And to discuss the latest film in Milton Friedman series. Free to choose is subject this week. Is equality. Is it a desirable or a possible goal for a society . What do we mean by the term equality among people . And has the phrase all men are created equal acquired a meaning which would not be approved by the Founding Fathers . Well, judge for yourself as you see this weeks film. From victorian novelist to modern reformers, a favored device to stir our emotions is to contrast extremes of wealth and of poverty. We are expected to conclude that the rich are responsive both to the deprivations of the poor and that they are rich at the expense of the poor. Whether it is in the slums of new delhi during the affluence of las vegas, it simply isnt fair that there should be any losers. Life is unfair. Theres nothing fair about one man being born blind and another man being born with sight. Theres nothing fair about one man being born of a wealthy parent and one of an impecunious parent. Theres nothing fair about muhammad ali having been born with a skill that enables him to make millions of dollars one night. Theres nothing fair about Marlene Dietrich having great legs. We all want to watch. Nothing fair about any of that. But on the other hand, dont you think a lot of people who like to look at Marlene Dietrich slags benefited from natures unfairness and producing them . Marlene dietrich. What kind of a world would it be if everybody was an absolute identical duplex of anybody else . You might as well destroy the whole world and just keep one specimen left for a museum in the same way. Its unfair that muhammad ali should be a great fighter and should be able to earn millions. But wouldnt it be . Would it not be even more unfair to the people who like to watch him . If you said that in the pursuit of some abstract ideal of equality, were not going to let muhammad ali get more for one nights fight than the lowest man on the totem pole can get for a days unskilled work on the docks. You could do that. But the result of that would be to deny people the opportunity to watch muhammad ali. I doubt very much that he would be willing to subject himself to the kind of fight hes gone through if he were to get the pay of an unskilled doctor. This beautiful estate, its manicured lawns, its trees, its shrubs was built by men and women who were taken by force in africa and sold as slaves in america. But then these kitchen gardens were planted intended by them to furnish food for themselves and their master. Thomas jefferson. The squire of monticello. It was jefferson who wrote these words. We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life. Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words penned by Thomas Jefferson at the age of 33 when he wrote the declaration of independence, have served define a basic ideal of the United States throughout its history. Much of our history has revolved about the definition and redefinition of the concept of equality. About the attempt to translate it into practice. What did Thomas Jefferson mean by the words all men are created equal. He surely did not mean that they were equal and or identical in what they could do, or in what they believed. After all, he was himself the most remarkable person. At the age of 26. He designed this Beautiful House in monticello, supervised it to construct and indeed is said to have worked on it with his own hands. He was an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, governor of virginia, president of the United States, minister to france. He helped shape and create the United States. What he meant by the word equal can be seen in the phrase endowed by their creator to Thomas Jefferson. All men are equal in the eyes of god. They all must be treated as individuals who have each separately a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, practice did not conform to the ideals in jeffersons life or an ours as a nation. He agonized repeatedly during his lifetime about the conflict between the institution of slavery and the fine words of the declaration. Yet during his whole life, he was a slave owner. This is the city palace in jaipur, the capital of the indian state of rogerstone. Its just one of the elegant houses that were built here 150 years ago by the prince, who ruled this land. There are no more princes, no more maharajas in india today. All titles were swept away by the government of india in its quest for equality. But as you can see, there are still some people here who live a very privileged life. Instead of doing it for. The descendants of the maharajah financed this kind of life partly by using other palaces as hotels for tourists, tourists who come to india to see how the other half lives. On this side of india, the exotic, glamorous side is still very real. Everywhere in the world, there are gross inequalities of income and wealth. They offend most of us. A myth has grown up that free market capitalism increases such inequalities that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. No. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living. Never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor. Nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate. Whether they be feudal societies. Where status determines position or modern centrally planned economies, where access to government determines position. Central planning was introduced in india in considerable part in the name of equality. The tragedy is that after 30 years it is hard to see any sickness. Elegant improvement in the lot of the ordinary person. Ever since the end of world war two, british domestic policy has been dominated by the search for greater equality. Measure after measure has been adopted, designed to take from the rich and give to the poor. Unfortunately, the results have been very different from those that were intended by the high minded people who are quite properly offended by the class structure that dominated britain for centuries. There have been vast redistribution of wealth, but it is very hard to say that the end result has been a more equitable distribution. Instead, new classes of privileged have been created to replace or supplement the old the bureaucracy to secure in their jobs, protected against inflation, both when they work and after they retire. The trade unions, who profess to represent the most downtrodden workers, but who in fact consist of the highest paid laborers in the land, the aristocrats of the Labor Movement and the new millionaires, the people who have been cleverest, most ingenious at finding ways around the rules, the regulations, the laws that have emanated from over their who have found ways to avoid paying tax on the income they have acquired to get their wealth and their money overseas beyond the hands of the tax collector. A vast reshuffling. Yes. Greater equity . Hardly. Oh well. Cant get. The hoody menu in school in the south of england is also a place of privilege. Musically talented children from all over the world compete for a chance to come here to study. And. Much of the moral fervor behind the drive for equality comes from the widespread belief that it is not fair that some children should have a great advantage over others simply because they happen to have wealthy parents. Of course its not fair. But is there any distinction between the inheritance of property and the inheritance of one at first sight . Looks very different. These youngsters have inherited wealth not in the form of bonds or stocks, but in the form of talent. That 15 year old is an accomplished cellist. His father is a distinguished violinist. Its no accident that most of the children at this school come from musical families. The inheritance of talent is no different from an ethical point of view, from the inheritance of other forms of property, of bonds, of stocks, of houses, or a factories. Yet many people resent the one, but not the other. Or look at the same issues from the point of view of the parent. If you want to give your child a special chance, there are different ways you can do it. You can buy them an education. An education that will give him skills, enabling him to earn a higher income. Or you can buy him a business. Or you can leave him property. The income from which will enable him to live better. Is there any ethical difference between these three ways of using your property . Or again, if the state leaves you any money to spend over and above taxes, should you be permitted to spend it on riotous living . But not permitted to leave it to your children . The ethical issues involved are subtle and complex. They are not to be resolved by resort to such simplistic formulas as fair shares for all. Indeed, if you took that seriously, its the youngsters with less musical skill, not those with more who should be sent to this school in order to compensate for their inherited disorder vantage. Courage is coming out now. I wanted to mention that highway closed and have nothing back roads to go and thankfully it is going to be nothing. And i used to say nothing. Nothing. 320 on side roads and one sixth. All right, against a marker one to make the double sided area. When the evening started, all of these players had about the same number of chips in front of them. But as the play progressed, they surely didnt. Someone some lost. By the end of the evening, some of them will have big pile of chips. Others will have small ones. Theyll be big winners. Therell be big losers. In the name of equality, should the winnings be redistributed to the losers so that everybody ends up where he started . That would take all the fun out of the game. Even the losers wouldnt like that. They might like it tonight, but would they come back again to play if they knew that whatever happened, theyd end up exactly where they had started. Were only one phone away from double jackpot time when were in the double jackpot. Ive watched double jackpot for a number of years, but id have just. Bought after the countdown. When you hear the what does las vegas have to do with the real world . A great deal more than you might think. Its one very important part of our life in highly concentrated form every day, all of us are making decisions that involve gambles. Sometimes theyre big gambles as when we decide what occupation to pursue or whom to marry more often there are small gambles. As one, we decide whether to cross the street against the traffic. But each time the question is who shall make the decision . We or somebody else we can make the decision only if we bear the consequences. Thats the Economic System that has transformed our society in the past century and more. Thats what gave the henry ford the thomas alva edisons, the christian barnards, the incentives to produce the miracles that have benefited us all. Its what gave other people the incentive to provide them with the finance for their ventures. Of course, there were lots of losers along the way. We dont remember their names, but remember they went in with their eyes open. They knew what they were doing. And win or lose, we society benefited from their willingness to take a chance. Lanzmann ollman has an idea. Hes taking a chance. Who knows . I suppose its possible that we might all benefit from it. One day. But that isnt why hes taking a chance. Hes doing just because he wants to get rich. This is his business headquarters in las vegas. Empty. Except for the idea that he shares with his partner, who will handle the production end of the venture when things really get going. Well, the idea is that if you have an oil spill in the ocean or in the river, you want to try and get it under control. What im going to simulate here is put some of this oil down. Theres your oil spill of major proportions. Now, this product. What i can do is unfortunately what i cant show you here is that if you put this product down with the application system, you ring the oil spill. Such a manner. Now, the application system will make it much finer and itll control this. I dont know if you can see whats happening to the oil yet, but its just literally being drawn into this stuff. And as i spread across the top now its starting to draw it in. Ive got way more than i need. This controls like ten times its weight in oil, and it will not sink. Its been chemically treated. Its cellulose. Its been chemically treated so that it will, in fact not do anything with the water. It hates water, but it loves oil. I dont know if you can see we have contained devices and thats what were going to use this with now. You can see that its just taken a very little amount of this oil absorbing product, which we call oil eater, to pick this up. Now, the nice thing about it is that after that oil spill is there we have the system to do what im doing with my hand. And thats pick all this up. Theres the oil out of the product. Now, if you want the oil back, thats not a big problem. If i can keep it all under control, the oil will come out. And there we go, allowing it. I dont know if you can see. All right, go. Now, what ive done is i quit my regular job and i mortgaged everything. Ive got an. And its quite, quite a risk to do this. But the product works. You can see it works. And when it goes, im going to make millions. Its compatible with a lot of other products and a lot of other systems that are on the market. So the money factor is, is the main thing. Its the kind of thing that that when you see it, you want to take the risk. Its just the kind of thing, you know, youre going to make a lot of money. You know, people talk to me and theyll say, yeah, but youre crazy. You dont have a job. You dont know where the next paycheck is going to come from. As a matter of fact, i think maybe ive got 10 in my pocket right now, but i dont worry about it because i get up in the morning and its its my world. I, i own it. I can sit back and say im losing or i can sit back and say im winning and i can go out and change the odds in my favor. People who are free make their own choices. These two men do a dangerous no easy, filthy job. They dont do it because they like it. They do it because its wellpaid. Thats their choice. This young man has given up any thought of a steady, wellpaid career in order to take a job on a golf course. He wants to become a professional golfer. Its a big gamble, but its one that he has decided to take. When people are free, they are able to use their own resources most effectively. And you have a great deal of productivity, a great deal of opportunity. The major beneficiaries are always a small man, the man who has power or whos at the top of a society. Hes going to do well. Whatever kind of a society you have. Its a society which gives a small man the opportunity to go his way, which is going to benefit him the most. And that is why if you ask where in the world do ordinary people have the greatest opportunity for themselves and their children . Its not in russia. Its not, on the other hand, in india. Its in places like the United States, like hong kong, like britain, as it was not so clearly britain as it is. For much of this century, the british have tried to use the law to impose equality with very indifferent results. The failure of the drive for equality is not because the wrong measures were adopted, not because they were badly administered. Not because the wrong people administered it. The failure is much more fundamental. It is because that drive goes against the most basic instinct of all human beings. In the words of adam smith, the uniform, constant and uninterrupted, the effort of every man to better his condition, to improve his own lot, and to make a better world for his children and his childrens children. When the law interferes with that pursuit, everyone will try to find a way around. He will try to evade the law. He will break the law, or he will emigrate from the country. All of those things have happened in great britain. There is no moral code that justifies laws fixing prices or fixing wages or preventing a man from earning a living unless he joins a union and submits himself to the discipline of the union, or forcing you to buy more expensive goods at home when cheaper goods are available from abroad. When the law prohibit things that most people regard as moral and proper, they are going to break the law. Only fear of punishment, not a sense of justice, will cause them to obey the law. And when people start breaking one set of laws, theres a strong tendency for the lack of respect for the law to extend to all, even to those which everyone regards as moral and proper laws against violence, theft, vandalism, hard as it may be to blame the growth of crude criminality in britain. All this much to the drive for equality. In addition, that has driven some of the ablest, best trained, most vigorous people out of britain, much to the benefit of the United States and other countries that have given them a greater opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit. And finally, who can doubt the effect which the drive for equality has had on efficiency and productivity . Surely that is one of the main reasons why britain has fallen so far behind its continental neighbors the United States, japan and other countries in the improvement of the economic lot of the ordinary man. Over the past 30 years, everywhere and at all times, economic progress has meant far more to the poor than to the rich. Wherever progress has been achieved, it has relieved the poor from backbreaking toil. It has also enabled them to enjoy the comforts and conveniences that have always been available to the rich. During the 19 century, and especially after the civil war and on into the 20th century, the idea of equality came to have a much more definite and specific meaning than the abstract concept of equality before god. It came more and more to mean that everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he could of his capacities. That all careers should be open to people on the basis of their talents, independently of the race or religion or belief or social class that characterize them. This concept of equality, of opportunity. Offers no conflict at all with the concept of freedom and the on the contrary, they reinforce one another. And it is no doubt the concept that even today is most widely held. But in the 20th century, beginning especially abroad and at a later date in this country, a very different concept, a very different ideal has begun to emerge. That is the ideal that everyone should be equal in income and level of living in what he has. The idea that the economic race should be so arranged that everybody ends at the finish line at the same time, rather than that everyone