Many thanks to Youtube user brittle13 for posting this full interview (in 5 parts):

On Slavery and Colonialism (Note how the rambling student reveals his hand by referring to “so-called” communist countries, and “so-called” democratic countries…)

Morality and Economic Policy:

On the Ford Pinto, and Principled Business:

I attended a lecture once at the University of Oregon that was similar to this. Lots of sign waving and emotional outbursts over the speaker. The conformity of the shouting mob was only drowned out by their self-congratulation for courageously ‘standing alone’ on their collective ideas.

“I do not know any exception to the proposition, that if you compare like with like – the freer the system, the better off the ordinary poor people have been.”
- Milton Friedman

The late Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman created a great series on economic freedom called Free To Choose. It is lengthy (each segment is about 45 minutes), but thorough, and does a great job making the case for economic freedom. Whether or not you agree with all aspects of his theories – this series is a great asset for anyone who wishes to discuss economics and government.

If you don’t have time to sit and watch these videos, you can also simply listen to them while you work.

Each part begins with an introduction, and ends with a panel discussion on the topic presented:

Part 1: The Power of the Market

Part 2: The Tyranny of Control

Part 3: Freedom & Prosperity

I can’t find the other parts on Google Video, but you can watch Part 4: The Failure of Socialism, and Part 5: Created Equal at ideaChannel.tv.

UPDATE: I think that Part 3 and 4 are actually combined. I’m not certain about this – but as far as I can tell – this is the case. Feel free to leave a comment if you discover otherwise.

Firstly, it is important to understand that conservatives are not anti-taxation. Obviously, government does have a function – and must be funded to carry out it’s function. Therefore, the rift in thinking on this issue consists of two basic underlying principals: Private Property Rights, and The Functions of Government.

Private Property Rights

I have discussed Private Property Rights at greater length in the second part of my series titled: Why Reject Socialism: Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality. Rather than repeat myself here – I encourage you to read that section first, if you wish to get a fuller discussion. The conservative philosophy on Private Property Rights breaks down to these summarized points (note – this list isn’t meant to be a strict logical progression):

• Private Property is the result of a man’s labor
• A man’s labor is the result of a man’s rational mind, acting on free choices (in this case, to be productive)
• Thus – The Right to Private Property is really the unalienable right of an individual to the product of that individual’s own mind
• Therefore – the government, being the only institution with the power to take by force, must only be allowed the absolute minimum amount control of an individual’s mind.

That’s just a summary of the viewpoint – but hopefully, you can see how a conservative would view Private Property Rights, and Human Rights as totally inseparable.

The Functions of Government

Though people may differ in some aspect on the conservative view of private property – the functions, or role of government, is where the real disputes appear to be. One of the reasons that conservatives oppose higher taxation, is that the tax money goes from individuals to fund programs that should not lie within the function of government.

Most often – these programs are created out of a desire to ‘fix‘ what some view as a social or societal ill. When these programs are discussed – they are done so in a manner that implies a higher moral necessity, (such as – social justice) thus justifying the program’s existence. Government programs for social problems like: poverty, drugs, health-care, and the environment, are all justified by this moral imperative. However, by far the most common morally justified government crusade is said to combat ‘greed’.

Obviously, thousands of words have been written over this subject, but I think Thomas Sowell accurately relates the conservative’s concern (emphasis mine):

One of the last refuges of someone whose pet project or theory has been exposed as economic nonsense is to say: “Economics is all very well, but there are also non-economic values to consider.” Presumably, these are supposed to be higher and nobler concerns that soar above the level of crass materialism. Of course there are non-economic values. In fact, there are only non-economic values…. Economics does not say you should make the most money possible…. What lofty talk about “non-economic values” usually boils down to is that some people do not want their own particular values weighed against anything.

[...]

“Lofty talk about “non-economic values” too often amounts to very selfish attempts to impose one’s own values, without having to weigh them against other people’s values. Taxing away what other people have earned, in order to finance one’s own fantasy ventures, is often depicted as a humanitarian endeavor, while allowing others the same freedom and dignity as oneself, so they can make their own choices with their own earnings, is considered to be pandering to “greed.” Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had “revolutionary values” that were devastating to the general population.”

-Thomas Sowell

For some reason, people seem to view private parties as the only entity capable of greed. Likewise, many people view the government as somehow above and exempt from any form of ‘greed’. Of course, this assumption is utter rubbish to anyone who has even the faintest grasp of governments throughout history. J. R. R. Tolkien hit the nail on the head in the opening of The Fellowship of The Ring:

“Nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else desire power.”

Even in America, where our founders were wise enough to create a system of checks and balances, a constitution, and bill of rights designed to limit the power of government – the government still remains the single most powerful entity. Conservatives view, as Sowell correctly states, the greed for power, as far more dangerous than the greed for money and property.

T.S. Elliot said:

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

While private corporations can be greedy for money, they do not have the power of force to take money from your pocket, as the government does. Thus – the functions and role of government, from the conservative perspective, ought to be limited only to those things that are absolutely necessary to protecting the existence of a civil and free society.

Historian, Paul Johnson wrote:

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

At this point – most people will begin to argue that, since “money is power,” certain social programs actually help equalize the playing field and protect the individual. I will concede that this could be possible. However, these programs must be judged by their end results, and not by the nobility of their intentions. While I don’t have the time here to present the data –  in most cases, it can be shown that the end results are not worth the tax money invested.

Milton Friedman also talkes about this idea extensively in this video that I discussed previously:

Thus, for the most part, conservatives believe that increasing taxes does two things.

1. It takes away property – and thus the rights of the individual to the product of their mind.
2. It increases the power of the government through massive programs, which do not provide results justifying their existence.

In my view – this is really a bi-partison idea. I personally think that you and I, are far better judges of what to spend our money on, than the federal government. The problem with federal programs is that they cannot possibly account for the vast diversity of the people under them. (Take for instance, No Child Left Behind. How in the world can the federal government possibly account for the needs of each individual school – let alone each student?) The more localized and individual a solution can be, the better.

So when I hear about how a new government solution (requiring more taxes) is coming that will ‘fix’ things – I believe the response, “Thanks, but no thanks!” is justified by history, as well as a sober view of society and reality.

Consider this my Tea Party sign. I would hope that these ideas are discussed at the protests today.

This is a good thing to keep in mind as we discuss ideas like Capitalism and Socialism. When you feel angry about rich and wealthy people – don’t forget that they don’t just stuff their money in mattresses (though they certainly are free to do so). They invest that money in businesses, buy houses, and build things. This investment employs a vast amount of talent from all sorts of people.

While some people with wealth may be motivated by greed – this does not justify jealousy, coveting, and the demonizing of all people with wealth (one of the foundations of Marxism). Nor does it justify stealing from those (by governmental force through unfair taxation) to redistribute that wealth to people who did not rightfully earn it. Remember – most people with wealth did not steal it. They offered a product or service that someone else valued more than their own dollars, and then chose voluntarily to trade for. If we wish to value freedom as a people, we have no right to then turn around and confiscate the property of the wealthy that they earned by trading fairly.

One of the foundational rights of a free people is the right to the wages of their own labors (more commonly referred to as the right to private property). This is the core of Capitalism. All other systems, in one from or another, deny private property, and end in collective slavery to the State (government coerced collectivism).

I will expand on these thoughts in part two of my study on Rejecting Socialism (be sure to read Part 1 Here, if you haven’t already). It is taking me a while to write, not only because I have been busy – but also because I want to make sure that I am thorough and fair. Be sure to keep checking back!

For example, most conservatives would agree with the intention of most social programs, such as the minimum wage, or social security. However, the question that a conservative might ask would be, a) does the particular social program achieve its stated goals, and b) does it do this by trampling upon another individual’s liberty?

Milton Friedman discusses many of these misconceptions (still totally relevant today) about capitalism, greed, social security, minimum wage, the free market, etc in the video below: