WriteLite (July 9, 2009 at 3:04 am)

Oh, I agree on your comment on mutual cooperation.With regards to individual freedom, how do you "force" it in the light of an environment where forces larger than an individual exist? Things like corporations, political parties, labor unions, special interest groups, and the like.

WriteLite (July 9, 2009 at 2:59 am)

On the issue of American government programs, the primary expenditures of consequence are in national defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Everything else is chump change.I dare not hazard to second-guess the military with regards to their budget req'ments, only to disagree with the military missions being imposed upon them by previous gov't administrations.With regards to Social Security, I believe it is fiscally sound.Medicare, on the other hand, continues to be problematic.

jonreed819 (July 9, 2009 at 1:47 am)

The biggest motivation in society is individual freedom, because that's what society is made up of - individuals. If you ask anyone if they'd rather make their own decisions if they want to make their own decisions or have someone else make them for them, I doubt you'll get too many who'd choose the latter. Govt programs don't work because they are based on FORCE. And force is the most inefficient way of accomplishing anything. U don't get what u want by force. U get it thu mutual cooperation.

jonreed819 (July 9, 2009 at 1:41 am)

Sorry. I meant an AMERICAN government program...not one of a country that's been in a 20-year recession. And I've read more on health care, here and in other countries, than you can possibly imagine.

WriteLite (July 9, 2009 at 12:09 am)

Last point, do I believe that such a system can work in the US? I'm not sure. In a contentious social environment, no political program of consequence can work.Mr. Friedman, in a TV debate in Iceland, suggests that the success of social welfare systems in Scandinavian countries might be due to the homogeneous nature of the civic values of their citizens. And I agree -- social security and welfare is not for all countries, and Mr. Friedman's qualification with regards to this is valid IMHO.

WriteLite (July 9, 2009 at 12:06 am)

Now with regards descriptions and numbers, look for the Japanese social security system in the Internet, and the universal healthcare overview in Wiki.Any attempts by me to link discards this comment, and the numbers are just too much to type here in one go.

WriteLite (July 8, 2009 at 11:47 pm)

I did not say that self-interest is not a motivation in society -- just that it is not the SOLE primary defining motivation. And neither is charity. There are other aspirations -- quest for knowledge and justice, courage and valor in conflicts, humility and a prayerful attitude in life.Ayn Rand's contempt for altruism is not universal, though it seems quite popular when you look at its book sales once in a while.

jonreed819 (July 8, 2009 at 10:32 pm)

If self-interest isn't the motivation in a society...if human nature is charity, then why do we even need govt intervention?.Name one efficient government bureaucratic program. Please have the numbers to back it up, don't simply speculate that it's efficient because some politician says it is.

jonreed819 (July 8, 2009 at 10:30 pm)

Those are very lofty goals, but what is your plan for appropriately financing such a welfare system and still foster the kind of economic activity to support it? It seems that those who have great ideals and goals for society never actually have the plan to achieve them. The kind of economic growth that has afforded the charities - private and public - that we've enjoyed, along with a majority of the people in employment, hasn't come from taxation and regulation...in any nation.

emremokoko (July 8, 2009 at 7:44 pm)

2. Many of the rich countries of today, did not become rich through the free market. They became rich, and then they started advocated free markets. Read "The Visible Hand" by Alfred Chandler."Alfred Einstein did not construct his theory on orders from a bureaucrat" - is "getting orders" the ONLY alternative to self-interest? What about individuals working for the interest of others? What about people constructing theories just because they like to, or good at it?

emremokoko (July 8, 2009 at 7:38 pm)

So, just two remarks,1. According to Friedman's ideas, any kind of social order (not just communism or fascism) is wrong, since they are all based on social rules limiting, to a degree, the autonomy of the individual. What he says is, from a more general standpoint, the should be no society, only a collection of individuals. Have you ever taken a good look at Liberia, or Ruanda? Those are examples of societies with no rules, no central authority to regulate the actions of the individual.

WriteLite (July 8, 2009 at 2:41 pm)

In comparisons between countries, the bottom 20% of a wealthy society is better off compared to the bottom 20% of a poor society. Moreover, I would hasten to add that "fascism" and capitalism isn't mutually exclusive. Some dictatorial/non-democratic regimes have adopted free-market capitalist policies and have succeeded.But that's beside the point -- why is it that welfare systems in other democratic free market capitalist countries other than the US, in Japan for example, successful?