Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman: 'Path To Socialism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Open Mind with Richard Heffner in 1975. 

"Milton Friedman explains the dynamics that naturally lead toward collectivism---and away from the far preferable state of individual liberty... Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

I guess, in Milton Friedman's world, there would be no public safety net. That if people fall through the cracks of capitalism, that thats too bad and they are stuck in that condition. Unless they can get themselves out of that condition on their own, or help from private citizens. To help them out, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, or even the Federal Reserve Bank. And that perhaps we wouldn't even regulate the economy at all, except for anti-monopoly laws. Dr. Friedman, was anti-monopoly. Both public and private and believed that individuals and corporations, shouldn't be able to pollute the environment as well.  That they should even be taxed when they do. Dr. Friedman, is sort of an inspiration of the Tea Party movement on economic policy.

Even though the Tea Party at least generally speaking, isn't as liberal on social issues. There are also some Tea Party members, perhaps a majority even that are in favor of Social Security, or Medicare. Perhaps because they collect from both of those programs, or their parents collect from both of those programs. And they don't want to see the benefits for themselves, or their parents to be eliminated and for them to have to fend for themselves. But would like to see some of these programs reformed in a way that allows for more freedom of choice. But there are also some Tea Party members, people who support Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who's a libertarian ideologically, who would like to see our safety net completely ended or phased out.

Representative Paul, has proposed phasing out our social insurance programs instead of eliminating them right way. So the people who currently collect from them, would still get their benefits. Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has proposed transferring these programs over to the States. So Dr. Friedman, has been an inspiration to Classical Conservatives and Libertarians and Liberals such as myself. But hasn't been the Gold Standard for the Tea Party movement, but someone who they've used to generate their own ideas. They agree that what the Federal Government is doing in certain areas is wrong. But they have similar, but different views in how to change them. So Milton Friedman, has been an inspiration to the Tea Party movement, but not its driving force. And more of an inspiration for Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

Libertarians, are clearly against the New Deal and Great Society and other progressive social insurance programs. And is a big inspiration for their movement and the formation of the Libertarian Party. But the Tea Party, is a bit different, because even though there are some Libertarians in this movement, they became a political movement based on a fiscal conservative message and they aren't for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. But would like to see the Federal Government cut back and eliminate spending in a lot of areas. So Dr. Friedman, has inspired parts of their movement, but doesn't represent their playbook. Similar, but different policy's. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

AEI: 'Is Competitiveness Worth Defending: Health Care Competition'

Source:AEI- some guy giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

If you were to design a Healthcare System from scratch, no one in their right minds would design a new health care system based on the American health care system. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, wouldn't design a health care system based on the American health care System. Everyone in their right mind across the political spectrum from Libertarians to Socialists and perhaps some people in their wrong minds, would design a different health care system from what we have now. 

We spend too much money compared with other developed nations (As far as percentage of GDP) Around 17% and with this weak economy and those health care Costs are only going to climb. We leave out about 50M people from having access to health insurance, some decide to be left out. But the overwhelmingly majority can't afford health insurance. They make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, which in some ways is a good thing, but not enough money to afford their own health insurance. Or they can't afford to buy their employers health insurance plan. 

We spend too much money on health care we don't need and are elective procedures. And we can't afford health care that people need to live healthy and stay alive. And we have a lot of people overcrowding our emergency rooms, getting health care that isn't an emergency, because they don't want make an appointment with a doctor and pay for health insurance or can't afford health insurance. 

What we need in America is a health care system that we can afford, obviously, but one where everyone has access to health insurance and health care. Which of course is easier said than done but is something that we can do and need to do before our health care system eats away at most of our economy. 

To create an affordable, quality health care system in America, gets to things like personal responsibility. Once we set up this system, people get themselves insured that are currently uninsured, but we do a better job of taking care of ourselves, stop smoking, drink less alcohol, eat better, exercise more and better, so we won't need to use as much health care in the future because we are healthier. And we would be able to bring down the costs of our own health care and health insurance. 

The 2010 Affordable Care Act which I supported and still do, was a positive first step in this direction, but just a first step. And even if it had a public option in it, it would've been just a bigger first step. The biggest contribution that the AFA made in my opinion is the Patient Bill of Rights in it, so people can't get dumped because they need health insurance and ending lifetime caps and other things like that. 

What we need in our health care system is more personal responsibility as I just explained. But more choice and competition, not less of it, which is one reason why I'm against single payer health insurance. And this is the reason why I'm in favor of a public option, but I'm not in favor of a public option, but fifty public options or more than that to cover the territory's as well as the states. And let's see what works across the country and what doesn't work. Expand what does work and eliminate what doesn't work. 

Fifty-plus non-profit, independent of government public options, that would be fully paid for that wouldn't have to come out of government tax revenue, because they would be financed by their consumers, that would compete with private non-profit health insurers, subjected to the same rules and regulations. And let's see who does the better jobs and attracts the most consumers. 

Freedom of choice works very well in the rest of our economy and is a big reason why we are the richest country in the World. And is something we should be applying to health care and education as well. And let the best and brightest the people who deliver the best service be rewarded for that. And breakup our monopolies. 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: 'There is No Such Thing as Public Money'

Source:The Free State- The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

"Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983." 

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money" she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective) 

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. 

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. 

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. 

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. 

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, in 1967.

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- William F. Buckley: 'Drug Legalization'

Source:Liberty Pen- William F. Buckley Jr, on The Open Mind With Richard Heffner, in 1996.

"Buckley makes a compelling case for legalizing drugs to Richard Heffner (Open Mind, 1996). Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

How has the War on Drugs in America has failed, well where should I start because people could write books answering that question and there have been books written answering that question. 

The answer to why the so-called War on Dugs has failed is fairly simple to me: because we've treated narcotic addicts like criminals instead of patients that they they are. Drug addicts who have just broken narcotic laws, like possessing or using narcotics, heroin, cocaine, etc, and I'm not talking about narcotic dealers are treated like criminals and sent to jail and prison for only hurting themselves and not other people. 

When someone can go to a bar and get wasted on alcohol and get a ride home because they are drunk out of their mind, but wake up with a hangover the next day and go about their lives. Even though they've committed the same action as someone who smoked one joint, but are actually worst off by getting drunk and losing brain cells, felt a little different, but didn't lose their senses at all. But the pot smoker could end up in jail and perhaps doing 3-5 in prison just for smoking and possessing a joint or perhaps both crimes. And let's say the drunk makes a bad call and decides to drive home instead, they would be arrested for drunk driving obviously, but not getting drunk. 

Part of my point here is that the whole so-called War on Drugs is nonsense because of how hypocritical it is. Sending drug addicts to prison, first of all for just hurting themselves, sends the message that Uncle Sam knows best and has to protect the people from themselves. Instead of treating adults like adults and letting us live our own lives and making these decisions for ourselves. 

Drug addicts end up in prison where they get no help for their addiction and if anything are more addictive from the time they spent in prison. And have access to other narcotics in prison and get out more addictive and end up back in the prison with the same addiction. You want to know why we have 2M people in prison in America, just look at the population: a lot of them are in there for narcotics related crimes and a lot of them are in there for using and possessing. 

So this is what I would do: first decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol, with the same regulations and taxes. This alone would save our Federal, state, and local budgets on law enforcement because they would stop having to throw people in jail for doing something to themselves and not to others. And would free up valuable resources for law enforcement to go after actual dangerous criminals who hurt innocent people. 

I wouldn't decriminalize heroin, cocaine, meth, etc because of the damage it would bring to our health care system and economy. With all the damage it would bring and the health care costs that would come from it. And people who don't use these narcotics would end up paying for the health care costs of the people who do use these narcotics. And a lot of them wouldn't be able to cover their own health care costs. 

We shouldn't throw these narcotics addicts in prison either, they would be forced into drug rehab and be able to keep themselves out of prison, if they complete rehab successfully. And not have it on their criminal but medical record. And they would pay for their rehab one way or the other not tax payers. This would save our corrections system a lot of time, money and resources that they could concentrate on inmates who need to be in prison. 

Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman once gave a speech about what he called Bad Laws and Bad Laws are laws that are written to protect people from themselves and not protecting innocent people from the harm of others. The War on Drugs in America and in other countries are the perfect example of Bad Laws, because these are laws designed to protect people from themselves and why they don't work.

Euro News: 'President Putin's Main Tasks'

 

Source:Euro News- President Vladimir Putin (Nationalist) Russian Federation.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (but not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Vladimir Putin on his way back to the Kremlin comes as little surprise. The mentor of current President Dmitri Medvedev never lost his de facto title of strong man of Russia. This coming March Putin intends to begin a third term in the highest office. Addressing some of his most faithful supporters, Putin said: "I would like to express my gratitude for your positive reaction to my candidacy for the post of president of the country. This is for me a great honour." 

From Euro News

Vladimir Putin's rise back to the presidency in the Russian Federation looks like corruption to me. That President Dimitri Medvedev was basically just keeping the seat warm for. Vladimir Putin when Mr Putin was Prime Minister because under the RF Constitution, the President is term limited and has to leave office after eight years, but then can come back to power after sitting out one term. Which is exactly what happened here. 

President Medvedev was President from 2007 until now after being Prime Minister and then switched roles with Mr Putin. And now they are switching job titles back, the President being the Head of State in Russia and the Prime Minister being the Head of Government. The President the Chief Executive and the Prime Minister the Chief Operating Officer. 

It looks very similar to what happened in Alabama in I believe 1966 when then Governor George Wallace was term limited and then got his wife of all people to run for Governor. And then after four years George Wallace ran to get the governorship back. 

This doesn't look different from what happens in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East where a President or Monarch there before he's ready to step down from power, passes their job down to a relative. Normally a son like what President Hosni Mubarak tried to do in Egypt by passing the presidency down to his son. President Mubarak basically sparked the democratic revolution that brought and end to his regime. And is one of the things that led to the democratic revolution there. 

This looked exactly of corruption which is almost exactly what's going on in Russia right now. President Putin never had any attention of stepping down from power in Russia and to some extent can't blame him. Its a great job and you are President of a great country with a great population with a lot of natural resources in the largest country in the world physically. 

My point about Russia being is that he should earn reelection there with free and fair open multi-party general elections there and earn the votes of the Russian people in Russia in order to be President of the Russian Federation. 

I believe President Putin is a talented and very intelligent leader that wants to restore the greatness to Russia not only as a military power but as an economic power like in the United States, European Union, Japan, and the Peoples Republic of China. And what they are moving to, he just doesn't want to be held accountable for what he does. 

Going forward with the next Putin Administration in Russia, they've come a long way in twenty years but still have a long way to go to become a real developed nation, Russia is so damn big, basically the size of a large continent as well as country of 150 million people with a large middle class and educated class. With also perhaps the most natural resources in the world and not just oil and natural gas but minerals as well. 

But a lot of Russia is still very poor similar to China, India and Brazil and they have a long way to go to fully develop their country. They need a lot of infrastructure investment as well as developing a health care system that can take care of the whole country. 

Russia has lost something like 10 million people in population because they have a third world health Care system. So they need to develop that as well as their roads, highways, buildings, waterways, airports, and other things. As well as cut down on crime and corruption and then they can become a true developed nations. 

What's going on Russia right now with its two President's to me looks like one dictator passing the torch to another. But at least Russia will have a dictator that will actually use Russia's vast resources to develop its country. Where most of the country can benefit from, instead of using those resources to just stay in power. And Russia could look more like China but freer than Iran. 

Euro News: 'Women Get The Right To Vote in Saudi Arabia'

Source:Euro News- women finally voting in Saudi Arabia.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"It has been described as an extraordinary development. Women in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia are to be given the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. The announcement was made by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, at the opening of a new session of the Shura council. He also said women would be allowed to join the advisory council as full members and the changes will take effect from next year. Euro News" 

From Euro News

This is a big step forward for the Saudi Kingdom. (Thats basically a combination of a monarchy and a theocracy) The Kingdom made up of their ruling family and their laws based on Islamic law (or an interpretation of it) with women not allowed to be in public uncovered, they until their next elections not able to vote, and not even able to drive and of course sub-servant to the men in Saudi Arabia. (Which is what Christian-Nationalists want in America)

Saudi Arabia have a very sexist government and culture (at least by Western standards) but these new reforms by King Abdullah is a big step forward in Saudi Arabia and definitely progressive (progressive in its classic and real sense) change especially for a country and a region up until recently has been very slow to progress, but they are now are going through a big revolution. And I believe the democratic revolutions that have gone on in the Middle East (Iran a few years ago) and I believe that movement effected what happened in Tunisia. 

The democratic movements that happened in Egypt and Libya as well as Yemen, because all of the countries can get access to the others countries news (whether the government's allow it or not) especially in this information age and social networking, these different Arab democratic revolutions have played a role in each others country. 

The Egyptian Revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and ousted the President of Tunisia and hopefully the President of Yemen as well and of course the democratic revolution thats going on now in Syria that will hopefully oust President Bashar Al-Assad, ,but he seems to have an upper hand in holding on to power right now. 

But the Saudi Kingdom sees what's going on in these other Arab states with these other authoritarian regimes falling and they don't of course want the same thing to happen to them. They obviously want to stay in power indefinitely, but I believe the Saudi Kingdom understands and they are more progressive than Syria and Egypt with the development of their economy and are basically a developed nation, in the heart of the third world surrounded by countries that live in poverty like Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and others. And know that they have to change and progress to stay in power. 

Hopefully this is just a sign of things to come as far as progress in Saudi Arabia and that the Kingdom moves even forward and allows women to run for office, has an elected multi-party legislature that represents all of Saudi Arabia. And independent judiciary and looks more like a federal republic in the future, instead of a theocratic monarchy where women and people who speak out against the government are oppressed. But we'll see in the future.