Milton Friedman Part III: Friedman vs. Liberal Detractors

Part III: Friedman vs. Liberal Detractors

Milton Friedman was a powerful, passionate, cheerful and reasoned defender of what America and capitalism has done for the country and the world. Friedman’s handling of radicals and leftist was done with calm logic grounded in facts and common sense. Many today might be thinking, “Mister, we could use a man like Milton Friedman again.”

When Friedman encountered radical extremist Frances Fox Piven, who co-authored the Cloward-Piven plan to overload the welfare system in this country and bring down our economy, he challenged her irrational logic with facts and direct questions.

FRANCES: That so-called free enterprise system has always used government. The entrepreneurs of that free enterprise system have always used government. And the question that you raise is whether other people can use government to achieve their ends.

The free enterprise system, as it is spread around the world, as it is spread to Asia and Africa and Latin America, has spread through the force of alms, among other things. And those alms were wielded by governments. That was government intervention under the name of the free enterprise system, but a government intervention which destroyed the freedoms of many people.

MILTON: You always are talking about mixed systems, and I challenge you to find a single example in history at any time of any society where people have been relatively free, and I don’t mean merely — what you call merely — economic freedom. I mean freedom in the full sense. I mean freedom of individuals to pursue their own objectives, their own values, to live their lives. I want you to name me any society in which you’ve had any large measure of that freedom, where capitalism and free enterprise has not been the predominant mechanism for controlling economic activity. Not the sole mechanism, but the dominant one. I want you to name me one exception.

Friedman was continually attacked by leftists who believed socialism or communism were superior to capitalism and the free market. And he continually rebutted their claims with a clear truth based in facts.

Friedman also educated college students who believed the free market to be inferior. When challenged by one student that in a free market system the poor remained poor and the rich remained rich, Friedman had plenty to say.

MILTON: This is not built into the system at all. It’s never been true. It’s simply a false. If you look at the evidence, there is an enormous amount of mobility from one class to the other. In fact, there used to be a saying, three generations from church leads to church slaves, which reflected the exactly opposite affect. So it’s simply not built into the system. On the contrary, there’s a great deal of mobility within generations and between generations, and we shouldn’t argue on the basis of false factual premises. In my opinion, a society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty.

Contrary to what most economists of his day — and of this day — believe, Friedman also felt government was the problem, not the solution for education and unemployment.

MILTON: Why do we have a black teenage unemployment rate from 30 to 40 percent? Because of two failures of government. One, a failure to provide decent schooling, which is a governmental responsibility. Has been. Whether it should be or not, it has been. And second, because of a minimum wage rate, which prevents those kids who haven’t had decent schooling from getting jobs at low pay at which they can earn the skills on the jobs that would enable them to ride to higher pay. If you look at the sources of poverty, you will find a very — most of them are derived from what I regard as wrong-headed government policy.

Rather than just citing problems, Friedman also offered solutions to things like education.

MILTON: In my opinion, there is not a single thing you could do in this world that would do more to improve the condition of the black people who are in the lowest income classes, of the black people who have been most affected by discrimination, there is not anything you could do that would be more affected than the voucher scheme. Why? Because as I said to you before, and I challenge anybody to deny it, that there’s no respect in which the black and the slum is more deprived than in the quality of schooling he can get. He’s much worse off in that respect than he is even in the quality of the housing he can get and in the quality of the automobile he can buy and the quality of the job he can get with given education.

The only effective device that there is for improving his schooling that anybody has suggested is to give the parents more control, to introduce the competition and the drive of private — of private market, to improve the quality of the schooling that is available to them.

During a Free to Choose discussion, Friedman was confronted regarding the morality of capitalism.

VOICE: Dr. Friedman, is there an economic system now or historically that has allowed free enterprise alone to determine which direction the economy goes? Secondly, in economics, you have resources. And how to best use these resources is a value judgment. But it seems to me you can either have free enterprise decide or a government decide or some combination. And don’t you think combination would be the best alternative? And thirdly — if I can remember it — isn’t there some benefit to having the government steal our money, which is what they do effectively. They hold a gun to our head and say, “Pay us 40 percent of your income and go to jail.” They take this money, and they give it mostly to government employees. Well, the government employees spend it. The marginal propensity to consume is pretty high. So the people who were robbed have to do something creative to get the money back. And isn’t this creative activity the real wealth —

MILTON: I take it that they would have to be still more creative if 98 percent were being spent by the government.

No, the third part of your thing is just pure fallacy from beginning to end. Because if those people who are now government employees, who are employed in creative activity and productive activity, they would also be spending their money. And we would have a greater total around. All you’re doing — let’s suppose for a moment — take the extreme case that that 40 percent is being used just to have people sit around. The fact that they spend their money doesn’t alter the situation. The only product there is, is what the 60 percent produce. And that 60 percent is divided among 100 percent. If those 40 percent are also producing goods, then there are more goods to go around among everybody.

You are just involved in a fallacy of looking at dollars, which is important sometimes. Instead of looking at the real product, the goods and services that people produce and people consume.

Spending isn’t good. What’s good is producing. What we want to have is more goods and services. And as I say, the obvious indication that that’s clear is that if your logic were right, it would apply at — for 50 percent. 60 percent. 70. 90. 98. 100 percent. And, obviously, you would see that that would be a bunch of nonsense at that stage.

It is desirable to have some money spent by government for those things, those services that we believe we can get more usefully and more effectively through government. If people are getting their money’s worth, fine. That’s why it’s very desirable to have governmental expenditures take place at as local a level as possible. Because you, as a citizen of a small community, can judge whether you’re getting your money’s worth. You can decide that you want to spend it. But when it comes to the federal government, you tend to think that you’re spending somebody else’s money. And you are in a way. But he’s spending yours.

Friedman always went back to people and production being the answer — not government control or programs.

MILTON: The real problem is, in my opinion, that as we move from the local community to the state and from the state to the federal government, it becomes increasingly difficult for us to control the mechanism we have established. And that mechanism tends to control us. That was the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers of this country, of the people who wrote the Constitution. That Constitution was designed to limit government’s powers, in order to preserve the freedom of the individuals. And what has happened in the past 50 years is that the fundamental character of the Constitution has really been changed. We have broadened enormously the conception of what is a government mental power and what is not and have departed from that limited government until we have created a Frankenstein, an unlimited government that threatens to destroy us.

Megyn Kelly pulled her sons out of the private elementary school they attended after she learned that the boys were asked "weekly" if they were still sure they were boys. But that's not all that this "experimental transgender education program" taught.

Megyn joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to tell the story, which she thought had ended when the school apologized, and to talk about what's next for America as our leaders refuse to promote actual psychological support for our kids and instead "parade" transgenderism as the solution to their problems.

"When [my son] was in third grade, I found out they unleashed a three-week experimental transgender education program on these boys, with really inappropriate videos. The kids were confused. These are 8- and 9-year-olds, Glenn. They have no idea what the school is even talking about with the trans thing. They got really in-depth, with really in-your-face videos — and then parents complained. And the school did something it hasn't done in its 400-year history, which was they apologized. Even they realized they had done wrong," Megyn explained.

"But, then I said to my son a year later, so did they ever round back to the trans thing? Like, whatever happened with it? And he said ... they bring it up every week. ... [They ask] how many people here still feel confident that they're a boy? Do you still feel sure you're a boy?" she continued. "This is not support. This is not nonbullying. This is indoctrination. And it's deeply confusing to the children, and wrong."

Megyn went on to give examples of how she's seen trans ideology turn "support, nonbullying, kindness, friendship, allyship, on its head."

"The absolute surrender of the medical community to this insanity is a scourge on this nation. It's disgusting what is happening with our doctors," she added. "There are people who are legitimately transgender, or who have gender dysphoria. And for those people, we should be supportive and they should get the care that they need. But what we've done instead, is taken everyone who expresses any kind of gender confusion and said, you're trans. You're trans. And we have our psychiatrists doing this."

"It's crazy," Megyn asserted. "The fact that we're doing this so willy-nilly in the name of allyship and support, it's abusive. It's criminal."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"Never forget" is not only a tribute to those we've lost, it's a warning that it could happen AGAIN. On "Glenn TV" Wednesday, Glenn Beck looks back 20 years ago to the modern generation's Pearl Harbor moment. A day of infamy we're STILL feeling repercussions from.

But in remembering 9/11, we need to look toward the future because the Biden administration is setting us up for the NEXT 9/11. They bungled the Afghanistan withdrawal, and now we have video of top al Qaeda commanders — who served with Osama bin Laden — returning to the country. But could America survive another terror attack?

Glenn asks former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the leader who brought America back from the brink. He tells Glenn about the moment he learned the Twin Towers were struck, the actions he took to prevent more terrorism, and if he thinks NYC could survive another attack under Mayor de Blasio's leadership.

Glenn is also joined by Rev. Johnnie Moore, author of "The Next Jihad." He warns that Biden's policies in the Middle East are Obama 2.0, and "if you thought ISIS was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. We must keep our eyes on Iran."

Watch the full episode of "Glenn TV" below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck and The Nazarene Fund have been working tirelessly to evacuate Americans and our allies from Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. government's failure to do so. But it's been far from easy. A recent Newsweek article, titled "Taliban Holds Up Glenn Beck Group's Planes," addressed some of the most recent challenges. The article claimed that six planes — filled with Americans and SIVs ready for takeoff — were "grounded by the Taliban amid negotiations with the U.S. State Department." So, what's actually going on? Why is the State Department meddling in the rescue? And what are the next steps to get these Americans home?

Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn breaks down the whole story:

UPDATE: Leaked Email Shows State Department STILL Blocking Afghanistan Rescue Flights


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.