That doesn’t change they go against decades of economic and scientific research and are just flat out fringe theories and wrong

>For eg. no min wage cuts a lot of government red tape and leads to more jobs which increases demand for labor. If labor becomes more competitive, average wages might end up naturally being higher than what the government classifies as a min. wage.

Wow if only this was true in reality. In reality, the competition over unskilled labor is virtually nonexistent, and in positions where you have a skill to be competed over, unions and negotiation have given you benefits and a tidy income. Too bad Jo opposes unions and labor organizations though. If you’re not in possession of a skill in demand, this debunked laissez faire nonsense doesn’t apply to you. Like I’ve read Friedman too, Jo, but as smart as that guy is he just wasn’t right about everything. A minimum wage helps unskilled and entry level jobs and the idea that pushing it higher and higher will collapse the market is BS since the minimum wage adjusted for inflation is lower than it was in history and economic studies show this does hurt workers who work on minimum wage (mainly unskilled labor)

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/07/the-real-minimum-wage/

https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-minimum-wage/

>A free market healthcare exists for cosmetic and plastic surgeries where procedures are surprisingly cheap. For eg. you never see someone get a $300k bill for lipo/lasik. But you do see it in our current system.

This genius explains the horrible effects of total privatization of healthcare

And ignoring the moral and health drawbacks of having a totally privatized unregulated healthcare industry, the economics are all hypothetical and in opposition to the nature of being in the market of paying for health. Other natures show the benefits of a mixed market for healthcare with a public option and union healthcare (oops she opposes unions) while others show the benefits of a single government plan. Both are infinitely superior to a hypothetical and nonsensical free market without regulation for healthcare

>You should read less on just libertarian stances and learn more about the reasoning behind them. Otherwise, you come across as “intellectually dishonest.”

Bro lmfao I know why libertarians argue the way they do. I’ve read the libertarian bible and read major libertarian thought (in reality American right wing libertarian libertarians pervert the writing of people like Friedman and Smith and ignore the parts of their teachings that go against their idealist society (like Smith arguing for the government taking over public ventures necessary for the public but unprofitable for the market or Friedman being really a neoliberal and not a right wing American conservative) but it’s all the same: libertarians largely tend to cling to idealism and black ideology about free markets and no government regulation rather than critically and individually analyzing each issue. That’s how you get to someone who wants to pretend climate change doesn’t exist and drill more oil, or just sit by and do nothing for healthcare, or have contradicting policy on trade

1. Much as it is now. The proper role of government is to maximize individual liberty; to little government (no law enforcement) and you have tyranny; too much (totalitarian state) and you have tyranny.
   
2. Most criminal laws are the domain of the state; local government is preferable over centralized "one size fits all" federal government. Some criminal laws will be federal (e.g. bribing a federal politician). Distributing power to the states serves as a form of experimentation -- all 50 states are free to pursue their own ideas; what works will be adopted by other states; what doesn't work will serve as a lesson to all.
   
3. Law enforcement is like medication: too much and it's bad. Not enough when you need it and it's bad. Taking it when you don't have a problem is bad too. Again, the proper role of government is to maximize individual liberty; too little and you have Somalia (a state run by warlords who can kill anyone who opposes them). Too much and you have North Korea (totalitarian state).
   

Best book to start: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156334607/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

Hot Take:

If you're serious and looking for some good reading material may I recommend:

Free to Choose - Milton Friedman.

The Law - Bastiat

or something fictional not named Atlas Shrugged, here is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

If by "raped" you mean provided goods and services while actually having a job, then sure I don't mind at all.

>You think accountants answer to the people? Not in this short sited world. It's all about what they can get now.

Your platitudes seem to suggest that you know very little about the competitive free market. There isn't much I can do for you except point you in the direction of a couple of good books.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607 http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277157720&sr=1-1

>First off, If you can’t get the vaccine, you can still wear a mask.

I did not say you couldn't. Already I can tell you've strongly and emotionally reacted to my comment without first reading or digesting it.

>Secondly, things are illegal because [list of things which are probably illegal]... you are not allowed to interact with society if you pose a danger to society... COVID kills.

Wow, a lot to unpack in those paragraphs. You're arguing that any potential threats to safety is an authorization of government force. You've also explicitly stated that, to go a step further, any person vaguely deemed a threat to anyone's safety must be removed from society.

Yikes. Thanks for the regularly spaced dots as a reality totem.

Do you really not see the danger (blow-back?) with your illogical argument? For instance, while typing this I got a notification to download a McDonald's app or something to get a free large fry. Now, consumers are entirely free to choose to eat McDonald's, but everyone knows damn well that food is in the same group with cigarettes and exactly what I mean by that. Your governor is authorized to shut it down for public safety, to save lives? Think of another dangerous thing. What about that?

What about government itself? Yeah, the biggest polluter, kidnaps and enslaves people for possessing plants, steals your money to fund genocide and perpetual bombing campaigns, historically and presently collapses entire national/international monetary systems, funds gain-of-function virus research which kills millions of people... you got us into a real pickle here. How do we use government to remove itself from our society so it stops hurting us?

>If you don’t want to wear a mask, you don’t have to wear one as long as you are at home

>But if you are going to be out in society, where such behaviors could kill multiple people, you need to wear a fucking mask.

What if I want to have friends and family over to my house? Would you point a gun at us to stop us? What about if I own a gym? My property... I'm good to go maskless right? No SWAT? What about my friends if they want to come? They're not forced to come to my gym, but what if they are not sick and choose to come stay healthy? What if one of them owns a restaurant? Can we go over there afterward and eat? Surely we're no threat to society at large by voluntarily interacting in this way. Would you point a gun at us to stop us?

Do you understand why I'm asking you personally would you use a gun to stop us? Because that is the exact same effect as encouraging a blanket mandate enforceable under the governor's order. You're saying a gym owner who refuses to close their business to voluntary customers, and refuses to comply with the health department and police who get sent to shut them down, and stands their ground on their own property as police attempt to arrest them, should have lethal force used against them by public servants under your authorization.

When you understand the above, you understand my new argument that you are a threat to public safety. Your various and vague authorizations for use of lethal force injur, enslave, and kill far more people than any virus ever has. Stop bringing that weak shit.

Read up, hon.

Distorting to the extreme is silly. Progressives don't want "equality" of outcomes. They just want to establish a basic income floor. Like nobel prize-winning conservative economist Milton Friedman wanted to do with his negative income tax system. You should read (or re-read) his book Free to Choose, you'd like it. Establishing a basic income floor would be for the common good, a legitimate goal of government.

I have in these books. Please excuse the fact that I wrote them under a few pseudonyms :

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730

https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Democratic-Capitalism-Michael-Novak/dp/0819178233

https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Annotated-Adam-Smith/dp/1611040485

I don't yet have a newsletter but as soon as I do I will let you subscribe to it.