Image 01 Image 03

Milton Friedman v. Obama/Warren/Lakoff

Milton Friedman v. Obama/Warren/Lakoff

Today would be Milton Friedman’s 100th birthday.

I’ve played this video before, but it’s particularly timely in light of the “you didn’t build that” narrative which has become the foundation of the Obama campaign taken from Elizabeth Warren who took it from George Lakoff.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Reading and viewing “Free To Choose” was an epiphany for me.

Prior to that, I held a lot of nebulous conservative notions, but the Friedmans (Milton AND his smarter wife, Rose) showed me things that allowed all those notions to coalesce.

And Milton was always this cheerful, beautifully rational guy who LOVED people, and taught me that economics is really only about people, and their choices. And that people’s choices are sacred.

Contra Warren/Obama/Marx/et. al.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 31, 2012 at 10:59 am

    “… And Milton was always this cheerful, beautifully rational guy who LOVED people, …”

    That’s why I love Milton. I’ve come across a lot of very bright people who love the average Joe and Jane in theory … in theory … but who in reality despise, and want no interaction with common people.

    There’s no law against being arrogant. But being a great man without being arrogant is a truly rare accomplishment and makes such a man a wonderful work of art in my book.

    That’s Uncle Milton. We could really use him now. I’d love to get his response to Obama and Warren. It would be especially devastating because it would be given cheerfully in all sincerity.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 31, 2012 at 12:50 pm


      X 1,000,000!

      Ragspierre in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm

      “That’s why I love Milton.”

      And one reason we love Ronald Reagan. Both happy, cheerful, gracious men who loved people and America.

        LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 31, 2012 at 2:02 pm


        X 1,000,000,000

        You know, intellect, I believe, is a crapshoot at birth. I definitely come down on the mostly nature side vs. nurture.

        We can’t all have Milton Friedman’s intellect.

        But intelligence is just one aspect of being human. When it comes to devloping one’s character, I believe nobody has an inherent advantage. It’s up to each and every individual to develop his or her character.

        What makes Milton so endearing is that, unlike so many intellectually great men enamored of their own intellectual greatness, Milton seemed intent on developing his character, also.

        I’ll take a happy warrior like Milton or Ronnie over a prickly warrior like Barack any day of the week.

        Isn’t it ironic that Barack has 1,000,000,000 times the arrogance of Uncle Milton?

          Ragspierre in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          Narcissist = prickly warrior like Barack (and all they have is their arrogance to cover their extreme insecurity.)

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 31, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Free markets lift us all. People’s “revolutions” inevitably result in tyranny. Forgiveness and self-betterment redeem society while embittered extortions in the name of “social justice” poison it. None of these simple truths is hidden in the film. That is why left-leaning critics on both coasts have reacted to the movie with the same willful blindness with which they view history.

    They should instead take a tip from Batman’s faithful butler Alfred: “Maybe it’s time we all stopped trying to outsmart the truth, and let it have its day.”
    –Andrew Klavan

    Milton and Rose would be proud.

To Warren and Dear Leader, life is a series of struggles that they identify for their flock to demonize and wage war against, while they do nothing to improve the lot of the ‘victims’ beyond telling them how virtuous they(both the victim and the sympathizers)are, while financially rewarding themselves for their ‘caring’.

Just look at the blacks and their so called leaders. Sharpton and Jackson can’t solve the problems simply because their bread is buttered by the misery of their flocks. Sack cloth and ashes are fine, but the “Revrunds” look so much better in a thousand dollar suit!

Friedman had their numbers years ago and was absolutely correct.

Utopian loving lefties like Phil Donahue live in the dream world of, “it should be better, it could be better”.
Ironically, Phil himself made a fortune working the capitalist system, and he is blind to that fact.

That’s a lefty for you. They hate the very system that allowed them to freely prosper.

Milton always makes Phil look like an utter fool.
Because he is one.
Miss you, Mr. Friedman!

    LukeHandCool in reply to Tamminator. | July 31, 2012 at 11:01 am

    It’s hard to believe that Milton didn’t have a lasting effect on Phil. Phil must be dumber than he looks.

      Conservative Beaner in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 31, 2012 at 7:48 pm

      You can’t fix stupid. Ignorance yes, but not stupid.

      Perhaps had Phil been actually listening to Friedman, but from the blank look on his face it’s quite apparent that Donahue was doing anything but listening.

      I’d wager that at the end of the show Donahue would have been utterly incapable of explaining what Friedman had just said.

[…] Milton Friedman v. Obama/Warren/Lakoff – Legal Insurrection […]

We would be better off as a nation today if Obama had sat at Friedmans knee instead of sitting in the lap of Frank Marshall Davis the Communist.

After all the experience we’ve had as a society, after the Reagan revolution, after seeing the poverty and misery created by socialists here in the U.S. and around the glove, we must continue to relitigate socialism v. liberty (capitalism) in every generation. That is why it is so important for an Obama (or Fauxchahontis) to urge us always to forget history and experience.

Mark Levin has so eloquently pointed this out in Obama’s speeches. Remember the famous “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” History starts now with “change you can believe in!” Do not ask change to what? From what?

Obama will “fundamentally transform” the United States. To what we do not need to ask. Get on board for “progress”! We must relentlessly move forward.

As former communist Whittaker Chambers pointed out in Witness, this forward progress is the great salve for those who have no faith in God Almighty. Don’t worry, lose yourself in the collective. Soon we will have a worker’s paradise right here on earth.

Many of my conservative friends don’t like to hear this but the more this nation falls away from God, the more the socialists will capture the people. You can make the argument to people as Friedman and Hayek did the overall you will benefit more from capitalism than you will from socialism. But the allure of socialism is all too immediate for too many people.

The choice is between a promise about more prosperity and security from freedom in contrast to a government check for your disability or income redistribution in the form of tax credits or social security checks or what have you.

    n.n in reply to Malonth. | July 31, 2012 at 10:40 am

    You’re right. American conservatism can be best described as classical liberalism tempered by Judeo-Christian principles. Our system of optimal liberty and, in fact, any system which preserves liberty, requires as a prerequisite members capable of self-moderating behavior. It’s not a simple coincidence that our nation was developed under Christian guidance.

    Neither redistributive (nor its vengeful cousin, retributive) change nor fraud should be acceptable to a civilized people. It serves very few interests to sabotage character development and engender a lifelong dependency. There are reasonable compromises, and while they may not involve equal quantity, they must involve equal quality of participation, other than in the rare exception. The goal should be to promote the “general Welfare” while containing the detrimental effects of progressive corruption.

    To this end, individuals need to reject dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, and ego). We need to preserve individual dignity and the intrinsic value of each human life (from conception to grave). If we do not, then progressive corruption will be comprehensive, corrosive, and ultimately terminal.

    n.n in reply to Malonth. | July 31, 2012 at 10:54 am

    One point of contention. It would be helpful to distinguish between contributory and non-contributory (i.e. welfare) entitlements. It’s unfortunate that Social Security and Medicare are suffering under waste, fraud, and abuse; but, they do represent a reasonable compromise to provide for people near their end of life or when they are involuntarily and irreconcilably disabled.

      Malonth in reply to n.n. | July 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      As Friedman so eloquently pointed out though, social security (at least as it is structured) is really a great fraud (my words). As we all know, there is no social security trust fund. Social security tax revenues go straight into general operations. Moreover, the elderly recipients of social security payments are as a group the most wealthy in society.

      People coming out of high school or college (most with massive debt) pay onerous taxes for social security and medicare. Both systems they will likely never be able to benefit from. The government then makes payments to people who least need it.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to n.n. | July 31, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      Wisdom. Instructive, insightful, wisdom.


It is competing interests which keep the honest people honest and others from running amuck. It is the market economy composed of empowered individuals which determines “fair” distribution (and who will enjoy the privilege of a beachfront property in Hawaii). It is a republican form of government which enfranchises and preserves the rights of individuals.

It is progressive involuntary exploitation, denigration of individual dignity, and devaluation of human life which sponsors corruption of individuals, society, and humanity. It is dreams of instant gratification which is the source of the worst human and civil rights violations throughout the world and history. It is promises to fulfill those dreams while dissociating accountability which opportunists seize upon to consolidate wealth and power under their minority control.

The choice should be clear. The first order of exploitation should be voluntary, including economic exchange, and charitable works and donations to aid individuals who momentarily falter. The second order of exploitation is involuntary and approved through a democratic process carried forward by elected representatives. Its principal guidance is established in the preamble of our constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the course of distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary exploitation, we should also distinguish between the merits of centralized and distributed processing. The former will invariably include involuntary exploitation, which may in different circumstances present a more effective outcome, but should be limited and accountable through a representative process. Any mechanism which involves involuntary exploitation or coerced redistribution must be strictly limited and accountable to the people affected in order to contain the progress of corruption.

My wife tells me that Lakoff is Russian for tosser!

    LukeHandCool in reply to jdkchem. | July 31, 2012 at 11:03 am

    I’ve replaced Google Translate with jdkchem Translate in my favorites.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      I use Yahoo Babelfish Translater, not because it’s better, but I couldn’t refuse the Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Universe reference.

I love the Greed clip too, but there are an assortment of great Friedman clips on YouTube. I especially enjoy how Milton skewers Phil Donahue. He was such a happy warrior and does it with such grace, Donahue almost gets converted!

Here’s a businessman getting “bitch-slapped” for not properly acknowledging that his business was built by the government:

Obama critics benefit from government contracts

In 2011 the company won two competitive bids for government contracts that made up about 15% of it’s annual revenue, so ergo, he’s a hypocrite for not acknowledging that his business was built with the help of the government.

Milwaukee small-business owner Ken Dragotta flatly rejects the notion that government played a significant role in his firm’s success.

He and his family, he says, are responsible for what Systems Engineering and Automation Corp. has achieved.

But here’s something Dragotta doesn’t reject:

Contract work for federal agencies.

Dragotta was one of a handful of company men deployed in Wisconsin by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s team to attack President Barack Obama over his recent remark that “if you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Someone else made it happen.” Similar events were held in other battleground states.

This is what happens when you cross Obama.

The Republicans should play this front and center on big screens all over their convention, when all of the media is covering the convention–that is if the media covers it.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm

It’s good to see the early Phil Donahue, who was such a great interviewer. Then, he went off the rails and started interviewing people with the objective of being confrontational and controversial. His next stop was interviewing transsexual school janitors who marry teachers and similar ilk.

From there to Jerry Springer was…[snaps fingers] that quick.

Thanks for posting this.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 31, 2012 at 12:59 pm

The beauty of this post is the comments, mine excluded, of course. Y’all are some amazing folks.


So tired of all these wealthy liberal celebrities decrying the unfairness of capitalism. I wonder if Phil and Marlo (and the rest of them)live on a resonable salary, say 200,000, and give the rest away to those less fortunate. Highly doubtful that they don’t enjoy their more costly perks that they could live without…in order to give to others and make things more “fair”. I await their donations.

    quiksilverz24 in reply to avan. | July 31, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    I’ve always told my liberal friends down at the local watering hole that I will take their donation to pay for my health insurance premiums. It has always lead to some sort of fight, but it just shows that they have the true level of greed!! Always fun to tick off a lib!!

Lakoff to Warren to Obama: trickle down Oblahmics

And Friedman’s student, Thomas Sowell, learned well from the master — from Barbarians Inside The Gates:

I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.

Here’s Thomas Sowell’s 100th birthday tribute to Milton Friedman:
On Milton Friedman’s 100th Birthday, He’s Needed More Than Ever.

…rhymes with…