One recourse, and in many ways the most desirable, is private charity. It is noteworthy that the heyday of laissez-faire, the middle and late nineteenth century in Britain and the United States, saw an extraordinary proliferation of private eleemosynary organizations and institutions. One of the major costs of the extension of governmental welfare activities has been the corresponding decline in private charitable activities.
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Chapter XII: The Alleviation of Poverty (via donttreadonvirginia)
In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country” implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Introduction (via donttreadonvirginia)
Political leaders in capitalist countries who cheer the collapse of socialism in other countries continue to favor socialist solutions in their own. They know the words, but they have not learned the tune.
Milton Friedman (via donttreadonvirginia)
Whenever you try to do good with someone else’s money, you are committed to using force. How can you do good with somebody else’s money, unless you first take it away from them? The only way you can take it away from them is the threat of force: you have a policeman, tax collector, who comes and takes it from them.
Milton Friedman (via donttreadonvirginia)
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Milton Friedman (via themcdonaldcollation)
genopp:

Happy Birthday Milton Friedman!

genopp:

Happy Birthday Milton Friedman!

Dr. Joshua Hall’s collection Homer Economicus: The Simpsons and Economics uses stories from the popular television show The Simpsons to illustrate how economic theories manifest themselves in everyday life. Hall was joined by a wide group of economists who authored individual chapters of bite-size economics lessons using the characters and stories from 20 years of The Simpsons episodes. Broken into three parts, the collection gives us a glimpse into the fictional town of Springfield, home to Homer Simpson’s family and many other unforgettable characters. Here is just a sampling of the many economic lessons sprinkled throughout the book.

This book is arriving tomorrow from Amazon!

PHILADELPHIA – A Sudanese woman who refused to recant her Christian faith in the face of a death sentence, which was later overturned, has arrived in the United States after a flight from Rome.

Meriam Ibrahim stopped in Philadelphia briefly before a scheduled flight to Manchester, New Hampshire, where she will make her new home.

Her husband, who has U.S. citizenship, had previously lived in New Hampshire and has family already there.

Officials at Philadelphia International Airport say she arrived with her family late Thursday afternoon.

Welcome to the greatest country in the history of the world and the best place for anybody of any religion to live in freedom and peace as an American.

mrsrandallboggs:

donttreadonvirginia:

mrsrandallboggs:

bethrogers:

Condoleezza Rice is the consummate role model.  She’s a concert pianist, speaks multiple languages, and has a razor sharp mind. Most women, if not all, pale in comparison to her as a politician and human being. Most men too.

And when she was in high school she was told by a college counselor that she might not be college material because of her PSAT scores. LMAO. I hope that person lived to see her become Secretary of State.

Yet, she’s one of leading spokeswomen of the Ban Bossy movement..  She was the first person in the initial video to say: “We need to ban bossy.”  You’d think her life story would inspire her to tell little girls to ignore criticism, work hard, and not let anyone discourage them from working towards fulfilling their dream but, no, she does videos lobbying to ban words because they might discourage little girls from entering professions that require them to be tough and not care what other people think or say about them.If you cannot handle the fact that you might be called “bossy,” it is also highly unlikely you can handle the responsibility of being in a position where you might be called “bossy.”

It is bizarre, and I disagree with her because so many innovators and leaders throughout history have faced obstacles and discouragement or were not taken seriously; part of being a leader is persevering through it all. I don’t think being discouraged, or being criticized, is an excuse to not succeed. But whatever, I find Condoleezza Rice too admirable a woman to stop admiring her over this.

She’s really the last woman you would expect to be involved in all of that “Ban Bossy” insanity.I actually think the fact that she was somebody I considered so admirable for the exact reasons the “Ban Bossy” campaign is so ridiculous makes her key role in it significantly more disturbing for me.

mrsrandallboggs:

donttreadonvirginia:

mrsrandallboggs:

bethrogers:

Condoleezza Rice is the consummate role model. She’s a concert pianist, speaks multiple languages, and has a razor sharp mind. Most women, if not all, pale in comparison to her as a politician and human being. Most men too.

And when she was in high school she was told by a college counselor that she might not be college material because of her PSAT scores. LMAO. I hope that person lived to see her become Secretary of State.

Yet, she’s one of leading spokeswomen of the Ban Bossy movement.. She was the first person in the initial video to say: “We need to ban bossy.” You’d think her life story would inspire her to tell little girls to ignore criticism, work hard, and not let anyone discourage them from working towards fulfilling their dream but, no, she does videos lobbying to ban words because they might discourage little girls from entering professions that require them to be tough and not care what other people think or say about them.

If you cannot handle the fact that you might be called “bossy,” it is also highly unlikely you can handle the responsibility of being in a position where you might be called “bossy.”

It is bizarre, and I disagree with her because so many innovators and leaders throughout history have faced obstacles and discouragement or were not taken seriously; part of being a leader is persevering through it all. I don’t think being discouraged, or being criticized, is an excuse to not succeed. But whatever, I find Condoleezza Rice too admirable a woman to stop admiring her over this.

She’s really the last woman you would expect to be involved in all of that “Ban Bossy” insanity.

I actually think the fact that she was somebody I considered so admirable for the exact reasons the “Ban Bossy” campaign is so ridiculous makes her key role in it significantly more disturbing for me.