Free market liberalism is the social system of a civil society based on and protective of personal Liberty and human betterment. Socialism is the anti social system of politics over people governmental power instead of peaceful and free association and a handful of imposed political plans. Instead of a pluralism of as many plans as there are people in the world welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in. The libertarian Institute today. I'm joined by dr.
Richard eberling author of for a new liberalism doctor rebelling. Thank you so much for your time. It's a pleasure to be with you. Thanks for having me on. What is liberalism? That's a very interesting question. It all depends upon the part of the world you're living in and the period of time you're talking to as well as the people you're talking to. Originally liberalism that is in the 18th and the 19th century was viewed as a political
philosophy. Dedicated to the principles of individual liberty based upon a foundational notion of individual rights in the context of which each person's life and property honestly, acquired property would be viewed as the singular or at least primary responsibility of government to secure and protect outside of that. That each individual was viewed as at Liberty to guide his own life, by his own purposes goals, dreams wishes values.
Either on his own or in peaceful involuntary, Association and interaction and exchange with others. That was the ideal of the 19th century of the liberal system of ideas, as I explained in the book, in an early chapter, it brought great Liberation. It was the movement that ended
Global slavery. It was the movement that rapidly made the case for wider personal and civil liberties that made the case for entering the government restrictions on trade and and and regulation of both domestic and international Affairs. That made the case that government should be more responsible to through representative government to the citizen rate rather than the government directing operator Ali people's lives. And finally, they were very active in making the case.
Bring about International and world peace. They often said that if you eliminate the trade barriers among countries and while people, as private citizens to freely trade exchange produce and consume your D politicize. Most, if not, all of the frictions that historically brought about wars and conflicts among nations, and they also are great Advocates of peaceful arbitration. If there are disputes about country that countries better to
do it through peaceful. To find a solution rather than
turning to combat in war. walk me through I can just add unfortunately in the 20th century especially in the United States that meaning was changed in the late 19th century to anti-liberal movements had Arisen socialism and nationalism and many people who were sympathetic towards socialism decided to say well there's the older liberalism and but they were merely - oh government should Not restrict, you should government shouldn't control, you government should prevent
shouldn't prevent you from worshiping with the way you want, writing what you wanted, but they needed to be a positive side of liberalism and that was the Socialist influence, and that well government had to do positive things for the people, redistribute wealth regulate, the market to see that people were treated fairly, and unfortunately, that is the conception of liberalism, this more modern pro-government
activists. That liberalism has become in the United States particularly since the early decades, and particularly, since the 1930s in the India, in the u.s. in Europe, for the most part, liberalism has more of the traditional connotation. Walk me through what's wrong with this mindset. This is the sitting president of America Joe Biden in reference to a large spending package. He says that we're looking at this completely wrong, he says it is zero price. Tag on the debt were paying.
We're going to pay for everything. We spend every time I hear this is going to cost. ABCD, the truth is based on a commitment that I made it's going to cost. Thing because we're going to raise the revenue. Good thing about government is there are not costs whereas in the private sector there are costs. What's wrong with that mindset? Well, of course, his sleight of hand when he presented.
His, the case for his spending in that context was up, he basically said, well, the vast majority of the people, if I had my way, we would not have to pay for these programs. Well, what I will do is I will tax the rich Personal taxes on the wealthy, raising corporate income, taxes, and other levies on corporations, would all sort of paper.
So in other words, it's basically saying, I promise not to impose a tax cost on you who I want to vote for me and support me. I'm going to tax the people who well you don't like and I don't like and who cares if they have less money and that way by taxing them, I won't have to have The federal government borrow the money and that way, it's not increasing the debt. And at the same time, you're getting a free lunch. Now, of course, nothing has a
free lunch to tax. The wealthy is to tax capital and to tax Capital means the savings investment process out of which technological improvements come production, occurs, jobs are created. So basically, this is the old sleight of hand that taking from Peter, to give to Paul and creating the impression. That pole in receiving, this has no cost, but there was always a cost to it. How can we empirically test whether or not liberalism helps
the poor? Well compare things. 200 years ago to today, let me give some examples. If I may in 1820, there was approximately according to economic historians and demographers approximately 1 billion people in the end on the entire planet. Out of that 1 billion people approximately, it is estimated Again by economic historians and demographers that about 90% of the entire world, population lived in poverty, and many in
abject poverty. That means like, I don't know if I'm eating anything tomorrow, fast forward to today. There is in the world today. Approximately seven point, eight billion people write from 1 billion to seven point. Eight billion people. In 200 years, but in spite of that dramatic increase in the number of mouths to feed. Again and this is from the United Nations data and the international monetary fund, the world bank, right?
Very respectable, you know mainstream ngos Today out of the seven point, eight billion people less than 10% live in poverty. So, we've had this explosion of the population of the world and this dramatic decrease in the property conditions. Now, that doesn't mean that those who still live in poverty, are not living lives that.
None of us would want to live, but what it does, demonstrate is that liberalism by freeing markets, freeing individuals to be creative Innovative at Liberty to follow them. Plans to freely associate with others where gains for for trade seem to be evident and likely has blossomed in created this. Another example and the in around 1820 in Europe the life expectancy even in quote, more advanced countries at that time. Great Britain, France, etcetera, life expectancy was in your 30s.
You were ancient if you live in to your early 40s. Today in the West in particular life expectancy is into into the 80s and now even in what we used to call the third world countries developing countries, Asia Africa, Latin America, even their life expectancies have gone from under thirty two hundred years ago, to the 60s and beginning into the 70s.
This is a dramatic increase and the other thing that I should point out because it's raised all income inequality, 200 years ago, you had the king, you had the aristocracy those connected with the state approved and state, cooperating religious establishments, and they live a good life by the economic standards of that time. We would find those standards unacceptable today in comparison to everyone else, who is poor.
That is a huge inequality today in a country, like America, what is the difference between being Rich and poor for most people. Do I have one flat screen TV at home or two or three? Do I have one car or two or three? Do I go out and eat at a nice restaurant twice a month or only
once a month. And another example of this is that the bountifulness of food the improvements in living conditions of medical care of Keith convenience and ease all of these Are the products of freeing people to find creative ways to make their lives better in free association with others in the competitive Marketplace? Cat Liberal, Liberal free markets, have transformed the world from for from poverty and despair and conflict and cruel, Kings.
And corrupt Aristocrats to World of unbelievable. Equality of not just opportunity, but standards of living. And this is now increasingly Global and where these, these these Pockets exist, where life is a lot less than that. Well, where should you turn for to find the With free markets, know they're backward countries with corrupt. State has governments that intrude regulate control corruptly.
Redistribute towards themselves in their lackeys and it's the failure of liberalism to be in those remaining corners of the world. That perpetuates that terrible poverty. They're some of the biggest cost that people will come across in their life are Health Care. Housing and schooling. We have seen a general increase in the prices of these things while we've seen a decline in the price of things like, computers televisions, microwaves, printers microphones.
A lot of these other things. However, the big three that really are commonly used as a see. This is why we can't have any free markets because vitally important things schooling. Housing and Healthcare can be so expensive. Why are those things such as outliers? Because those are the areas in our societies, most dominated controlled. Well and regulated and almost dictated by government. Education is public. Schools is a socialist Enterprise. The government owns.
The school's the government hires all the employees and the government pays them through tax funds collected in one way or another at the local, the state or the federal level. No one is responsible for the conditions and qualities and shortcomings of Education in the United States. Other than government itself. Public schools are socialists Schools, they're not private Enterprise.
And in those places where the market has enabled, then some people can afford private education, you find that the quality the variety, the the teaching styles and methods to the pedagogy to try to arouse the interest and and activities of the students are virtually always far superior.
Why is it that so many parents in spite of how certain intellectual Elites try to argue would like to see more school choice because they want to select the school that they want their kid to and be able to determine in a way. They can't with the government schools, what the curriculum will be and what the pedagogy and teaching methods will be and the standard that their child is expected to meet to have a far better education. The same thing applies to help.
Care. Okay, this I think Increasingly government funds, regulates and controls the healthcare industry. You don't get to choose your doctor's. You don't get to choose your medicines. You don't get to to to determine what test you have. Increasingly, these are controlled through government finance and regulation by the government medical. The healthcare industry is not a competitive market is a rigged, it rigged regulated and controlled Market. Increasingly with each passing
year. Dominated by government and tragically. This has been the case regardless of which political party has been in office. The Democrats might be more enthusiastic about this, but no Republican has ever called for a cutback reduction or freeing of the healthcare sector from government, oversight, control and funding and that finally housing are there private Builders of course there are. But at the same time in many Visible areas, urban areas. What do you have government
build? Public housing, which it, which it, which are disaster areas dirty unsafe unmaintained crime-ridden often. And as far as areas, where we see the private housing, this is the, this is regulated by zoning laws, who can build the house, where can they go to build a house? What kind of housing of that? And not just the Styles and forms of the quantities. The fact is, is a government. Basically says, Thou shalt not build any more houses and therefore by restricting the
supply. And that's what amounts to in an environment of growing demand both in general, and with Rising scenes, involving people wanting to move into different houses, better houses, different areas of the country, it makes it extremely difficult for the market to solve it because they're in the straitjacket of these government controls and regulations. So those are the three three sectors in the US economy that are, that are really very far.
From a free market, but the left likes to say, but look, that there, it's called the markets is doing this because they want, they basically end up doing this. Everything they don't like they label caused by capitalism or economic liberalism, or their little - buzzword neoliberalism and everything they like is what government does good.
When it comes to what the idea of profit-seeking companies, the implication is that some people are simply benefiting, and they're only benefiting with the intention of helping themselves, therefore, they only benefit themselves, can you give us an example of some companies that exist? I know this is very Elementary but we are up against people who do actually have that idea. Give us an example of some companies that have actually improved the standards of
living. Thing for people in Liberal parts of the World clothing technology, where markets are allowed to have degrees of influence improvements in medical care, where the you can, have private Alternatives, one type of or another in education. The underlying principle of the marketplace of a free market Society is that you can't do three things. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not bear false witness,
right? I'm using the Ten Commandments version of these things, which basically is, don't lie and defraud, don't you everything? The government does every day. Yes. But if, if I can't kill you to get what I want. If I can't steal you to get what I want. I can't cheat you to get what I want. Then how do I get when you have
that I want? In the market Arena, I have only one way to apply my talents, my Ingenuity, my skills, my mind, my abilities, to figure out what Niche, can I find in our division of labor, we all specialize in things that I could produce what you would desire and sufficiently and my offering it to you on terms that you will readily and appellate. Give me what you have that. I want, I go to the corner store and I want to read today's Wall Street Journal.
Because I believe that the information that I might get from, it is worth more than the cover price of that copy. What is a dollar fifty, a dollar 75, whatever. Today's Wall Street Journal cost, I read it online. And I exchanged, let's say that dollar fifty for a copy of the newspaper from the fellow at the corner store because I value the information more than the dollar fifty I give. And of course the dollar fifty represents what I could buy
instead but that sum of money. If I didn't buy the newspaper at the same time he's selling me. One of the copies of the newspaper because he values what he could do with the money, he can earn by selling it to me, then holding onto the copy. We both win from this exchange, whether you go to the shoe store, whether you go to the grocery store to buy food with, you're going to the auto dealership to buy a car. What were they going to out for a meal at the restaurant or a
world where a movie? At the theater? Etc? Etc, etc. The nature of the market is that it It requires people in the pursuit of their own Improvement, their self-interest to apply themselves in serving others, the very nature of a competitive market economy, is that to improve yourself. You must serve the rest of the society, it in a, in a different world. Capitalism, could be, should be called socialism because it's a social system.
Yeah, I help you you help me on terms that we find mutually agreeable. But of course, that's not what we call these things. But so the very nature of a market economy is that no, you cannot make it a profit, you cannot improve your own conditions other than an independent of improving the circumstances of others. I want to just look at the big three Apple Amazon and Walmart, would you say that these are parasites in the economy or they are net benefits Apple. Amazon Walmart?
Oh no. Oh no. I'm exploiting you young whippersnapper. I remember. I remember when you used to have a telephone Um, that's was on a table a desk and you picked up the receiver and it was attached to the base by a court and that was as far as you can go, that was just hard to go.
I got to turn the room redial and that's all the phone there and that's all the fun did in terms of convenience, or, or technology or phone call of capacity because the government had given a monopoly to AT&T, That Monopoly was broken in the late 1970s, early 80s, and competition was allowed and guess what? First, you had the cordless phone, then you had the flip phone, then you had the phone that could do some basic arithmetic.
And then it has someone like Steve Jobs who came out, and it's only about 15 years ago though, it seems like our world has dramatically changed in our eyes. But only 15 years ago, his version of the smartphone where he said he was technologist. You know, you know how to do it. I don't, but I won't give the device a thing that I could hold
my hand. Life is and with one thumb, basically push all the buttons so I can do anything I want and I want it to be a phone and I want it to be email and I want it to be text messages and I wanted to be radio and I want it to be television and I want it to be. I books. In other words, I have hundreds of books on my phone. This is my portable library compared to the old-fashioned books that are behind me, including my own for new liberalism.
This is what Steve Jobs did, and people like him to revolutionize the world. Okay? Again, go back 30 years ago, 40 years ago, you wanted to watch television. It was ABC, CBS and NBC licensed, and controlled by the federal government for the Federal Communications Commission. And that too, was abolished that Monopoly over the Airways and allowing cable, and satellite television in the late 70s, and
early 80's. And now, what do we doing hundreds of television channels, specializing in focusing on everyone's conceivable Niche interest, Streaming doing what we're doing right here. This would have been unheard of 30 years ago. I remember old televisions. You know, when I was a kid, I was the remote. Okay, I with the remote, forget some guy, what was it wasn't Motorola for the Zenith. He came up with the remote, I no longer had to be the remote at home and I didn't have to be
antenna, right? Because Rabbit ears stand by the TV. One leg up and in this direction, the pictures. Great, don't move. I mean, that's a different world today, different world today, okay? I don't even need to be anything and I'm communicating with the world around the world instantly. This is what free market liberalism has done as one indication. Okay, as far as Walmart is concerned, these super stores
have been great. They give virtually An unending stream of different Goods at very competitive prices available to the masses. Goods are not only for the elect and the in the elite and the aristocratic and Royal
privilege. As they were hundreds of years ago, we are in are in a market economy that serves all of us and to the extent that government doesn't regulate, which is increasingly fewer if your quarters or does not regulate with them excessively heavy and the creativity of And he said, free in to whatever extent, the state, Jack straitjacket of government is not to type to continue these in technological. Innovations and improving, both the quality and the varieties of what we consume.
And if you adjust for inflation at virtually lower and lower prices, And then I just want to use the Amazon example because Bezos is continuously seen as the evil capitalist. And we're just like a few billion dollars away from the four trillion dollar budget solving poverty when it comes to Amazon, net benefit or net parasite. Amazon has been brilliant besides selling my book. Today, okay, if you wanted to buy anything, you had to go to a
brick and mortar store. And some things you want to go to a brick and mortar store even today. Sometimes you want to try on a piece of clothing, a pair of shoes to see the quality of the material. Talk to someone who might be a salesperson on the floor, but Amazon has transformed how we live.
It is transformative because now from the ease of our own living room at a laptop computer like you and I am using that you and I are communicating through The goods of the world are at my disposal and often since I have a huge Warehouse inventory of things all around the country, I can have it with him 48 24 to 48
hours. The world is my oyster because of Amazon. One guy comes along the idea that he'll do. He'll do mail ordered books and before you know it The entire world of shopping has been changed in consumer friendly. Consumer, usable consumer. Cost-saving ways that Amazon is. One of the great achievements of modern of the of the modern markets economy, it is not an enemy. It is not an exploiter oga. I didn't want to go to the store.
I've been exploited, I bought it off my phone, and the can't hear the next day. God, I'm sold, dude. Me these people will allow the land. Okay? These people living in la-la land, Why is it? I know you write a lot about the history of liberalism in this book. How did it go from having? How did we get to where we are today? Where they, the average person has extremely high standards for the voluntary sector and like no standards for the government sector?
I'm always being told about. Well, there were terrible working conditions under Andrew Carnegie today, even people who work at Amazon, have it very rough and they don't stop. Say, but then again, governments are the number one cause of war and mass murder and mass destruction.
So, let me be very humble when I criticize the free market, why do we have totally High unrealistic standards for the voluntary sector and no standards for the political class, basically, because we live in societies including the United States. Where we take for granted that certain things if you wanted our government.
Provided for example, all the viewers listeners that are Watching this now or the future, I want you to raise your hand up Outlaw. If you like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew your license, go and raise your hand, don't be ashamed. Yeah, I love the long lines. I like to be, you know, to be treated to her in a very unpleasant, than unfriendly way off to know. And I have to be curious because it's the only game in town.
If I don't be nice to the person behind the counter, I might have a problem. Renewing. My license or getting a new tag for the plate. Oh God. This is the problem. We become so desensitized by having to. Well, that's how government operates that we don't like it. But we take it for granted, they don't criticize it in the market. We expect things are always three better and improving thinking when you go to the supermarket, you're waiting on line, okay?
If they have staff available and they see that the lines at the checkout, counters are getting too long Pages, open another line, or they now have the self-serve woman. So you don't even have to wait for someone to be doing it for you. Now I traveled in the Soviet Union. The former Soviet Union, my wife is a Russian I met over there. And I lived on these visits under socialism in practice, let me just tell you your viewers. How life was like for shopping compared to all.
I waited five minutes for the woman at the register to get to me five minutes. Oh life is so rough. God bless you want to buy bread at people at people's breast or go into store and get online. This is long line. Wait long time to get the front of wine and you tell woman behind counter one Pumpernickel. Want the graph assuming Dave inhabit, this is the centrally planned economy with there's nothing. So now you're she says okay here this little ticket go to that line.
Now you wait on second line and you wait and you wait Wait, wait, and you get to register and you pay for bread. Now, you have received now camera, you go on third line. And guess what? You, wait and you, wait and you wait, and then you get your breath. Now, you've been to the people spread store, but even in under socialism man does not live by bread alone. Now, you want milk and butter Now we can mesh shopping bags. You start walking to the people's Dairy Store.
Ain't next door to bread store hot heat of Summer cold of winter in Moscow. You trudge to wear store. Might be what do you do in the mid Dairy? Store, LINE, 1, line, 2 line 3. So now you have any dairy products when you like to have some meat. So many Jillian. Fun beating the Soviet Union. Go to meet store people's Meat store, wine one. Why do this is how people lived under socialism and then people bitch and complain. Oh it was so crowded at the supermarket. Yeah I took me five or ten
minutes to get out of the place. You wait on one of those lines in socialism in practice. You could be in the bread store for over an hour, just to buy one loaf of bread, and then have to do the shopping at other. All the other people's stores, run owned, controlled. And And supplied by the government. And then we get called up people who are just obsessed with things like property. And we're very materialistic. Where's they care about the people? Well, if I can't go in and just
take all the bread that I want. Well, that's some people excluding me from a scarce resource. So in the in the same thing in the same light they're having property rights as well. Except the state is the monopolist property owner. So what's all of a sudden? It's it becomes okay. That is that is another one.
So why is it that we are pinned with being very materialist and only caring about, you know, the lower things in life, The Simpsons and cereal are what the capitalist care about the Socialist cares about achieving full spirituality and Humanity coming together as one. If I want to live in a spiritual Place. Why should I care about liberalism instead of socialism? For the simple and you're living in a socialist society. The Soviet Union, the old Soviet Bloc countries in Eastern Europe today.
Still Cuba. Nicaragua North Korea. Venezuela. Okay. Now, remember under Marxist philosophy, you know, religion is the Opium of the masses, right? Scientific Socialism. Dialectical materialism, right? So, but their constitution, the Soviet Constitution said freedom of religion. But what if you want to get together with some people who share your faith and to have a place of worship, government owns the land, no private land.
What if they don't want to allocate its end through a planned for of needs of all people. Comrade not does not permit, your little not only designer for Lent for church. In the same way, even if they allocated the land in principle, the government owns, all the construction companies would have his part of the central plan. You don't have a priority to build the church. The government owns, all the printing stores. What if the government s plan?
Doesn't have a priority for Bibles and hymnals to be printed up for you, okay? Or the pews in the church, once the building is constructed, you there is no, there are no personal freedoms. There are no Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press freedom of religion, freedom of Association, independent of a society that has and respects a wide latitude of private property. I have a faith, you may not share it, you might not want to pay for me or subsidized my
beliefs, fine. But there's some fellow who wants to either sell or rent land and I, and other people who share my faith have to pull some resources and we bind your rent it from We hire a private construction company. Don't care what. Whoa, what they're being paid to build. They just want the money. The same way in the pews in the church, the hymnals and the Bible's, you go to a Publishing Company.
You, you paid the price to cover their costs in the marketplace, and pretty much, you're going to get a printer. Who do the job for you? You see the market D, politicizes, people's purposes. What? When you go in The store and you pick up, let's say a box of Cheerios off the show, right? Do you want to well, who build? Who made this Cheerios do? I share his religious views. We have common political values that does he love his dog? Does he kick his wife hope? No way he loves his wife kicks,
the dog. Who knows what this is? Yeah. You don't, the market gives you anonymity that you earn money by serving others. And then you get to spend your money in any way you want because others are only interested in virtually all cases in merely providing products that enable them reciprocally to make the money to buy the things they want. That is what the freedom of the market place gives us.
That that ability to follow our own values, not by governments impose values and standards and ethical beliefs. But those we have either singularly or that we form voluntary associations with others to share to have a camaraderie to proselytize for that. Is what freesat water free Society is about not the heavy hand of government restricting. All of us to add those who
design the plan and commanded. Control the plan want us to have because they know what's good for us better than ourselves. I mean listen to Joe Biden, he knows the cars, we could change the drive. We know the way we should heat our homes. He knows how we should fuel our Industries. You knows the education we should have. He knows the health care. We should have. He knows the retirement he should have. He knows, he knows, he knows, he
knows. The arrogance, the uterus of all those in politics who shared this mentality, not just the United States think of G champagne in China. He, he believes he knows what's right for one point four billion people, okay? Or Putin. It is in the destiny of Russia to reconquer Ukraine. We must we must invade and kill what I declare to be neo-nazis and if they resist we bomb them into Smithereens. I mean so it's not just our politicians.
This is a breed that is international in its corruption. It's hubris is arrogance and its willingness to hurt others in the pursuit of what they think is the right thing. When a lot of people, advocate for democracy Democratic Socialism, or socialism, they will seldom say that the Soviet Union is very good. Not everyone is as terrible as
Richard wolf. I know those people are out there but when it comes to the examples that people do use, it's usually Iceland Denmark Norway Sweden, Finland. When it comes to those Nordic countries. Are those examples of socialism in Practice where it does not become so overbearing and totalitarian. Therefore, socialism is something that we should embrace. Well, it let me let me begin answering that with a comment that the prime minister of
Denmark made a few years ago. When comrade, Bernie Sanders said, America should be more like Sweden and Denmark and Norway. The Prime Minister Denmark said, oh, contraire Denmark is not a socialist society. And neither is Sweden or Norway. Now, what they do have is fairly open and slightly somewhat regulated, but relatively free competitive economy, and particularly open to International Trade since their small economies.
They need to have have international intercourse with the rest of the world to buy things that they can't produce it on through the exports that they can give to others. And having such a vibrant economy, what they impose on the society for good or ill, because that's not what we're talking about right now, they impose a rather, extensive welfare state. Now, that's a different argument, is it desirable to have a welfare state? Could not the market itself?
Improve the standards of living sufficiently and provide the private sector philanthropic avenues. That would in the long run, do far better than the government's redistributed programs. It's a different issue, but as far as them being socialist, economies those countries are not social. Connors socialist, economies are where the government either comprehensively, or really fairly extensively, either controls or commands. The use of the means of production and through, various
and forms. Of heavy-handed Regulation or outright planning. Direct what gets produced, where it gets produced, how it gets produce in volume. This is what the Bible Administration and all these people had a post at the world economic Forum one they want Global fascism. They don't want to nationalize
your businesses. No. But like but like hell Gucci a Mussolini or dear Führer Hitler what they want to do is impose rules controls and a Planning Network that tells private businesses what they're going to produce. How where when With what technologies and In fairness and Equity the wages, they'll pay, and the quotas of hiring different types of people.
So it's basically a planned economy right now, Norway and Sweden, and Denmark have made degrees of government intervention and redistribution greater than I, as a more traditional classical liberal would want and would argue for. But there is no way to claim that they in any way, represent an economy like China or were or the the old Soviet Union or Cuba still today, excetera Etc. And what you can actually, do is
empirically test. This ideology of the Socialists and you can check out things like the human Freedom index. Here are Nordic countries that rank higher than the United States. Norway Iceland Sweden, Finland and Denmark. So on net, when it comes to, which society is more for you with more respect to property
rights. Well, those countries are actually beating America. On net, when you look at things like the Cato Institute in the Fraser Institute and you can look at the metrics that they use. So I don't know how this lie got started. Was it? Just because they have a lot of social redistribution is that just it and then they wanted to they needed something to distract from like the Polish solidarity movement getting crushed.
Which, for many decades, was controlled, the sense that they had parliamentary controlled by the social Democrats, the Democratic socialists, and they attempted planning and heavy-handed Regulation, and the Swedish economy started stagnating and going down. And then at some point, even without another party coming to office per se, the social Democrats realized that they could not deliver the Another way they were killing the goose, that could lay a golden egg.
And that they started freeing up and privatizing them these things themselves. Just think of house, we did not go through this heavy-handed lockdown business during a global crisis. Where's the rest of the world? Follow the Chinese model? I followed the Chinese model. What was the Chinese model on the gene Bank? Oh, there's one person who's come sick, shut down an entire Municipal area with tens of millions of people. Don't don't produce, don't go to work, don't go shopping.
Except for our what we declared to be Necessities. Don't leave your house and don't go within four miles of another human being. That was the Chinese model so we all followed the the the Communist planned in model but the swedes basically did not know they made some errors but that was more like not knowing the demographics of where the
virus was at first. Wanted to be most negatively affecting people but they didn't want down, they didn't shut down their societies and they did far better because they had a more open philosophy about these things. Now again I want to emphasize as a classical liberal. If I was visiting Sweden and was asked to give a public address but recognizing on the guests and I'm supposed to be polite
and tactful. I would explain why I think that the bright with private sector could do most if not all of what their welfare state does. And we do it better in private hands, but the fact is they are not socialist economies and and Bernie Sanders. Who's one of those who tried to create this illusion wasn't me but her tea Sanders is, is basically Communist. He went on his honeymoon to the Soviet Union. Think of it. He tries you flies in to the Soviet Union.
When his bride and they spend spend their wedding night together in a people's hotel and he gets up and opens the drapes and what's outside the window? A statue of Lenin and he says, oh baby, look at that Lenin statue. I'm getting hot again. Let's do it. I mean, this is this this guy's a wacko. Okay, this guy's a wacko. So, So so don't believe
anything. He says, thinking about this Escape that maybe in countries When it comes to workplace safety and consumer safety, is that a place where the state should step in things like the Food and Drug Administration or even the Department of Agriculture or Environmental Protection Agency? Actually usually drives many people crazy when they ask me, similar questions. The answer is basically no. I mean that there's there's an
excellent chapter in a book. By Milton Friedman an early book of his called capitalism freedom from 1962 on occupational licensing and certification and he explains a lot of the fact that the private sector did and even parallel to what the government is doing still does Private licensing. Private certification private insurances, companies act as guarantors for product quality because companies take out
insurance, right? Do insurance companies like the pay out claims know, they like to get free. It would not be our client, it's in their interest to see that if they take on someone as a client, for which the going to ensure the product of the safety qualities of the product Manufacturing in the product, that that company is operating by various safety, standards of both how they produce and what they're selling. So this doesn't happen.
By the way, those a business, you won't care if you poisons is customers. Well, you know, most businesses count on repeat business, you know, if I if he sells you ER, aspirin and you died the next day, you're not likely to buy another bottle of Bayer Aspirin, and the words are going to get
out. And a lot of people who have not died yet from eating Bayer Aspirin are probably going to say, maybe I shouldn't buy it. I mean it's not in the self-interest but it is a fascinating subject in itself that there are a variety of private certification and research and development and insurance associations. That in fact, provide many of these safeguards and protections. I would argue the same thing.
Lawyers about doctors about all the professionals that usually people say, well government doesn't do it. What are we going to do? The private sector will handle this and they say. But what about incompetent? Doctors are there. Not incompetent doctors today or they're not people that you feel that that that he wasn't qualified to do it, maybe maybe some of your viewers will remember that back in the early. 1980s.
Ronald Reagan, ordered the US military to invade a little Caribbean island called Grenada cookies. Do it made a movie about it, called, Heartbreak Ridge. So why, why did why did Reagan order the military to invade? This little pipsqueak island in the Caribbean. Oh, it's threatened with a Marxist. Government taking over. And there's a lot of Americans on the island. Well, why were, there are a lot of Americans on this middle of nowhere.
Caribbean island because they were a medical school there. And why was these Americans at this medical school? Please, they couldn't get him to medical schools in the United States. All they must have been bad students, they couldn't pass the exam. No the vast majority of them had good grades. Coming out of school. They're pre-med studies in college that young that their entry exam exams to get to be
considered for admission. But you see the American Medical Association such standards Of how many medical schools in the United States, how many students can be taken in each year at the certification process out of which you come out of these schools. It's basically a way for the existing body of Physicians to control the supply of new competitors coming into the market.
You now, the number of competitors, you're guaranteeing, the demand for your product and therefore the income you can earn from it. So the these see, Really good, you know, associations and standards are often often just ways for existing competitors to limit the market. So as to preserve their market shares of positions, Yeah, there's a great page on places like Wikipedia where you could
look at all. The professional certifications, some are state, but the vast majority are in the voluntary sector things like Underwriters Laboratory being the most popular when it comes to things like baseball cards. There's a lot of them that they're commonly referred to as stamp of approval agencies. So, just as those have shortcomings governments also have shortcomings. Not Ry that again, is only pinned on us.
Oh butbut. What if Moody's doesn't foresee the coming of the financial crisis, all Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen also weren't yelling at the top of rooftops, it warning us about it either. So professional certification. I love the Granada example that one I was not familiar with. I just mentioned as a complementary, you just said there is that is it one of the advantages of the internet is that That you're interested in some products. Some service you can click and say reviews.
Those are people put the product taking advantage of the service. Now there's always going to be someone who bitches in complaints, that's human nature but when you have maybe 200 reviews and some are going to be negative and us some are positive. And one is either a lot - or a lot positive. You can go through them and see what people who have used or purchase that. Victory taking advantage of that service. Have concluded about what that that company or individuals
offering to them. And in that case, that's another way of the market itself to serve as a check and balance to ensure quality and competitive honesty. Yep, that that's a another one there. They say, yeah. Well look, look, Richard, you and I are really smart guys, but the average person is stupid. And so that's why you can't have a free market. Diet where they cause they'll just buy really stupid things. Yet that same person believes that.
All these stupid people should have a right to vote for politicians which get trillions of dollars of power. Every year, every single year. There's so many examples the final one that I'd like you to address is something like food stamps when it comes to, all right? Even if I concede Health Care, housing and schooling, are much more expensive than they otherwise would be as a result of the state. Coercively. Interfering What otherwise would be voluntary exchanges?
We have to have some State Welfare, we have to have some social safety net, like social security for those who are no longer, let's say productive in their older years. How does Richard eberling respond? The historically, even before the standards of living that we take for granted in that today over the last let's say just hundred years or so. In the 19th century there had developed in England and the version of it United States, who
Call The Friendly societies. These were Mutual Assurance. Associations for death benefits. The Breadwinner dies out. How we gonna pay for his burial retirement, pensions Medical Services saving system, to be able to put money, aside to have a house and all of it. And if you read this literature in, it is available. If you want to look for it, I've even written some reviews. These books by the end of the 19th century, that's over the 1880s and 1890s.
It is estimated because these companies kept records is associations kept records. And we know this the the census numbers from the British government doing the senses that by by the 1880s and 1890s two-thirds to three-quarters of the entire British population was covered by these friendly associate friendly Society, associations.
And if you then look at the wreckage while you say, well you know, people who are better, we'll all for that their version of the middle class, yet they could afford to pay these insurances to these private associations. Know, the figures show, is that the largest proportion of people participating in them, when the low income categories, quote, the low poor working class one, because they realized that, if something happened wrong to them or their family, they really had
little resources. So it's necessary for them to take a few of the pennies out of their admittedly modest. I'm worried. And to buy these insurance policies. The 19th century was also the Centre of the blossoming of of private charity and philanthropy. But hospitals, orphanages retraining people on to become gainfully employed.
Now the large amount number of them were done by religious organizations, think of the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, various Protestant denominations They would have the food kitchens, they would have shelters. So if this was all great, what destroyed it?
Well, the fact is in the late 19th century, our version of the modern welfare state got to be began to be introduced in Imperial Germany. When Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor was Chancellor of Germany and the Socialists who winning votes in the, in the, in the German Parliament, the reichstag and it was afraid rolling over the Denver. And, Associates will be voted into office, the majority. So, how do you how do you, how do you dissuade the masses from
voting? For the comics, or of the Socialist? Bismarck came up with this idea and he said this to several people who interviewed him. I decided to bribe the people that, that we would give them free health care. We would give them retirement, pensions vocational training, rest recreational, rest vacation areas, so that they would vote for us.
The established parties. And this seemed to be so Progressive, American economists and historians, and philosophers, and political scientists went to study, German universities Journey. So Progressive, they care about the little guy with these programs and then in the beginning of the 20th century, these Americans who study to Germany versus came back and they became the basis of the American Progressive Movement. All we have to copy the German,
outerwear little crew rough around the edges and they listen to the stupid old Papaw music and their soldiers, walk around goose-stepping with her, still stupid, pointy hats. But, you know, there's a good side of all these of this German collectivism and they became the basis of the Progressive Movement, that then became the basis for the policies of the new deal with the 1930s and Great Britain and concerning these Friendly societies around 1900 for the British government
started. Introducing their version of what. We now call the welfare state and because it was funded by taxes. People got it for quote, free, and many of these friendly societies couldn't compete against that. How do you, how do you compete against someone who's giving the same type of product, but for free.
And it basically overtime, drove the friendly societies out of existence because you can continue paying out of your take-home, pay raise your premiums and contributions, or you could get it from your taxes for free. And basically the stage of emerging welfare state, undermined the private sector, The book is for a new liberalism, find it in the link in the description below. Thanks to everyone for watching Keith and I don't try it on anyone in the libertarian Institute doctor or a blink.
Thank you so much for your time. Absolutely my pleasure thank you for having me on