Damn straight Milton Friedman was a peach of a free market economist, and I'm preaching the gospel of his mostly unworkable yet purposeful philosophy. I'm also pitching my own philosophy, which is heavily spiked with Milton's intoxicating contributions to the law of supply and demand.
Milton earned his place in socio/political discourse (a dark, dusty corner) by connecting the rudiments of supply and demand to the supposed Constitutional freedoms. At the top of my list of relevant thoughts here, Friedman argued that free speech was protected to allow individuals to conduct business and protect private property. The right to privacy pertained to proprietary information. At the time the Constitution was written, the fuzz could enter your house without a warrant. Constitutional privacy didn't pertain to cops enforcing the law. It protected farmers and business owners from oppression and piracy by government or others. Friedman discussed the principle of independence as being independent of government. Most important, Milton was all about the simple fact that people are responsive to money and to assets of all kinds. People may cite ideals all they want, when the blue light special goes on at Kmart, shoppers buy crap in response to the price of goods.
Returning to a philosophy kind to independence, free market economists, or libertarians, if I may take liberty here, tend to believe that an individual's ability and freedom to earn through production of goods and services enables him/her to live independent of government. Conversely, socialists believe the government controls production and distribution, and, supposedly, through dreadfully rose glasses, comrades (peons) enjoy freedom from capitalist exploitation. Libertarians regard that socialist model as 'slavery.' While socialists refer to workers in the free market economy as 'slaves.' This may raise an outside thought, 'does the Constitution really guarantee us (peons) freedom, as in 'free society?'
Libertarians lean toward a philosophy of financial strength, and of bargaining position. While we all enjoy constitutional free speech, the dude with the fatter attorney will probably win the case. People may be, supposedly, equal under the law, but bargaining positions are relative to wealth, status and access to resources. People on welfare are limited in life to what the government affords them, and they must cooperate with the government to receive benefits. A business owner can sell anything he is able to procure, profit from so doing, and use the proceeds to fly his fat ass to the moon. Few welfare recipients can afford to join the fat fuck. Burp. I sick of talking. I will think up more shit on this subject. Look for it here.
Milton earned his place in socio/political discourse (a dark, dusty corner) by connecting the rudiments of supply and demand to the supposed Constitutional freedoms. At the top of my list of relevant thoughts here, Friedman argued that free speech was protected to allow individuals to conduct business and protect private property. The right to privacy pertained to proprietary information. At the time the Constitution was written, the fuzz could enter your house without a warrant. Constitutional privacy didn't pertain to cops enforcing the law. It protected farmers and business owners from oppression and piracy by government or others. Friedman discussed the principle of independence as being independent of government. Most important, Milton was all about the simple fact that people are responsive to money and to assets of all kinds. People may cite ideals all they want, when the blue light special goes on at Kmart, shoppers buy crap in response to the price of goods.
Returning to a philosophy kind to independence, free market economists, or libertarians, if I may take liberty here, tend to believe that an individual's ability and freedom to earn through production of goods and services enables him/her to live independent of government. Conversely, socialists believe the government controls production and distribution, and, supposedly, through dreadfully rose glasses, comrades (peons) enjoy freedom from capitalist exploitation. Libertarians regard that socialist model as 'slavery.' While socialists refer to workers in the free market economy as 'slaves.' This may raise an outside thought, 'does the Constitution really guarantee us (peons) freedom, as in 'free society?'
Libertarians lean toward a philosophy of financial strength, and of bargaining position. While we all enjoy constitutional free speech, the dude with the fatter attorney will probably win the case. People may be, supposedly, equal under the law, but bargaining positions are relative to wealth, status and access to resources. People on welfare are limited in life to what the government affords them, and they must cooperate with the government to receive benefits. A business owner can sell anything he is able to procure, profit from so doing, and use the proceeds to fly his fat ass to the moon. Few welfare recipients can afford to join the fat fuck. Burp. I sick of talking. I will think up more shit on this subject. Look for it here.