A discussion of politics, society, and laws of the land, from an LDS or Mormon perspective.
I'm so pleased you posted this, Milton Friedman is a smart guy. I'd much rather discuss his views than Glenn's clowning, even if I don't agree with everything he's said.Milton Friedman was an intelligent pragmatic man who believed that for an economic system to succeed, it had to utilize the power of individual greed. He is also the architect of what is, in my opinion, one of the most elegant welfare systems ever conceived. He called it, "The Negative Income Tax."Read chapter 12 of his book "Capitalism and Freedom" which is entitled "Alleviation of Poverty" for details, but here's a wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Also, from the mouth of one of your very own:"With socialism, government embraces greed."-James
Glad we could find something to agree on here Reed. Ol’Milton was a great thinker.
Reed, for the record, what I meant was that in socialism, government is the source of greed. This is done at the expense of the very people that government is supposed to serve, its citizens. I, like Friedman, understand that greed is real - even in capitalism. However, I believe that in capitalism greed is seen in its best light. Under capitalism, if there is someone who is a "victim" of greed, they are few and does not generally include the entire populous. In socialism, everyone looses at the expense of the government greed.What I still don't understand is how you can like Friendman and still attach yourself to socialism to even the slightest degree. The man was so directly opposed to it.
I don't "like" Friedman, I respect him and I'd much rather talk about him than some nutty cable news clown.I think you guys are missing the point, Friedman may have been opposed to "socialism", an abstract ideal, but he thought that households making $40,000 year should pay no taxes at all and households under $40,000 should receive money from the IRS. In his tax plan people making large sums of money would pay 25% in taxes.Friedman also thought we should legalize all drugs."I see America with half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides a year, inner cities in which there's a chance for these poor people to live without being afraid for their lives, citizens who might be respectable who are now addicts not being subject to becoming criminals in order to get their drug, being able to get drugs for which they're sure of the quality. You know, the same thing happened under prohibition of alcohol as is happening now. " -FriedmanThose don't sound like views you folks would be comfortable with.
And then you got right back to showing your age…….To start with I never said you did like him. I believe my words where “great thinker” not “glad you like him.”As for what you are calling his “tax plan” you should do a bit more research. Milton is a classic libertarian and as such was for limited government that would include the IRS and income taxes. Posting a wiki source as your refinance to Milton being in favor of a 25% tax on some income earners is clearly untrue and can been seen as such by anyone who has actually read him. Maybe you should pick up books instead of using the lazy person’s resource. For as smart as you claim to be this should be a no brainier, I mean you do know anyone can add info to that site leaving it opens to all kinds of falsification. You know that right/ I mean I know your supper smart and everything so you have to right?Lastly your failure to connect the dots on our postings over the last few years and then make the assumption that we are all for keeping drugs illegal shows that your not actually getting any of the meaning in any of the posts on this blog. I’ll spell it out again, personal liberty and freedom. I can’t speak for the others but my belief in personal liberty and freedom extends to letting others have control of what they put into their own bodies, so good job with the miss calculation. So here is your three take a ways from this posting #1 Wiki doesn’t count as a source. #2 Before you start saying certain people believe certain things you should do actual research instead of looking up Wiki pages on them. #3 Actually read what people say and connect the intellectual dots before you ascribe beliefs to them.
M. Galt, I said Reed liked him. That was my misinterpretation of him saying he was a smart guy. Reed said he was a smart guy, then he said he didn't agree with him. Just curious what that is implying... hmmm.As far as the drug issue (even though that is not the issue of the blog) I feel that we have all been given agency, the power to choose. But we as latter-day saints have a higher standard, a higher than Friedman, and that it is as Elder Oaks once stated, "“In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals. In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.”My agreement with making drugs illegal is that they are the wrong choice. The pose no benefit to society (of course speaking of illicit and illegal drug use) and only do damage to it. If there is a way to achieve a higher morality without the abolishing the freedom to act, that is what I endorse. However, where there is sinful practice (not treating our bodies as temples) I side on laws punishing the partaking of or selling of the drugs in a manner than is harmful to man.
Paging spoiled rich kid….paging spoiled rich kid. Reed are you out there? Do you have any defense at all for falsifying beliefs to DR. Friedman and using Wiki as a reference? I mean I know your like supper smart and everything so I know you know Wiki doesn’t actually count as a reference right? I mean you’re smart and everything , but you did know that?
You dive into dangerous territory in backing your stance with those reasons James. Who are you to determine morality for another? This is one of the reasons we are fighting "terrorism" today because extremist muslims want to tell us what is moral and what isn't. I don't side with the libertarian stance of legalization of hard drugs because I argue that it does infringe upon my rights. In the current society that we live in if someone uses Meth and then gets in their car and drives around they are putting my life in harms way. With Obama-care it will only get worse, because I will have to subsidize through my taxes those who do not maintain good health by smoking marijuana. So anyways, that's my argument for maintaining the illegality of hard drugs. However, if we lived in an ideal world (we don't - which is why I continue to maintain that liberals are emotional and illogical) then I would agree with M Galt that it should be a matter of individual agency to determine personal drug use.
I am not accountable to man for my moral stance. Therefore when I consider what is morally correct I use the standards of the gospel as my guide. I find no merit in making the argument that as LDS we are to simply sit by and not stand up for what we KNOW to be right morally. This is the same thing that was happening with Prop. 8. The reality is that we will of course disagree with each other on what is moral, but I would rather be found on the side of standing up for what is right, not pandering to the sinful desires of another. If good can be done, then I want to be on the side of defending and upholding it.Sure I realize that there are going to be some similarities to people who practice other religions. The adversary mixing the truth with many things. And for the record, the terrorist fight is not over morality, it is over their superiority, power, and control. They are not blowing up our skyscrapers because our women don't cover their faces. If you believe that then you are mistaken.The principle of the matter goes back to what is in the original video of the post. Greed comes in many forms. Money is just the most noticeable one. Socialism is about power, power to the government. Capitalism might be about power but it empowers the individual.
James "I find no merit in making the argument that as LDS we are to simply sit by and not stand up for what we KNOW to be right morally." Would you like to point out where M Galt or myself said anything about sitting by and not standing up for morality? I said nothing of the sort. I think we should advocate morality, we should not however legislate it. You proposal is right in line with the argument that the Reeds are making just in a different sector. It is this nations role to protect the rights of the individual and make sure that they do not infringe on the rights of another. We can advocate morality through spreading the gospel and changing people's lives that way, but that is through their agency to accept or decline, not some overarching government imposing something. I can extend this to gay marriage, do I have any problem with gays and lesbians? Personally, not really I mean what they do on their own time in their own house is their perogative, and I think it's disgusting, but where I have an issue is by re negotiating the terms of marriage to accept homosexuals you are redefining an already existing statute which in turn denegrates the sanctity of the meaning of marriage which in turn directly infringes upon my rights to the sanctity of the union my wife and I currently share. I'm not opposed to civil unions, and I'm also not opposed to gays recieving the same benefits in terms of tax breaks and hospital visitation rights as a heterosexual married couple. I just don't want the definitin of the union my wife and I maintain - have it's definition changed and thereby have the sanctity of it degraded.
James, "And for the record, the terrorist fight is not over morality, it is over their superiority, power, and control. They are not blowing up our skyscrapers because our women don't cover their faces. If you believe that then you are mistaken."Actually, James you are mistaken. Osama Bin Laden has expressed his terroristic mission statement to be that he wants to re-establish the original Caliphate globally in order to control human morality, and bring them in line with Allah's law as outlined in the Qu'ran. So in a way, yes it is because American women don't wear burkahs that the trade center came down.
"To start with I never said you did like him. I believe my words where “great thinker” not “glad you like him.”"I know, James said it."Posting a wiki source as your refinance to Milton being in favor of a 25% tax on some income earners is clearly untrue and can been seen as such by anyone who has actually read him. Maybe you should pick up books instead of using the lazy person’s resource."I gave the book and chapter in which Milton described his plan first, then posted the wiki because I assumed that your antagonistic attitudes towards education stretched to books in general."Lastly your failure to connect the dots on our postings over the last few years and then make the assumption that we are all for keeping drugs illegal shows that your not actually getting any of the meaning in any of the posts on this blog."I said: "Those don't sound like views you folks would be comfortable with."I didn't put any words in your mouths, I knew I was making an assumption, I'm glad to hear that you don't support the Drug-War."M. Galt, I said Reed liked him."Thank you James."As far as the drug issue (even though that is not the issue of the blog)..."Agreed. I brought it up as an example of things Milton and I agreed on, but I don't think we need to discuss it anymore on this posting."Paging spoiled rich kid…."You're awfully impatient for someone you're age, I'm juggling a lot here, there's only one of me, and this isn't my blog. Just wait for it.
Apparently we're discussing the legislation of morality now, so allow me to quote James: "When it comes to the economy, any regulation meant to eliminate undesirable or illegal actions in business is an IMPOSSIBLE venture."If you don't think we can put a stop the derivatives market (or at least the part responsible for our current dilemma) how do you think we can stop drug abuse?
Let me say this as clear as I can to not only GWH but to all the Reeds and whom ever wishes to debate the issue of morality and choice with me. I wish no further debate - only to share my opinion and be on with it.Morality is all about control. Whether that be self control to act according to what one person determines is right or control in the sense of someone believing as Osama Bin Laden stated - to control the conduct of others on some moral ground work. In free society, someone can either assert their moral stance through law - not forcing choice, but simply punishing it, they can live their moral stance and stay out of other people's way, or they can force people to live according to a moral stance. In all cases, the issue centers around control.So when I say that I have a moral stand that I will stand up for in society (ie. drug control) I am not forcing others to follow my moral code. I am advocating that society should discourage and frown upon it through the rule of law. People still have their own choice on whether or not they chose to do drugs - obviously - they just simply have to experience a consequence for that action.However, just as in the gospel of Christ, where there is a violation to law, there is a punishment. We can make our own choices, but we cannot chose the consequences of our choices. Even with God, we are not forced to follow His laws. Hence, asserting a moral stance that includes punishments or criminalizing something that is morally wrong is doctrinally sound.Elder Oaks once stated in defense of the church's stand on abortion from those who feel that morality is not something to be legislated he said, "I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position (to not legislate morality) to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes."
Reed, RE: If you don't think we can put a stop the derivatives market (or at least the part responsible for our current dilemma) how do you think we can stop drug abuse?Morality is a different issue than economics so I hope that if we jump to this subject any further we don't blur the line too much. To answer your question, I don't think we can stop drug abuse. I never said that so I am not sure why you are putting that straw argument in place. Just like I don't think you can stop unethical and illegal business practice with government regulations. As with anyone's actions with law, you can simply punish them for violations to it and hope that punishment is a fitting deterrent. Punishment for guys that are greedy with money, is to take away their money - their business. If those who did the bad loans were able to feel the full hurt of their programs they probably wouldn't do it again. Meaning if the government didn't bail out those companies that caused the problems to begin with, then their failure would have been all the deterrent they need. Instead, a socialistic practice took away their punishment and therefore also lowered their reason to not do the wrong thing they did.On the drug issue (different from economics policy I believe), if we foster an environment where individuals can freely take drugs, then pay for their rehab or other medical issues that arise from this permissive practice in combination with government welfare programs we are not doing them or society a favor. It creates a lose lose situation that I find morally offensive, and bad public policy.But in both cases, the punishments are to those who commit the crimes. National Policy overhaul punishes everyone, not just those who screwed things up to begin with. How is that fair?
Back to Friedman and reputable sources of information, M Galt: I went to the library just for you, but they didn't have the books by Milton that I wanted. I did find however, a book by Eamonn Butler, one of the founding members and director of the Adam Smith Institute think-tank, entitled "Milton Friedman, a guide to his economic thought". It seems like a servicable summary of Milton's views so here's an excerpt from Chapter 1: Friedman's place in the history of economic thought..."Because Friedman sees individuals as free agents who sometimes co-operate voluntarily together, rather than as cogs in a mechanism of collective action, he has opposed the provision by government of health, welfare and education services, which in his opinion only robs them of their diversity and responsiveness. Far better, he suggests, to provide a minimum standard of living for all through a negative income tax, so that poorer people would be given the resources they need to compete effectively in the marketplace for services open to everybody."I transcribed a great deal more while I was at the library which I would be happy to post. Milton's views on education are also interesting.
Glad to see your going through such struggles to establish something Friedman never advocated. Here is another academic tip from some one who has actually read the man. Instead of combing the his work for ideas that agree with what you like look at what he is saying and think it over. A great place to start would be Free to Choose: A Personal statement.But nice try with trying to justify your false claim that he supported a 24% tax on wage earners over $40,000. Beyond that I am not sure what exactly your arguing. I'll try to recap. Milton was brought up, you said he said something he didn't and then used Wiki as a reference, your quote got busted out, you wasted a lot of time at the library looking for information that doesn't exists and then come back talking about Milton's hypothetical either or questions presented by a third with three key words that you started the whole discussion miss representing. So why are you doing all this again? I mean other then to show like your brother how little you know about economics?Here is an actual quote from Milton on taxation you can look up that contradicts your non-argument "I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." do some more of that library time of yours and you tell me where that one comes from. Some real academic work might teach you something.
"you wasted a lot of time at the library looking for information that doesn't exists and then come back talking about Milton's hypothetical either or questions presented by a third with three key words that you started the whole discussion miss representing."I wasn't looking for information that doesn't exist, I was looking for a specific book, by Milton, that the library did not have.Maybe you're right, The Adam Smith Institute and I are conspiring to misrepresent Friedman's ideas to advance our socialist agenda."...your false claim that he supported a 24% tax on wage earners over $40,000."I didn't say earners over $40,000 would be taxed at 24%. I said "large sums", I was being vague, because I didn't know the entire plan off the top of my head. Instead I directed you to the book and chapter where you could find the justifications for such a plan. I don't have access to a copy of the book at this moment so I found a reputable source that shared Milton's philosophy and could be trusted to accurately portray his views.The 24% percent tax rate isn't the important issue here. The key point is that Milton Friedman advocated a government program to provide all Americans with the means to participate meaningfully in the economy to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
A point you still haven't been able to source but whatever. The fact that your arguing that he proposed a 25% tax on anyone shows how unread on the man you are. Your reputable source doesn't even go into greater detail then sharing three coman words to what your using, that doesn't provide any reliable information on what your saying he said or what they are saying. Milton's whole idea and underlying philosophy was personal reasonability, the idea that the government should provide anything but freedom is absurd...if you had actually read anything his has written you would see that. Again whatever, I guess its time for us to move on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Allow me to repeat myself, maybe repetition is the key to penetrating your willful ignorance.The 24% percent tax rate isn't the important issue here. The key point is that Milton Friedman advocated a government program to provide all Americans with the means to participate meaningfully in the economy to the benefit of the economy as a whole.I've offered sources several times, Milton's own writings and the writings of an authoritative figure from your side of the debate."Your reputable source doesn't even go into greater detail then sharing three coman words to what your using, that doesn't provide any reliable information on what your saying he said or what they are saying."Allow me to repeat myself again."I transcribed a great deal more while I was at the library which I would be happy to post. Milton's views on education are also interesting."All I've given you is a brief summary of the negative income tax and an acknowledgement that Milton subscribed to the idea, because the implementation of the concept isn't the key issue here and whether or not Milton supported the idea is not something that's up for debate. He did, and that fact is documented in his own writings. I'm not your economics professor and even if I was, I'd tell you to look it up and stop whining. Since you've totally missed the debate I was trying to have with all of you folks, I'll skip to the end and defeat the argument I never even got the chance to make, on my own.The rest of the quote you posted:"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible... The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?""As you can see (or maybe you're incapable), there's nothing contradictory about Milton's support of the negative income tax, since it's net result would be to reduce government spending."...the idea that the government should provide anything but freedom is absurd."Think before you speak, you're so ignorant of underlying logic that birthed your ideology, it falls to me, the socialist, to explain it to you.If I were someone like you...If I were someone like you who knew how to read, write, and form reasoned arguments I would say: "Government cannot provide anyone with freedom, freedom is man's natural state. Good government exists to protect man's freedom from outside forces that seek to enslave, rob, or destroy."For this, I would have a counter-argument, but I'm all out of ways to steer you to the debate.Thanks for nothing guys, I'll keep visiting this blog, but it won't be for anything meaningful. I'll be fishing for more of these:"...so good job with the miss calculation."Miss calculation? Winner of the "Women of Mathematics" pageant? Is she here, can I meet her?Or maybe I'll come and have a debate with myself instead of waiting desperately for one of you to rise to the occasion.James, I don't think you're an idiot, the fact that we never had an actual debate was probably my fault, because I spent most of my time trying to interact with your stooges and afforded your comments only casual dissmissal.If you hope to have blog that will do more than make reasonable people wonder if it's all an attempt at parody, you should ditch them and ask yourself whether you selected your current world view and built your reasoning up to the forgone conclusion or gave the foundational principles a moment's honest thought and reached your conclusions by following the only logical path of reasoning.
Reed, I suppose I should thank you for what appears to be an attempt at a compliment. But in response to this statement, "ask yourself whether you selected your current world view and built your reasoning up to the forgone conclusion or gave the foundational principles a moment's honest thought and reached your conclusions by following the only logical path of reasoning."I follow the prophets. I do so because I study and agree with their words and have a testimony that they are inspired men. And as has been posted by GWH on Sunday December 20th, the prophets have spoken plainly and clearly against socialism. It is that opinion that I embrace. So regardless of how you wish to view M. Galt and GWH's obviously childish attempt to aggravate you, I don't need to have debate to find value in writing this blog. Freedom of speech often includes allowing morons to have their opinion. So regardless of what people write, including yourself, I will continue to post here and enjoy doing so.
I love how the guy who references Wiki and has never read Milton and then makes up ideas for 25% taxes that Milton supported and then can't back that up with any references is calling me ignorant. Clearly you left your depth when you stopped correcting peoples English.And then the "socialist" breaks out the add on spending quotes from Milton as if telling the libertarian that Milton thought government spending is bad is some kind of revelation. Remember I was the one who sent you on the hunt to find that quote? Who am I kidding, you don't even remember what parts of your arguments you did or did not make up. You don't need to quote anything else Milton said because I've read it. And to think even after all of that reading you still don't get the Milton's philosophy on limited government, instead you insist yet again that it was his idea that the government should redistribute through taxation to others so they can "participate meaningfully" in the economy. You have the script back word kid and there doesn't seem to be a way to get through on it. In all seriousness I would like to get away from the rude comments back and forth between us Reed. can we make this our last overly heated interaction with each other? This is an olive branch so please don't throw it back. I'm happy you found some of his ideas on education interesting. I have often found that people who claim socialism or conservatism or whatever else find that through reading and listening to a reasonable source like Milton that they are more libertarian then they thought. Maybe you will find the same.
Thanks for your comments! Comments are now being moderated to eliminate the massive amounts of spam comments we get and have slipped through the cracks. If you have an opinion that is clean (no vulgar language) then we will post it.