lets hope thats the kind of grand children he had..

I believe Patri Friedman did do that in fact

An talking about his help for Pinochet who tortured his people - what a bedtimestory from graddaddy.

I loved to ask questions for hours in the evenings and listen to my dad's explanations. Not saying my Dad has the same brain as Milton, but I was blessed to recognize his wisdom early on.

Proud capitalist you'd feel about 0-5!!!.....

Damn right.

and also the exact reason why liberals are right and libertarians are wrong... :D

exactely. Everyone should have the right to do the wrong thing.

Also is an excellent rebuttal to people saying Friedman supported or accepted Pinochet's regime

jhgjhgj, Yes, as long as "doing the wrong thing" doesn't impose a cost on anyone else.

Yea, i feel like this interviewer was a legend for some reason

Joshua Brown he’s still doing interviews for Hoover Institution still

They never did, this guy is unique.

ther are planty on youtube who do interviews with very intelligent and knowlegeble people

You knew journalists! 😲 My mom told me about them but I thought it was just a fairytale!

The left-wing "liberals" would call him a NAZI.

He's still around. There's an Uncommon Knowledge podcast that you should check out.

+Mark Apsolon His son even moreso.

Smart, but misleading. The result of human nature is people rarely think they are "interfering with anybody else". But even when you take a home loan you are doing just that.

In what way does taking a home loan interfere with someone else? After contemplating the question myself the only things I could come up with were two that actually resulted from scarcity. In the first case, my borrowing of the money meant that it wasn't available for another loan applicant to borrow the same money (presuming that the current paradigm of fractional reserve banking didn't result in the banks having unlimited fiat money to lend), and the second being that my purchase of the house with the loan precluded other individuals from buying that same house (they might still buy others if they wish though, naturally). You might argue that by entering into the loan agreement with the bank "interferes" with my life (or theirs, such as it is), but how can this be? I am taking the loan voluntarily, just as they are offering it to me of their own volition based on my qualification and my promise to pay back the money with interest. Any restrictions (I must pay taxes, carry insurance, provide a down payment or sufficient other collateral) are in the contract to protect both parties interest in an asset they both hold equity in (the home) or they are coercive regulations imposed by government and not the fault of either party. If I am dissatisfied with the conditions under which the bank is willing to lend me money then I can choose another bank or choose not to get a loan. In my mind that covers virtually every aspect of the loan process, so what exactly about it is irking you?

He was very smart and very well spoken, but not really arguing from accurate premise. He uses a lot of rationalizing tricks of sorts which sound reasonable but which are entirely false or half true out of context to pull fast ones on people. Mostly just arguing from false premise and leaping to conclusions. But Neoliberalism has lead to debt and credit crisis worldwide while creating a class of super rich like the world has never seen while at the same time it has enabled unsustainable debt peonage and burdens pretty much throughout the contemporary world.

I wish everyone in the world thought like him

Chris Gregory the good ol' days

3:15, just in case

If you like that, at the 5 minute mark in this clip #45 is associated to Mother Teresa by Milton Friedman: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fnueZnePgIWqzn0.html That was from one of his discussions on our immoral drug policies. His full lecture on medical care is still spot on too, and the AMA still has their monopoly to this day: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q6NmhK6Ho6Sep58.html

I legit had never heard of trump before 2016. Weird how well known he was

Joshua Brown You live in a bubble then. He's been known synonymous with real estate since the 80s. He was big in the news for becoming a billionaire then going broke then got rich again and filing bankruptcy multiple times afterwards. He considered himself the "king of debt"...literally losing other peoples money and filing bankruptcy not to pay them back lol.

The beautiful combination of a vast intellectual superiority and a kind heart.

We still have his wisdom and we can still follow his advice.

People didn't listen before, what makes you think they'll listen now? Of course I would like Friedman back, but to help us today, the bottleneck isn't in knowledge. It's in reproducible ways to combat ignorance.

We have millions of dr Friedman’s, we just haven’t seen them yet.

He'd be considered a dirty commie for his suggestion of handling environmental issues with pollution credits alone. That's what Al Gore tried to do, after all...

We still have Ron Paul, which is a blessing!

+ExtractEngineer Hahah And eventually everything will just go back a huge gov't! LOL You Minarchast crack me up! You think you are better and wiser and more level headed than commies when they're really just your statist cousins!

+Al S There are plenty of voluntaryist leftists. Personally I'm an egoist identifying as AnCap, rationalized using a synthesis of deontological and consequentialist reasoning.

Are you implying you are a voluntaryist leftist or just stating that there are plenty? I'm just wondering because "leftist" and "AnCap" are diametrically opposed. If you had said anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist/libertarian socialist then that would have been a different story because they are compatible.

Stacy Keen Try reading it again. And no, there are people who want voluntary collectives without forcing them on anyone. Hell, you can have a voluntaryist socialist as long as they don't force their state on you.

Egoism is based on individualism, even though it does talk of collectives, because they are voluntary.

mrtimjitsu Not all libertarians are Satanists- but all Satanists are libertarian.I care not what label you put on your philosophy- but the philosophy reflects your belief.

jackchorn so Satanists don't want to tell others what to do and refuse to be controlled by others. Well how about that! I guess there is a little good in everyone.

Mark Marsh yeah he promoted a free, non violent form of economics. where everyone cooperated through voluntary interaction, not coercion... how horrible.

mrtimjitsu Milton Friedman- free- non violent- non coercion? In 1973 Friedman was flown to Chile to personally oversee the economics of dictator Pinochet. The Previous government had just been forcefully overthrown by this fascist leader with help of the US governmemt, The reason for this coup is -like most coups in central and south America- the democratically elected or supported government is over thrown because they do not share the philosophy of the US. And this philosophy is, of course, that of Chicago school. I find it interesting that the citizens needed to be controlled in order to enact these policies. This also happened a few years latter in Argentina.The trend especially in the south and in the North as well is the population is naturally moving to more of a socialist model. After 40 or so years of Chicago school economics the affects of the philosophy are all to apparent. Lets just hope that the people in leadership do not decide to defend their friedman philosophy again on a massive scale with violence. Friedmans philosophy does work just fine. There is no right or wrong- simply what kind of society you want. The numbers are in- the philosophy has been practiced for some time now. For the first time in US history quality of life is down. Middle class down. Mobility down. Equality down- on and on. We know the outcome- Do you support this?

+Mark Marsh lol... truth? So to you the truth is a bunch of unsupported claims? The vapid left in this country is nauseating.

They are going very quickly across the western world as people think they are getting things for "free" from government which they aren't and the day of reckoning is coming

Where???

P, every liberty-loving LEGAL American Citizen ... SHOULD BE!

Absolutely

their*

Sorry, we do not have a longer version.

I absolutely agree with this. Too bad there's no longer version, or that the interview wasn't longer.

Give me the unreleased footage !!!!

I would love to see the raw footage. Would the hoover institute be able to locate the records and put them together to sell the unedited footage?

I think this video is a good example of honest cutting, unlike dishonest VICE media treatment of Dr. Peterson. The interviewer provides a brief but helpful ( ! ) introduction and then you're off!

In the past, well, this might have been true. But "if"s don't have a role in the present time. So, today, I say that if someone, or a group of people, publicly manifested their desired of owning the park, they'd realize that being commited to preserve the park and its most authentic characteristics, they'd produce A LOT MORE value to their customers than if they'd destroy the whole thing and sell it to real estate.

The text might be confusing cus my English is a bit rusty and I'm kind of drunk on this sunday afternoon.

+weenisw You imply that all parks (not just Central Park) would never come to exist in the first place. Or at least the kind of parks that people could freely walk through. If the individual owner(s) don't feel like profiting from a park, and instead want a Walmart, then yes, Central Park as we know it would cease to exist, but it doesn't mean that a Central Park-like estate couldn't and therefore wouldn't exist. I'm sure you're not alone in wanting parks to exist. I like parks myself. But this just means there's a demand for parks. As libertarians we believe that wherever there's demand, there's entrepreneurial ability. If a business opens a park, but has a fence around it as you pointed out, then the next business that opens up a park that figures out how to profit without a barrier in place has an advantage. Of course this assumes that most people prefer parks without walls, but it's probable that there will many different flavors of parks to satisfy all sorts of demand. And because they're in competition with other parks, that incentivizes the private owner(s) to continue to maintain and improve their park. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Central Park is free to maintain and upkeep. The taxes the state government of New York receives from the citizens is the price of admission.

OK, let's address your argument. Let's say that someone DID buy the park, and invested billions into improving it and charged an admission fee. That park because of a profit motive would be run better, offer more, and benefit THOSE THAT USE IT, more than the taxpayer who does not benefit from it now, while still shouldering it's costs and loss of tax receipts.

+Roger didit +Kevin Cano +Virgilio Marques I want to thank you all for your thoughts. I'm glad to have these points to ponder and hopefully reach a higher level of understanding. For the record Kevin, I had forgotten to account for the taxes utilized for maintenance. That is certainly an important factor.