Milton Friedman Explaining Free-Market Principle

     NOW, I've only just learned of Milton Friedman, but I'm glad I did.  Here is a guy who could win a Nobel Prize AND be a capitalist.  Even though it might have been some years back, that fact still offers a glimmer of hope to us free-market people.  His knowledge provides a very convincing case for the free-market.  That knowledge and skill at explaining the free-market are on display in a video where young Michael Moore poses the question (to paraphrase):

If the free-market allows Ford to build a car (the Pinto) at the expense of 200 human lives per year, to save $13 per car, is the free-market really right?

     On the surface, like any liberal argument, this seems like a no-brainer ethical principle.  "Holy cow, of course the free-market is terrible if it allows things like this to go on! I mean, evil Ford letting 200 hundred people die each year just to save thirteen dollars to make each Pinto! The free-market should like be totally banned!!"  This is what many people's brains may tell them, and in reality, it is a logical response (maybe not to Michael Moore, who also states in the video he doesn't believe every human life is sacred).  However, Friedman begs us to look at this issue deeper.  I believe in this exchange, he has effectively explained why the free-market is completely ethical.
     Very simply put, the government's role is not to impose regulations over businesses ensuring that every product they make is safe, that every piece of marketing they choose to show to the public is true, and that every decision they make is ethical.  The free-market, as Friedman states, has ethical protections that come in the form of the law.  Those operating a business are not exempt from the laws that other citizens must follow such as lying, cheating, theft and murder.  Anything regulations imposed on business beyond this are un-necessary.  It is the consumer's duty to have the ability to protect themselves based on products they think are worth buying.
     A point he also makes very clear is that virtually every aspect of life could be life-threatening: getting out of bed, walking down stairs, walking across the street, walking up stairs or driving any car (whether it's a Ford Pinto or not).  The point is that while Ford could have spent the extra $13 per car, (possibly) ensuring that 200 lives could be saved each year, it is not up to government to dictate to Ford how they should spend their money.  Therefore, the principle of ethics does not lie in whether or not Ford should have saved $13 per car at the expense of 200 lives per year, but whether or not it is ethical to take people's right to choose to buy that car, and if it is ethical to insult a people's intelligence by suggesting they wouldn't be able to decide if they really should buy a Pinto (maybe the government should have made Ford choose a better name for the thing).
     The bottom line is that ultimately, the free-market is the most ethical system there is because it ensures people's liberty.  One thing I believe is usually missed by those who would argue against the free-market, is that government ultimately takes liberty away from the consumer in the name of their protection.  While a government might "protect" people from a dangerous product, the end result is them taking away the liberty to choose between any product just as they did with the incandescent light bulb.

Here is Friedman explaining the free-market to young Moore (CONTENT WARNING: MICHAEL MOORE ACTUALLY SAYS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED):

Why Most Artists Are Liberals (Reading of the Communist Manifesto Pt. 1)

     KARL MARX, in the "Communist Manifesto", repeatedly uses the "little guy" as an example when arguing the struggle between the oppressed and oppressors.  One of the "little guys" he mentions are artisans.  This could be the reason, be it consciously or sub-consciously, many artists (both fine artists and craftsman) feel themselves leaning toward liberal collectivist doctrine...in other words Communism.  I guess Marx never imagined artists could sell their work and become celebrities in the free market, eh?

Here is Marx citing the artisan in chapter one of the "Communist Manifesto":

"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie"

Where We've Gone Wrong: America's Foreign Policy

     WHILE SEARCHING Youtube tonight for some material for the first ever blog post on Right Side Up, I came across a video of Ron Paul.  In the video, he is giving one of his usual mind blowing monologues regarding the United States' foreign policy.  I've pondered our foreign policy many times and have never been able to come up with an answer as to what's really wrong with it.  We fight terrorism across the globe, and supposedly fight for freedom and democracy.  Sure, we fight for oil and our national interests, but what country doesn't, and besides that benefits our citizens right?  So American really fights for what's right...right?
     The only answer I have ever been able to come up with regarding the flaws in our foreign policy is that we shouldn't fight for democracy, because as the United States, we should understand that democracy isn't what our nation is.  But fighting terrorism is good right?  Preventing terrorists from bombing buildings and taking down airplanes should be a priority for any government that wants to protect its people.  What about fighting for freedom?  Everybody should have the chance to taste freedom, so of course it's good.  Or is it?  At this point, the line begins to blur, and it is when Ron Paul steps in to save the day and clear up some common misconceptions regarding our foreign policy, as it surely is true for our government's domestic policy.
     In his monologue at a CNN Republican debate, Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head.  The United States has abandoned the just war theory and its Christian morals, and replaced it with preemptive strikes and militarism that, as Paul points out, makes our country more unsafe.  As a conservative, this is hard to swallow.  It's hard to admit that America can do any wrong.  That is, however, something all conservatives can admit.  But the facts don't lie, and as a Christian and American it's no secret our government oversteps its boundaries.
     The Just War theory in a nutshell  is that no war should be fought until it is absolutely necessary to do so.  Very few wars are truly "just wars".  After listening to Dr. Paul's monologue, I better understood why our current wars were so controversial.  To paraphrase a quote from C.S. Lewis, one should always beware of "omnipotent moral busybodies".  In other words, too much help can be a bad thing, and it is especially dangerous when the helpers are convinced they are doing the right thing.  I believe this principle to also be true in the case of the United States' foreign policy. 
     While we may or may not be fighting for freedom and democracy around the globe, the point is still being missed.  The number one priority of the United States' government is not to fight for freedom and democracy across the globe, but to fight for it right here at home (not for democracy of course...we're a Republic).  Beyond fighting for the safety of our citizens, the United States government does not have the authority, or obligation to fight any one else's wars, nor does it have the authority to engage in preemptive strikes, or invasions, a point that Ron Paul makes very clear.
     In a separate video where Paul is asked about American exceptionalism, the second part of my realization came to light.  Ron Paul stated that for us to believe America is truly exceptional, we must display the qualities our country was founded on, that truly made us exceptional.  As he likes to say of the Republican party, the same can be said of American ideals: we've lost our way.  We will not be able to restore liberty and set an example to the rest of the world until we grow up, and do it for ourselves.  This means that we must fight to get back the rights endowed to us by our creator at home, so that we can exemplify them to the rest of the world.

Here are the two videos in which Paul explains foreign policy and American Exceptionalism:

Restoration Begins

      IT SEEMS that today, more so than ever before, a collision of cultures, ideals, beliefs, values and philosophies is creating a world where conflict and confusion are the norm, and peace and understanding is the exception.  Multiculturalism pits people's backgrounds in constant conflict with one another to achieve a paradoxical goal: to be equal. The right and left are in a perpetual conflict to prove who is right and why being left is wrong.  Religions, because of multiculturalism and political correctness, are forced to be in conflict not only with the societies in which they exist, but with their very beliefs.  The overwhelming fact, however, is that Christians, the right or anybody that just believes in the general principles of the United States of America are under attack. 
     From this, comes the inspiration for the Right Side Up.  The Right Side Up is to be a source of truth amidst the array of lies and upside down-ness that bombards clear minded and conservative-thinking Americans on a day-to-day basis.  While there are most likely a number of blogs out there that present a conservative point of view, Right Side Up seeks to analyze, examine and comment on the current events and political happenings of the times not just from a conservative standpoint, but in a Christian light, something we believe is essential to the restoration of our country. 
    The hope is that Right Side Up will reach Americans on both "sides of the isle" who are tired of the many lies, games and conflicts present in our society.  To help America regain her glory will require Americans coming together and understanding what is really happening in the world and Right Side Up seeks to achieve that goal.


Restoration begins now.