If instead of looking at income, you look at levels of consumption, if anything that's become more equal. The fraction of families that have a dishwasher, that have a sewing machine, that have a television set. In respect to consumption, it's very hard to avoid the view that people have been getting more equal rather than more unequal.

If you cannot state a proposition clearly and unambiguously, you do not understand it.

Doing good with other people's money has two basic flaws. In the first place, you never spend anybody else's money as carefully as you spend your own. So a large fraction of that money is inevitably wasted. In the second place, and equally important, you cannot do good with other people's money unless you first get the money away from them. So that force - sending a policeman to take the money from somebody's pocket - is fundamentally at the basis of the philosophy of the welfare state.

In the current world, with the skills needed, dropouts [like no secondary education] are condemned to being members of the underclass. In my view, this is a fault of the American school system, which is a government monopoly.

You cannot be sure that you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do.

A minimum-wage law is, in reality, a law that makes it illegal for an employer to hire a person with limited skills.

The excuse for the destruction of liberty is always the plea of necessary ' that there is no alternative