Email from W.H.:
Many times when people discuss Milton Friedman's fourth category of spending they do so in a mistaken vacuum. How so? They forget to point out HOW other people's money came to be. Stated alternatively, other people spending other people's money on other people, the discussion thereof, many, many times leaves out Friedman's first point: coercion.
Hence one ends with an isolated discussion of how Friedman's fourth category of spending points out the careless way or ineffective/inefficient way that occurs by other people [politico]spending other people's money [taxpayer] on other people [recipient class]. True enough but it decouples the coercion and only discusses the single phenomena without discussing [coupling] the ability of such a phenomena to emerge. Think about it, how many times have you heard the discussion, in isolation, of other people [cheese master] spending other people's cheese [cheese payer] on other people [cheese recipient class]??
Meanwhile, twenty six discussions later a separate subject is discussed regarding coercion of forcibly appropriating other people's money. Better yet, this discussion many times appears in isolation from Friedman's total discussion.
Nay, nay! One must correctly discuss both subjects as coercion must occur first and only then can one arrive at other people spending other people's money on other people.
Problem solved! Please go to 11:00 to 11:34 of the youtube link below and hear Friedman himself properly layout the discussion.
Here is the video...
Many times when people discuss Milton Friedman's fourth category of spending they do so in a mistaken vacuum. How so? They forget to point out HOW other people's money came to be. Stated alternatively, other people spending other people's money on other people, the discussion thereof, many, many times leaves out Friedman's first point: coercion.
Hence one ends with an isolated discussion of how Friedman's fourth category of spending points out the careless way or ineffective/inefficient way that occurs by other people [politico]spending other people's money [taxpayer] on other people [recipient class]. True enough but it decouples the coercion and only discusses the single phenomena without discussing [coupling] the ability of such a phenomena to emerge. Think about it, how many times have you heard the discussion, in isolation, of other people [cheese master] spending other people's cheese [cheese payer] on other people [cheese recipient class]??
Meanwhile, twenty six discussions later a separate subject is discussed regarding coercion of forcibly appropriating other people's money. Better yet, this discussion many times appears in isolation from Friedman's total discussion.
Nay, nay! One must correctly discuss both subjects as coercion must occur first and only then can one arrive at other people spending other people's money on other people.
Problem solved! Please go to 11:00 to 11:34 of the youtube link below and hear Friedman himself properly layout the discussion.
Here is the video...
No comments:
Post a Comment