Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

Source:The FreeState 

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Common Sense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival. 

NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's game: Miami Dolphins

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins FB Larry Czonka.

"NFL America's Game Super Bowl 7 Champions 1972 Dolphins."

From NFL Network  

Miami Dolphins DT Mann Fernandez who was a member of both Don Shula Dolphins Super Bowl champions, as well as all 3 AFC champions from the 1970s, appeared on the 1972 Dolphins America's Game documentary. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins DT Manny Fernandez.

"The team wasn't especially big, quick, or flashy. It rarely blew away opponents. Its best player was a fullback, its defense was anonymous, and it played without its Pro Bowl quarterback for most of the year. Still, the 1972 Miami Dolphins are the only team to finish a season undefeated -- 17-0, to be exact -- in National Football League history. Fresh off a Super Bowl loss the season prior, Miami played like a team determined to win a championship, racking up 14 straight regular season wins. The Dolphins offense relied heavily on their ground game, running the ball 613 times and boasting the first pair of 1,000-yard runners in Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris. On the other side of the ball, the "No Name Defense" was no less dominant, giving up the fewest points in the league. Then, in the postseason, Miami enjoyed the return of quarterback Bob Griese, who was sidelined most of the season due to leg and ankle injuries. In Super Bowl VII, Griese threw a 28-yard touchdown pass to Howard Twilley for the game's first score before a few scares by George Allen's Redskins threatened the Dolphins' bid for an unbeaten year. Join NFL Films as they retell the saga of the '72 Dolphins, the only club to play a perfect season in the NFL. America's Game uses exclusive interviews from Csonka, Don Shula and Manny Fernandez to reminisce about Miami's run to 17-0." 

Source:Amazon- Super Bowl 7 championship ring.

From Amazon

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. 

The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. 

Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Are Medical Costs Controllable (1994)?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Dr. Charles Sanders, participating in this Firing Line discussion.

Source:The FreeState 

"Yes!, is our guests' resounding answer to the title question--and without

unmaking what is generally agreed to be the world's finest health-care system (CS: "One

of the best things about the Canadian system is the proximity to the U.S."). Drs. Sanders

and Janeway emphasize portability (the ability to retain your medical insurance if you

change jobs) and insurance for catastrophic illness--which, says Dr. Janeway, could be

taken care of for "not a huge amount of cost to the American public per year." Dr.

Kurad--who was driven out of active practice of his specialty by "the paperwork mill

and the hassles with insurance and Medicare"--tells persuasively what business can do to

cut the red tape."  

From the Hoover Institution 

"Episode S0999, Recorded on January 26, 1994. Guests: Richard Janeway, J. Ward Kurad, Charles A. Sanders. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

In 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) pushed for health care reform and seeing that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. And two of the areas that they focused on where quality, affordable coverage and controlling medical costs. 

Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and House Minority Leader Bob Michael, strongly opposed the so-called Clinton Care approach to health care reform which would mean more government involvement in the health care system. And this is what the Firing Line debate is essentially about.  

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- 'Where is The GOP Headed (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

Source:The FreeState

"Episode S0627, Recorded on December 6, 1984

Guests: Newt Gingrich, Bill Green. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Gingrich was already a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP, and Mr. Green was prominent among the remnant of "Rockefeller Republicans." Ronald Reagan having just become, barring the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, a lame duck, Mr. Buckley asks his guests to focus on "the future of the Republican Party post Reagan." They do so more in terms of programs and philosophy than of personalities, in a crisp exchange. Mr. Green, for example, defends the Federal Government's public-housing program: when it was begun "fully half of the housing in this country either lacked indoor plumbing or was so run down it was a real threat to the life and health of the people... Now, as we've gotten to the point where the housing in this country is much better, a much better case can be made for something like the housing voucher ..." Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, sees modern liberalism as still "find[ing] it very hard to believe that average people can do anything for themselves, and so they have a tendency to provide more and more professional help, which somehow doesn't help you." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. 

And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats, giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986 and make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader, the next Speaker of the House. 

The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985. 

What this interview with Representative Newt Gingrich in 1984 was about, was where was the Republican Party headed in the next 2-4 years and perhaps after President Ronald Reagan. With Newt Gingrich being one of the Republican visionaries in Congress and the broader Republican Party.  

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: 'The Role of Liberals in the Republican Party'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R, Maryland) in 1978.

Source:The FreeState 

"Episode S0313, Recorded on March 16, 1978

Guest: Charles McC. (Charles McCurdy) Mathias

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: Republican, Maryland: on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1977.

"The role of Liberals in the GOP." Originally from Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress (and yes, I’m familiar Maryland political history) probably should’ve been a Democrat all along.

Which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties.

Senator Mathias was a Liberal Republican (if there is such a thing) from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected.

Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy. 

World Ahead Publishing: Kasey S. Pipes- 'Dwight Eisenhower, Not Lyndon Johnson, Was First Civil Rights Champ'

Source:World Ahead Publishing- Little Rock, Arkansas, is literally one of the first battles of the American civil rights movement.

Source:The FreeState 

"Kasey Pipes, author of "Ike's Final Battle: The Road to Little Rock and the Challenge of Equality," describes how Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower -- not LBJ, as liberals often claim -- was America's first civil rights president."   

From World Ahead Publishing

Source: The Daily Post- President Dwight D. Eisenhower & Dr. Martin L. King. 

Dwight Eisenhower, was not the first President to come out in favor of civil rights or human rights for everyone in America. Abraham Lincoln deserves the credit for that for the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the African slaves. And Harry Truman allowed soldiers of different races to serve together with an executive order in I believe in 1945. 

What President Dwight Eisenhower deserves credit for and I believe its accurately reported in his presidential legacy, was enforcing rule of law in America for all the people. Rule of law as a Progressive Republican, is something that Dwight Eisenhower believed in deeply and I believe he picked that up in the military. If Rule of law is not properly enforced, then rules and laws become meaningless.

Ike Eisenhower, saw his job as President to enforce rule of law. Something he did very well as President, with enforcing all of those U.S. Supreme Court decisions that allowed students of different races to go to school together and sending the Army into Little Rock, Arkansas to make sure the Governor of Arkansas allowed those African-American students go to school with the Caucasian- American students there at Central High School in Little Rock. 

And these types of decisions not just enforcing laws that you agree with, but enforcing all laws which is what rule of law is about, would not play well today with the Far-Right of the Republican Party. Which is one reason why I believe Ike Eisenhower wouldn’t be able to get the Republican nomination for president today, because he was a Center-Right, Progressive Republican, who not only believe in the Constitution, but equal rights and constitutional rights for all Americans. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Two Friends Talk: Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1990.

Source:The FreeState 

"Episode S0873, Recorded on October 11, 1990. Guest: Ronald Reagan. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are no fireworks at this meeting of two old friends, but there is broad and deep discussion of the world and how Mr. Reagan may have changed it. WFB: "Conceivably, might there be USSR-American cooperation in developing SDI?" RR: "Well... I have told [Gorbachev] that I would advocate making that information open to the world ... in return for all of us destroying our nuclear weapons. But I said the reason for having it is- I used the example of World War I. I said all the nations of World War I met and outlawed poison gas, but we all kept our gats masks. I said, Who can say that down the way somewhere there won't be another Hitler, there won't be another madman that could use the knowledge of how to make weapons and blackmail the earth?"  

From the Hoover Institution 

Source:Niskanen Center- William F. Buckley and President Ronald W. Reagan, at some White House event. I hope that's not too specific for you.

It’s good to see Ron Reagan together with Bill Buckley. As far as I’m concern two of the fathers of the modern classical conservative movement. Who both had a role in making that movement national starting in the mid 1960s. With Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign that went a long way in putting classical conservatism on the map in American politics, because of the states that Senator Goldwater was able to reached. Winning Southern states that up until 1964, the Democratic Party had owned and Senator Goldwater was able to win a few of them. And of course Richard Nixon was able to win a lot of Southern states in 1968 as he was elected president. 

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Freedom vs. Fairness (1980)'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1980.

Source:The FreeState 

"Milton Friedman discusses freedom vs. fairness. From: Donahue - 1980" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness, when he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. 

I believe what Professor Friedman is talking about here, is justice, which is not the same thing. In a true just or free society, the people have the right and ability to take out of society what they put into it. That not everyone is entitled to a successful, rich life, just the people who are successful, who've done well for themselves and society. 

Unlike the socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) definition of economic fairness or justice, that everyone in society is entitled to live well, simply for being alive. Regardless of what they produce for themselves or society, if anything.