Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'Richard Epstein On Inequality, Taxes, Politics & Health Care'

Source:Hoover Institution.

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Richard Epstein on one thing. Which is definitely a rarity, but when Epstein says that it’s not that inequality is a problem. But the lack of mobility and opportunity for people at the bottom, or are struggling in the middle class, to move up. And I only think a Socialist, or a true Collectivist could disagree with that. That if Joe makes a million dollars a year as a lawyer and Tom makes fifty-thousand-dollars a year as a plumber, it’s not a problem that Joe makes twenty times more than Tom. The problem is very few people are doing extremely well in America economically. While so many others aren’t. So what you have to do is close the opportunity gap. Which would benefit everyone.

So instead of having a society where who you are born to and where you’re born and how you grow up, deciding how well you do as an adult, you create a society where everyone has a quality opportunity to do well in life. Regardless of where they grow up and the income level of their parents, or single-parent. That you have a quality education system for everyone. That you give people on Welfare and low-skilled low-income workers the opportunity to finish and further their education and get good jobs and even start their own business’s. You do that by making sure everyone can get a good education in life. And granting job training opportunities to low-skilled workers. Having a modern infrastructure system that stretches to low-income communities. And real economic development in those communities.

Sweden, perhaps the most developed social democracy in the world, at least among countries with small populations, has poverty. And people doing real well and people who live in poverty. You’ll never completely eliminate poverty and any income gap in any country. But what you can do especially in America, is have an economy where everyone can do well. And what they do with those opportunities is up to them. And you do that and you’ll have an economy where you’ll still have a top 1-10%, but that population will be much larger. But you’ll also have a lot more people in the upper middle class and a lot more people in the middle class. And a lot more resources as a result, to help people who are struggling in the middle class and help people in poverty. Which a much smaller percentage of Americans in poverty.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing David Mamet On Conservatism

Source:The New Democrat

The type of liberalism that David Mamet seems to be talking about an interested in is how Liberals get stereotyped by what my father calls knee-jerk Liberals. People who are actually not very liberal at all, but who wear the label because they thing Progressive is a sellout and they don’t want to have to deal the negative Americans stereotypes of Socialists and socialism. Or even a further left ideology than that. That if you’re a Liberal, you’re really a European leftist ideologically and you don’t like America and what it stands for. And that is putting it simply.

That if you’re a Liberal you believe in political correctness who defines that as being against any speech that offends groups of people who you generally support. And that some language is so offensive that it must not only be talked down upon, but banned. And speaking groups of people, that all people are members of groups. And because of that they should be treated as members of groups and not as individuals who can take care of themselves and even think for themselves. Even if a lot of members of their so-called tribe feel differently about certain issues.

That if you’re a Liberal you not only support the welfare state, but you are all about the welfare state. And that people are generally stupid and can’t be relied to take care of themselves. And are going to make mistakes that the society as a whole is going to have to pay for. So why don’t we just have a government a superstate big enough to take care of everyone with taxes high enough to finance this superstate to take care of everyone. That individualism and individual success and wealth by nature are bad things. Because it encourages people to go on their own and those things should be discouraged.

These are the negative and false stereotypes of liberalism that David Mamet seems to of bought into. And I would think someone as smart and as good of a writer that he is would know better than that. And perhaps has spent too much time with the Far-Left in America and now believes that everyone on the Left is part of the Far-Left. That there’s no such thing as Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist or Communist. That all of these political groups are liberal and all of these people are Liberals. Which is simply not true.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'Thomas Sowell Dismantling America'

Source:Hoover Institution- talking to Conservative Professor Thomas Sowell.

"Thomas Sowell, arguably the greatest American Public Intellectual discussing the possible decline and fall of America and the programs and attitudes embodied in the Obama Administration, that guarantee it." 

From the Hoover Institution

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- William Voegeli: 'The American Welfare State'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Claremont McKenna College scholar William Voegeli.

"A visiting scholar at the Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College, William Voegeli is a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books and the author of Never Enough:  America's Limitless Welfare State.

Voegeli reveals the stunning growth of the American welfare state since its inception, growing exponentially between World War II and today, and describes the intellectual groundwork of the modern welfare state -- a program sold to the American people in disguise.  He asserts, "The only remaining constraint on the growth of the welfare state is the problem of paying for it."  Finally he insists that we cannot undo the welfare state.  "We need a welfare state we can live with, one even that we can admire.... But not limitless." 

From the Hoover Institution

The State of the Welfare State at least in America as well in several other developed nations, is not good in the sense that we are all thinking about how to reform them to make them more cost-effective and save money on them. Because at least in America's case we are currently facing a huge generation of people that are going to be eligible for them and we don't currently have the resources to pay these obligations, even though these people have been paying into them their whole adult lives if not longer. For people who worked jobs as adolescents for example and most of us including myself probably have. 

This is good news in a sense from my point of view as a Liberal who believes in individual liberty and limited government. And that the welfare state (or as I call it the safety net) should be exactly that, only for the people who need it and that everyone who can take care of themselves and are financially self sufficient on their own, should stay that way and take care of themselves. That taxpayers shouldn't be funding the retirement, health insurance, health care Unemployment Insurance, etc, of millionaires and billionaires, unless they worked in public service for a lot time, let's say twenty years. 

This is good news from my perspective, because it's just more evidence that America will never have a Swedish style welfaresState. Americans who can will always be expected to take care of themselves. Americans who can finance their own health insurance will be expected to and so-forth. That Americans who can will be expected to take care of themselves will have too. That we'll never see in America 50, 60, 70% Tax Rates especially on the middle class or overall tax bills like that on Americans. 

Our government will always be limited and smaller than Europe and hopefully more limited and smaller in the future. Having said all of that, I not in favor or never have been in favor of slashing our safety net (as I call it) and throwing people off of it who actually do need these social insurance programs. And how can we do this and have a Federal Government more limited and smaller. 

Everyone who needs these programs now and into the future will keep collecting from them but the people who are physically and mentally capable of working, will be expected to do so and if they are not working because they lack the skills that they need to get a good enough job to become self-sufficient, then they would get help in getting that by going to school and getting those skills. 

But here's a major reform: I would take the safety net off the hands and backs of the Federal Government. And unlike what Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson wants too, which is essentially hand the safety net over to the state and local government's, I would give all of these social insurance programs their independence. (So to speak) And make them independent of the Federal Government but still owned by them at least in the short term. But they would be operated independently with their own revenue sources, as well as management and board of directors that they would select on their own. 

The State of the American safety net (as I call it) as far as the financing of it in the future is not good, in the sense that it's another problem we have to fix. But its good at least in my perspective that we'll probably never expand it in any significant way at least from the Federal level. And this gives us an opportunity to rethink what the purpose of our safety net is and how best to reform it.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Professor Milton Friedman: On Libertarianism

Source: Hoover Institution- Professor Milton Friedman, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 1998.

"What are the elements of the libertarian movement and how does one of its most illustrious proponents, Milton Friedman, apply its tenets to issues facing the United States today? Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Inst., Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences discusses how he balances the libertarians' desire for a small, less intrusive government with environmental, public safety, food and drug administration, and other issues." 

From the Hoover Institution

If you look at what libertarianism actually is and I'm not talking about Ayn Rand libertarianism, which I see more as anarchism, but Milton Friedman what I would call mainstream libertarianism, its about maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual. Meaning adults can live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting innocent people with their freedom. Meaning adults can live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not forcing people to do what they are doing or hurting innocent people in any way.

If you look at what mainstream libertarianism is and what's been called classical liberalism and classical conservatism is, they really aren't that different. They all believe in individual liberty, individualism, the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, constitutional rights, American capitalism, and limited government. They all just have different approaches to these issues. 

Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, are all individualist and not collectivist like Socialists or statist like Communists and other authoritarians. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, have more in common I believe than things that they disagree with. Especially on social issues and differ more on economic and foreign policy than anything and have different versions of limited government.

To take what Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians disagree on which I'll admit is more fun, let's start with economic policy. Liberals believe there's a role for government to provide a safety net for people who fall through the cracks, to help them get up and become self-sufficient. As well as regulate the economy to prevent people from hurting each other in the economy. Conservatives believe in some form of a safety net, but that it should have as much choice in it as possible and be decentralized as possible.

Conservatives believe in some for of regulation as well, like anti-monopoly laws, that sort of thing, but that regulation should generally be mild. Libertarians traditionally speaking have been against all forms of a safety net, especially from the Federal Government. But lately Libertarian presidential candidates Representative Ron Paul and former Governor Gary Johnson, have moderated those positions. And have talked about privatizing the American safety net and block granting it to the states.  Libertarians don't want government involved in the economy at all basically.

On foreign policy Liberals and Conservatives tend to be internationalists but again in different forms. Liberals tend to be more willing to negotiate and Conservatives tend to be more willing to use military force. Libertarians tend to be isolationist on foreign policy that we shouldn't butt into other countries affairs.

I believe if the Libertarian Party and movement were to ever moderate its position on the safety net state and the War on Drugs, taking more conservative positions on those issues, like being for privatization and block granting of the safety net and being in favor of marijuana legalization yes, but stop there and come out in favor of getting drug addicts out of prison and into drug rehab instead, the Libertarian Party could become a major force in American politics. Because Americans tend not to like big government bossing them around and telling them what they can and can't do with their own lives and bodies.