Firstly, thank you for posting these videos. I found them very interesting and enjoyed watching them very much.

One reason that I liked them was that the interviewer was asking very good questions. I was a lot more impressed with him than I was with Dr. Friedman.

Although I like the general idea of the Libertarian ideals, they just go way too far and this is a good example. Do away with the FDA? Sorry, that's just crazy. Dr. Friedman dismissed the interviewer's example of the prenatal drug causing havoc in Europe as "a favorite example". I don't know, I thought it was a damn good example.

There are very good reasons for "big government". If my child is kidnapped, I'll be calling the FBI rather than the local cops. Ideally, the "big government" comes from the wishes of the people. It doesn't always work out that way and it's a difficult problem, but Dr. Friedman wants to throw the baby out with the bath water.

For a great and detailed commentary on the moral and practical reasons why the FDA should be abolished I recommend the article I link to above from The Objective Standard. The conclusion of the article is only available to subscribers, but as a teaser I will show the first paragraph where this argument about drug companies running amok without the FDA is addressed

The abolition of the FDA would not mean, as some suggest, that pharmaceutical companies would turn into snake-oil salesmen peddling false “cures” to a gullible public. Rather, it would mean that a marketplace full of profit-seeking businessmen and industrialists would be free to innovate with respect to the best ways to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs. A free market would still involve risks; risk is inherent in human life, and nothing can change that. But the profit motive, businessmen’s reputations, stockholders’ demands, insurance companies’ requirements, the judgment of doctors and patients, laws against fraud, private review organizations, and other free-market factors would contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a market in which the safety and efficacy of drugs would be at the peak of what current technology and market demand would bear.

@whistleDick: it's a strawman argument to talk about calling the FBI rather than local police in order to make the point that Dr. Friedman's libertarianism goes "too far". The Department of Justice and the functions it performs are not things that Dr. Friedman thought should not be government functions. In all of the interviews and writings of his I have so far read, Dr. Friedman was always careful to state that he thought government was necessary.

"Dr. Friedman dismissed the interviewer's example of the prenatal drug causing havoc in Europe as "a favorite example". I don't know, I thought it was a damn good example."

So apparently you stopped watching when Friedman pointed out that the FDA has caused more deaths by delaying the release of good drugs than by preventing the release of bad ones. That the nature of a government agency is to be overly cautious so as to avoid direct blame and the loss of political power.

Freidman's main point is that a company has more interest and ability to do what's best for their customers (in the name of profits) than some disinterested and bumbling third party (i.e. the government.)

If my child is kidnapped, I'll be calling the FBI rather than the local cops.

And unless you can show evidence that your child has been taken across state lines, the FBI will tell you they have no jurisdiction, and that maybe you should call your local constabulary, or your state's LEO organization.

MF is a fave thinker of mine.
What a lot of people don't know is that
1. MF believed in taxing pollution.
2. MF thoguht the home mortgage interest tax decution sohould be wiped out.
3. MF thought the gold standard was for gold nuts, not serious people.
4. MF thought militaries should be financed by progressive consumption taxes.
5. MF thought sexual harrassment laws of all kinds were not warranted (a business that harrassed employees would be less competitive).
6. That a bar legally could have a sign out front that said, "We refuse to serve Jewish women (or any other group)." And they could enforce, legally, that barring of Jewish women (this is obviously a bar for Jewish men).

"to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." Milton F

if there is a BEST takeaway of anything Milton says [it's in the 5th vid] it is this. why does head start take millions of dolars a year even though by it's own reckoning it doesn't have better results? because of it's good intention. Medicade/Medicare likewise.

If you measure on result, THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE THINGS WORK. Dunno if headstart could be made to work. perhaps it would be better just to call it low income childcare, and let it go at that. The logic in HAVING it is open for debate, but the fact that it doesn't realize it's stated goals, maens it shouldn't be given more money until we find out why.
Same with medicare. What are it's stated goals? Is it meeting them?

If you boil it down, ALL government waste is based on this. That the original idea, the intention is good, and so we should shovel money at it to realize that intent. Usually there is some kind of required outcome, but the people controlling OFTEN kick those requirements to the right, or they are so ambiguous to begin with that they could mean anything. This is especially true of social programs whose intention is so warm, fuzzy and noble.

It is THAT intent, rather than the outcome, that is driving pretty much all of our government.

I agree with SwissArmyD.

The best thing to take away from this is to judge not based on the intent but at the actual results...such as the sex offender list.

One of my favorite scholars unravels Milton Friedman (more for the academic crowd, I will admit):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

I enjoy Friedman's writings and philosophy, but it is very difficult to disagree with Rothbard's pinpoint analysis above. I had even scratched my head when Friedman wrote in "Capitalism & Freedom" that he felt the Federal Reserve Bank (the most anti free-market entity on the planet) didn't do enough mangling to prevent the Great Depression. WTF?

Otherwise, depsite Rothbard's reservations, these were some fantastic videos, especially the last one.

Nice work :-)

Ian

Freidman's main point is that a company has more interest and ability to do what's best for their customers (in the name of profits) than some disinterested and bumbling third party (i.e. the government.)

The number of drugs that have gotten a black box warning (Avandia, Celebrex, Plavix, etc.) has just increased over the years. When you look closer at the studies -- they looked more at the efficacy than the safety. Just google neurontin. Totally fucking worthless except for a small population; but the drug was sold for everything. At least it was "safe".

The FDA is a joke.

If you look at 90% of the government agencies and compare where they are in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights -- you can't find it.

Find me the Dept. of Ed in the Constitution. Find the EPA in the Constitution. When you can come back and tell me.

Love Love Love Milton Friedman.

There is a 5th part to this interview BTW - and this interviewer has a lot of interesting people. Browse the archives at:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/