Arthur Brooks: 'True Fairness'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks speaking to AEI 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 the American Enterprise Institute

I agree and perhaps because I'm one of them, that Americans tend to believe in earned success. That if you have a good job and you are really good at it and as a result you make a lot of money, that you are entitled to the wealth and benefits that come from being a businessperson, investor, doctor, lawyer, entertainer, whatever it might be that gives you. along with your success the ability to live very comfortably in America. 

Where I believe Arthur Brooks and I disagree is on the concept of society and even a free society, the idea of a nation state, that we're all members of this gigantic, national club, known as the United States of America and therefor all have responsibilities, including financial, to make sure this club runs as smoothly as possible and is safe for Americans to be able to live in freedom. As well as having the ability to get around the country and for businesses to move their products to market, and to protect the innocent from predators. 

For America to work as well as possible, yes, we need the freedom to be economically successful in America, but also have to pay our fair share of what it takes to make America work and keep it as safe and free as possible for as many people to be able to live freely in America. And that's what taxes are for, even for people who make a lot of money in this country and live very freely.

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- 'From Cradle to Grave'

Source: The Daily Hatch- Helen Bohen O'Bannon, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979.

“Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.”

From Invest Bliguru

When Classical Liberal professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Classical Liberal and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

CNBC: Dick Cavett Show- William F. Buckley (1995)

Source:CNBC- Dick Cavett interviewing one of the founding father's of the American classical conservative movement in 1995, William F. Buckley.

Dick Cavett after his ABC show went off the air in the 1970s, came back in the 1990s with a new talk show, but this time on CNBC, which is owned by NBC News. And he interviewed someone who I believe is one of the founding father’s of the American classical conservative movement in William F. Buckley, who was still the publisher and contributor for the conservative Firing Line Magazine in 1995. Unfortunately there are no links or videos for that interview online right now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose talking about public education in America.

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell appearing on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979-80.

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From English Stack Exchange 

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Glenn Beck: 'David Horowitz Discuss Conservatives Using Saul Alinsky Tatics'

Source:Fox News- Glenn Beck talking to David Horowitz.

"Glenn Beck with David Horowitz discuss conservatives using Saul Alinsky tactics to get their message out.  Inverting the paradigm....doing what liberals do....Community Organizing" 

From Some Political Clips

In case anyone is wondering or isn't already aware of this: Saul Aklinsky was a left-wing, big city, community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. He's also a left-wing boogyman for the Far-Right in America, sort of like George Soros. And every time leftists in America try to do something create a movement behind something, or try to get some agenda passed in Congress or in some state legislature, the David Horowitz's of the world or people like Glenn Beck, accuse these leftists and sometimes leftist Democrats of using Alinsky like tactics to accomplish whatever they're trying to accomplish. So that's what Beck and Horrowitz are talking about here.

John Birch Society: Arthur R. Thompson- 'Corruption of the Republican Party'

Source:John Birch Society- Arthur R. Thompson is the CEO of the JBS.

"In this weekly video news update for May 7-13, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses Ron Paul and the Republican Party; Canada goes penniless; Al Qaeda still a Russian asset; Jobless students pose a problem; and Recall in Wisconsin and syndicalism." 

From the John Birch Society

If you look at what the major political parties (meaning in Republican Party and Democratic Party) are in the business to do, it's to win elections. It's really that simple, similar to how sports franchises are in the business to win games, at least the successful ones. The Republicans and Democrats are in the business to win elections, even if that means compromising what party principles that they may have and even nominating people that might not be real Republicans or Democrats, at least to the party's base. 

What populist movements and even fringe movements, in the Republican Party and Democratic Party are in the business to do, when it comes to political parties, is advance their movements and values and get their people into office. And that starts by first winning their party's nomination. Even if that means they don't ever have a blizzards chance in Hawaii of winning the general election. If their candidate looks like an escape mental patient, whose 5 cans short of a six pack in the general election, that person will probably seem like a hero to their political movement. 

What we're seeing right now in the Republican Party is an opposition party that wants to win back the presidency. Well, that's what establishment in the party wants to do, as well as keep or expand their majority in the House, and win back the Senate. 

What the populists in the Republican Party want to do is to nominate their people, even if they don't have a snipers chance at a firing range of winning the general election. Which is why you are seeing Mitt Romney, the establishment Republican, versus Rick Santorum the populist, and Ron Paul the Libertarian Republican, for their presidential nomination.