Free market economist Milton Friedman dies at 94
One of the greatest economists of our time…
Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three U.S. presidents, died Thursday at age 94. Friedman died in San Francisco, said Robert Fanger, a spokesman for the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in Indianapolis. He did not know the cause of death.
“Milton’s passion for freedom and liberty has influenced more lives than he ever could possibly know,” said Gordon St. Angelo, the foundation’s president and CEO, in a statement. “His writings and ideas have transformed the minds of U.S. presidents, world leaders, entrepreneurs and freshmen economic majors alike.”
In more than a dozen books, a column in Newsweek magazine and a TV show on PBS, Friedman championed individual freedom in economics and politics. The longtime University of Chicago professor pioneered a school of thought that became known as the Chicago school of economics.
His theory of monetarism, adopted in part by the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, opposed the traditional Keynesian economics that had dominated U.S. policy since the New Deal. He was a member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board. His work in consumption analysis, monetary history and stabilization policy earned him the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.
May his ideas live on forever and bear fruit in the future. Amen
Comment by Die-Hard-Capitalist — Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
The 4 ways to spend money by Milton Friedman
I have a feeling you’re going to like it
Comment by aNtonio — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 2:05 am
I guess this would be a good place to ask this guestion. In accordance with the libertarian philosophy of only negative rights existing, is it morally right to let someone drown if you could save him (safely)? Isn’t it slavery to expect you to do this without your will?
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 2:24 am
Excellent summation from Greg Mankiw:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/milton-friedman.html
By the way, Mankiw’s blog is one of the more interesting ones run by economists.
Comment by Finnpundit — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 5:56 am
In accordance with the libertarian philosophy of only negative rights existing, is it morally right to let someone drown if you could save him (safely)? Isn’t it slavery to expect you to do this without your will?
Not all libertarians believe that only negative rights should exist, education is a good example, although I doubt we’d call it a “right”. It’s tough for positive rights to exist – for instance, if you’d say that everyone in Finland has a right to cheap healthcare, there’s plenty of instances where people don’t receive any healthcare at all, often the elderly are denied surgeries because they’re “too old”, or I’m denied dental care in Espoo because the queues are too long.
About your question, I don’t understand the last sentence.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 11:08 am
You are too young to remember, but Milton Friedman didn’t exactly look like someone with “a passion for freedom and liberty” when he praised Pinochet and “the wonder of Chile”. Yes, I know he meant the economic policy, not the police state, but policies of a state aren’t that easy to neatly divide into independent cathegories. You’ll get the whole package. The Milton Friedmanenque economics of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980′s, too, strangely coincidenced with the rise of the authoritarian security state.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 11:10 am
In times of declining birth rates I would be really glad if someone could combine traditional neo-liberal capitalistic values with its market freedoms, that have proven to create such a great welfare, with more conservative family politics.
I think it’s sad that so many families, and especially the women, are choosing to make a career before getting children and so often waiting so long that it often becomes too late.
But this is just a wish and it’s probably more like to have one’s cake and eat it too.
Comment by Mikael — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
One ought to be careful when talking about liberty and libertarianism. Most people who examine these issues agree that libertarians are not interested in liberty as such but in certain kinds of liberty. They stress the importance of freedom from state intervention without considering the myriad ways people can actually limit one another’s freedom.
Friedman was primarily an economic libertarian which is only tenuously linked to liberty in any case. Economic libertarians are against central planning but their are equally pro markets, which require a great deal of supervision if they are to function effectively. Furthermore, I think Friedman would argue that free markets are desirable because they are efficient at generating wealth and not because they in some way promote liberty. These are all different claims.
Comment by finnsense — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
They stress the importance of freedom from state intervention without considering the myriad ways people can actually limit one another’s freedom.
Share some of these ways.
I’m in the middle of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Freedom-Battle-Americas-Important/dp/0374158282/ – which examines right-wing freedom vs. left-wing freedom, I’m disappointed there’s only a paragraph about libertarians in there.
Economic libertarians are against central planning but their are equally pro markets, which require a great deal of supervision if they are to function effectively.
Libertarians aren’t against planning, there just weary about the government doing it.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
This reminds me of one book we use in our discipline as a handbook, and its author. A student asked me once, “How can he be teaching this course? Isn’t he dead?” She was assuming that the book was written by a late professor emeritus in the 30′s or something.
Milton Friedman is one of those people that you assume to be deceased, because their ideas and contributions are so central to the discipline that it takes lifetimes to cement them in place. The idea of Friedman’s theory becomes immortal, while the natural person is no longer significant.
Comment by sepisp — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Who should do the planning then? The invisible hand perhaps?
Comment by Pave — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Phil,
Well to take a couple of examples of ways people can reduce each others freedom, I can shoot you or I can threaten you or I can steal all your money and belongings, I can create monopolies or I can simply get in your way. Most political theorists accept that government intervention can often greatly expand your freedom. You already mentioned education but think also of traffic laws.
I think in some countries small government is a good thing because the government is corrupt and incompetent and so routinely fails to increase the freedom of its people. That’s why in the US the power should reside with the states and not the federal government. But I would argue that in the Nordic countries, in spite of having the greatest amount of government intervention in the world, we are also the freest people in the world.
“Libertarians aren’t against planning, there just weary about the government doing it.”
That’s what I meant by central planning. And generally libertarians have a great deal of faith in the invisible hand over conscious planning – as do most people who know anything about economics. However, as I said, that’s an efficiency argument and plenty of people who think the invisible hand is the most efficient way to run an economy also accept that unfettered, it has unpleasant consequences.
Comment by finnsense — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
good
Comment by The Swede — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
I can shoot you or I can threaten you or I can steal all your money and belongings
Yeah cause Friedman, myself, and libertarians all support murder, threats, and stealing.
I can create monopolies
Glad there’s no monopolies in the welfare state.
I can simply get in your way.
??
You already mentioned education but think also of traffic laws.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with traffic laws.
That’s why in the US the power should reside with the states and not the federal government.
I agree with you there. Although I say people > states > feds
And generally libertarians have a great deal of faith in the invisible hand over conscious planning – as do most people who know anything about economics.
Riiiight, you know more about economics than Milton Friedman.
Seriously, show me how libertarian/liberal’s freedom actually limit other people’s freedom.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
Phil:
“Yeah cause Friedman, myself, and libertarians all support murder, threats, and stealing.”
No, but you are extremely in favour of INDIVIDUAL freedom. The acts you mention – unless prevented by law, moral, whatever – would/should be accepted in a country based on TOTAL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM without any GOVERNMENT intervention.
“Glad there’s no monopolies in the welfare state.”
Who said there aren’t? But there are natural monopolies, which shouldn’t be run by private interests. Those are – mainly – not thanks to the parties you would like to see in power, state-owned these days (your “freedom”-loving friends in this country have already gotten half their foot in – look at Fortum). If you and your likes get more influence, then I guess somebody lucky will have the opportunity to make a fortune for himself/herself thanks to you and your kind.
But say, if there is full freedom, without government intrusion in the sense of anti-monopolistic legislation, what is there to hinder the creation of monopolies. Thus, without the loathsome government, what hinders those monopolies from developing?
“Riiiight, you know more about economics than Milton Friedman.”
Riiight, I think he knows much more about economics than Milton Friedman does right now
. He’s dead – Milton that is, thus according to my beliefs he knows “close to nothing” about anything, economics or otherwise, right now – if you remember.
“Seriously, show me how libertarian/liberal’s freedom actually limit other people’s freedom.”
You freedom-lovers are so naive. Show me some “libertarian/liberal’s freedom” (given some definition of what freedom actually means – remember FREEDOM is a very complex issue) that I couldn’t show to actually limit some “other people’s freedom” under some different interpretation of the word freedom. It’s all about the interpretation of the word FREEDOM. But you, and your libertarian friends, do not have the MONOPOLY on the interpretation of that word, or do you?
In fact, freedom always seems to boil down to equivalence, which, for some reason is something freedom-loving individuals hate. Yet, they cannot define freedom, without using (indirectly) equivalence as a base for their definition of FREEDOM.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 1:08 am
Here’s Reason Online’s (“Free Markets And Free Ideas”) take on Friedman:
http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/116778.html
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 7:25 am
Phil,
I didn’t say I knew more about economics than Milton Friedman. I was actually putting forward his point of view. You should read the post.
As for my examples, you asked me how people could limit one another’s freedom so I responded with some examples. I didn’t say your particular brand of libertarianism condoned them or not. As Thomas says, it’s not possible to argue against all people who call themselves libertarians since both that concept and the concept of liberty itself is far from simple.
“Seriously, show me how libertarian/liberal’s freedom actually limit other people’s freedom.”
Libertarian and liberal are nowhere near the same thing on any definition. That said, it’s quite easy to explain how a big state can enhance liberty if we take liberty as being the number of actions you are unconstrained from doing, taken in a broad sense. All that is required is that any government intervention increases people’s options rather than detracts from them.
Take universal health care as an example. A requirement of doing things is that you are healthy and the healthier you are, the more things you can do.
Take the idea of a basic minimum wage. In our society a certain level of income vastly increases the range of options open to you, while being below a certain level vastly decreases those options. Combined with free education the only hindrance to you persuing your dream in life is your talents in this situation. This is a good deal different to the practical and psychological barriers that exist if countries no welfare state. In the UK, when higher education ceased to be free, the number of applications to university dropped dramatically, even though loans were available. Barriers can be psychological as well as physical.
I could go on and on. In case you are tempted to make the argument that freedom can only be restricted by making things physically impossible consider the case of the War of Independence. The colonies were for a long time dominated by the Crown and under their control but the Crown didn’t interfere. Did that mean the colonies were free?
Also consider laws. Laws don’t make thing impossible, they just increase the chances of being punished for doing certain things. Since it is then not impossible to do those things, are you then free to do things that are illegal?
Comment by finnsense — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 8:20 am
Let’s not forget Friedman’s outspoken advocacy of the legalisation of recreational drugs that are now the focus of the failed “war on drugs”. Here’s a quote from Friedman’s “Open letter to Bill Bennet)
“Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.”
http://www.drugsense.org/html/modules.php?name=DSW&page=current#sec6
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
No, but you are extremely in favour of INDIVIDUAL freedom. The acts you mention – unless prevented by law, moral, whatever – would/should be accepted in a country based on TOTAL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM without any GOVERNMENT intervention.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Friedman, libertarians, and myself would not allow murder. We don’t believe in zero government, “the night watchman state” is one of the most basic principles.
But say, if there is full freedom, without government intrusion in the sense of anti-monopolistic legislation, what is there to hinder the creation of monopolies. Thus, without the loathsome government, what hinders those monopolies from developing?
Well we already have monopolies now, and maybe if the state wouldn’t stick their noses in businesses, there’d be monopolies too. But here’s the key difference – with state monopolies (like Alko) NO ONE may compete, with monopolies in the free-market, everyone has the opportunity to compete.
He’s dead – Milton that is, thus according to my beliefs he knows “close to nothing†about anything, economics or otherwise, right now – if you remember.
Nah, in an Economics debate, I’d still take dead Milton over you or Finnsense
But you, and your libertarian friends, do not have the MONOPOLY on the interpretation of that word, or do you?,
Often when non-libertarians speak of “freedom”, they’re instead speaking of “empowerment”.
In fact, freedom always seems to boil down to equivalence, which, for some reason is something freedom-loving individuals hate.
Do you mean equality?
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
All that is required is that any government intervention increases people’s options rather than detracts from them.
That doesn’t necessarily mean freedom. Because it often means taking away someone’s freedom and giving it to another. Or, let’s take healthcare for instance – in the US an American may have a LOT more healthcare choices than a Finn. But on the other hand, an American right about the poverty line may have less (none) choices compared to the Finn.
Take universal health care as an example. A requirement of doing things is that you are healthy and the healthier you are, the more things you can do.
GOOD universal healthcare yes, BAD univeral healthcare would worsen freedom. Of course many libertarians believe in a universal access-style healthcare. Those peoplle would argue that universal healthcare is limiting people’s freedom by giving them poorer healthcare.
In our society a certain level of income vastly increases the range of options open to you,
Here’s the “options” thing again, I think you’re speaking of empowerment. With your logic, a wealthy person who has more vacation destination options is “more free” than a middle-class person who has limited options. I don’t believe that this limits anyone’s freedom.
And what if a higher minimum wage forces companies to fire people because they can’t afford them, then they’re forced to make the existing people work much harder. If the XYZ company has $20/hr for salaries, minimum age goes up from $4/hr to $5/hr, they’re then forced to go from 5 employees to 4, and the 4 employees must pick up the slack of the lost employee….is this freedom?
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Phil,
What we’re talking about here is freedom on balance. You accept that in some situations government intervention will increase freedom and in some situations it will detract from people’s freedom on balance. The devil is in the details of how well or badly the government does this. Still, libertarians of all stripes are against “big” government. Why? If big government can in some instances increase people’s freedom in general.
The empowerment argument doesn’t work either. If someone locks you in a room you are unfree to leave the room. If there is a fee of €10 to leave the room and I give you €10, you are no longer unfree to leave the room. So by giving you the money I have taken away one of the things you were previously unfree to do. Money reduces obstacles and obstacles imposed by other people are what make you unfree. That is the classic definition of negative liberty.
People value liberty because they value being able to choose what to do. When the US got liberty from the English, they valued being able to determine the path of their lives. When the South lost the Civil War, the freedom the slaves won was the vast expansion of their options in life. If you accept a definition of liberty that ignores the most important part of it, you stop giving anyone a reason to care very much about liberty.
Take the example of homeless person in the gutter with no money. You would say she is free to become an IT professional at Nokia just as you are. She may not be able to but she is free to. What is the value of that freedom? Is that why people fight for freedom? No. They fight for freedom as the expansion of their options in life (or if you like, the reduction in their barriers), not hypothetically but in reality.
Comment by finnsense — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
On of the problems with Friedman is that his right-wing hagiographers (of whom not all have actually read anything he wrote) are making a right-wing caricature out of him (the same problem as with Hayek, btw). Friedman was often the first one to admit he was wrong, when he was wrong. Orthodox monetarism, as it was implemented in Chile (and to some extent in the US and UK), is now discredited. It doesn’t dimish his huge impact on modern economic thought.
But I’m glad, Phil, that you seem to be happy with Nokia’s crappy wages. They are, after all, serving the greater monetary good to keep the inflation down.;
Comment by Erik — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Still, libertarians of all stripes are against “big†government. Why? If big government can in some instances increase people’s freedom in general.
No, because small government, or no government, can do things better.
If someone locks you in a room you are unfree to leave the room.
Bad example because someone has unlawfully locked you in a room. Libertarians would fully support the police protecting people from locking others in rooms against their will. Money has nothing to do with this. Try again using a real-world example.
Take the example of homeless person in the gutter with no money.
Terrible example because people aren’t just born into gutters. Take the whole person’s life – they dropped out of school when they were 14, could never keep a job for more than a month, led a life of crime, shot heroin up there arm for 20 years, fucked over every person they’ve ever met, spent every dime on shit…are they free to become IT professionals? Sure, but they spent their entire lives choosing not to.
They fight for freedom as the expansion of their options in life (or if you like, the reduction in their barriers), not hypothetically but in reality.
Again, with that logic a wealthy person has more options and therefore more freedom than a middle-class person. Money and freedom are two different things.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
But I’m glad, Phil, that you seem to be happy with Nokia’s crappy wages.
First off, it’s not Nokia’s crappy wages, it’s Finland’s crappy wages. take a look at Nokia in the states. Secondly, there’s alot more to consider than salary when working for Nokia.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
What’s the correct libertarian position on discrimination? It seems to me that if a majority discriminates against a minority, it can severely curtail the minority’s positive freedom. On the other hand, forcing the majority to do business with the minority would curtail the majority’s negative freedom. Would libertarians in general uphold the negative freedom of not having to do business with dark-skinned people, or would they side with the minority’s positive freedom of having the opportunity to buy stuff just the same as everyone else? (Or do they perhaps see the situation in some different way?)
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Phil,
The examples I gave are very good examples at showing what I was trying to show. If someone locks you in a room you are unfree regardless of whether you deserve to be locked in. You’re not seriously suggesting that whether you are free or not depends on whether someone is justified in taking away your freedom?
The same goes for the homeless person example. The things you did to get to where you are do not affect whether you are free or not. We might say the homeless person deserves to be unfree but we don’t doubt that he is unfree.
As for your comment about the wealthy and the middle-class person, of course the wealthy person is more free. If you think he isn’t you have an idea of freedom that makes it hard to understand why freedom should be valuable.
Finally, libertarians are pro-liberty. They are not pro-liberty because they think liberty has lots of nice effects. They are pro-liberty because they think liberty is a core value around which one should build a society. Liberty, of all good things, is the best. They are against big government not because they think it is impractical, as you suggest, but because they think it is immoral that the government should interfere in your life and stop you doing what you want to do. The fact that you don’t understand this suggests that your own version of libertarianism has one member – you.
Comment by finnsense — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
But say, if there is full freedom, without government intrusion in the sense of anti-monopolistic legislation, what is there to hinder the creation of monopolies. Thus, without the loathsome government, what hinders those monopolies from developing?
Thomas, that’s a good point. If I’m not mistaken, the EU’s antitrust legislation was the basis for its action against Microsoft. Naturally, Microsoft would have liked to establish a monopoly in Europe, but I guess it was impeded somewhat in this case.
The United States also has antitrust legislation. It’s the only thing that prevented, for example, the (former) Big Three automakers from merging into the Big One. Instead, now, GM actually NEEDS the smaller Ford Motor Company—and the foreign imports—as competitors. Without them, GM would come dangerously close to violating antitrust regulation.
We can also note that antitrust legislation, by itself, is not the only answer to establishing a fair marketplace. The determining factor lies in how the legislation is written. We can easily predict the result, if such legislation is written by the companies themselves. That’s a problem in the United States—although, perhaps not with antitrust legislation per se.
Incidentally, american antitrust legislation is also the reason for why Microsoft NEEDS Linux. But, that’s not to say that Linux wouldn’t exist without antitrust legislation. Consider that if Microsoft were to raise its prices high enough, then it would automatically create marketshare for Linux. Perhaps this is proof that the world of software is NOT a natural monopoly—although it seems like it.
But, perhaps we can identify other industries which DO have potential for producing natural monopolies. In those cases, antitrust legislation might not be enough. There might need to be government involvement. Otherwise, a monopolizer could determine its own prices, without competition to keep things in-check.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Most libertarians seem to think that the government is (close to) unnecessary – or actually harmful – because the markets could handle most or all problems more efficiently. That’s pretty logical: take away politics and you’re left with either tradition or markets. And the libertarians are not conservatives. So it’s the markets.
But the markets can fail. Or actually they always fail when left alone.
Somebody buys all the land around Phil’s house. Then he demands all Phil’s money – or perhaps even his workforce for a few decades – for his right to leave his premises. In a libertarian society Phil has no chance but to agree. This problems has to do with monopolies or, more in more general terms, scarcity power. Historically people have time and again been enslaved through this process; all you need is a monopoly of an essential resource like land, water, guns …
Other market failures have to do with such things as negative externalities and information. For example, we need a state to fight pollution (a negative externality). And we need democracy to decide on what to fight and how. Period. There’s no way going around this, unless we are prepared to give up our liberty.
Libertarians are, in that sense, dangerous, not just harmless fools.
Comment by Tomi — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
If someone locks you in a room you are unfree regardless of whether you deserve to be locked in.
But how would this change from a libertarian society to a welfare state society? We’re comparing libertarian freedom here and other ideology’s interpretation of freedom. I don’t see your point, use a real world example.
The same goes for the homeless person example. The things you did to get to where you are do not affect whether you are free or not. We might say the homeless person deserves to be unfree but we don’t doubt that he is unfree.
Okay, this is obviously where our definitions of freedom differ. You see this man as unfree, I see him as free. If he’s “unfree” according to you, it’s because he himself, and only himself, made himself this way.
Try this scenario: A guy in a free society shoots heroin 10 times a day and has serious problems because of it. Is he free or unfree? I say he’s free. You see him as unfree I guess?
As for your comment about the wealthy and the middle-class person, of course the wealthy person is more free. If you think he isn’t you have an idea of freedom that makes it hard to understand why freedom should be valuable.
Yes, you and I have different definitions of freedom. “Freedom” and “Free to do things like take fancy vacations” are two very different things.
They are pro-liberty because they think liberty is a core value around which one should build a society.
There’s more than one reason why libertarians are pro-liberty, the answer you gave is just one of many reasons.
They are against big government not because they think it is impractical, as you suggest, but because they think it is immoral that the government should interfere in your life and stop you doing what you want to do.
Libertarians are against big government for many reasons – I’m not sure if “immoral” is the best word to use but yeah, we don’t think that the state/government should interfere in our lives when we’re not harming others. But again, that’s just one of many reasons. Another reason is what I said earlier, that small government or no government is more efficient and better for society than big government.
The fact that you don’t understand this suggests that your own version of libertarianism has one member – you.
Dunno about that, I’m definitely not part of the anarcho-libertarian crowd. However there aren’t many of us “Post-Libertarians” (a word I recently heard and may start using more often) around.
Interesting discussion.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Somebody buys all the land around Phil’s house.
How would that be possible? They’d have to buy the road from the state, or my driveway from me.
For example, we need a state to fight pollution (a negative externality).
Myself and alot of other libertarians have no problem with the state managing pollution. I wouldn’t be allowed to shit on everyone’s property, there should be some laws about the spread of my shit (pollution) from my factory onto everyone else’s property. Although, here in Finland we have heavy state-control over the enviornment, yet we can’t even meet the Kyoto requirements. So you can’t just say “the state should run things and everything will be fine”.
It seems as if alot of people aren’t understanding libertarianism, and that’s not your fault, it’s the fault of the anarcho-libertarians who have kinda taken over the whole party and movement. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard people ask, “What should we do about the environment?” and an American libertarian reply, “Well the feds are our nation’s biggest polluter, let’s get rid of them” then they end their discussion about the environment.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Phil:
“I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Friedman, libertarians, and myself would not allow murder. We don’t believe in zero government, “the night watchman state†is one of the most basic principles.”
OK. But what is “the night watchman state†exactly? Every person claiming to be a libertarian seems to have his/her own perception of the term. It’s very difficult to debate one way or another, since the definition keeps changing continuously. In fact, it seems to change so that it perfectly fits the latest libertarian slogan. It’s easy to say that you are for FREEDOM, especially if you define FREEDOM in such vague terms as most libertarians do. But FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM allows me to do anything I please, including murder. If I’m not allowed to commit murder, then my FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM has been violated. Like it or not.
“Well we already have monopolies now, and maybe if the state wouldn’t stick their noses in businesses, there’d be monopolies too.”
If the state wouldn’t “stick their nose in business” there would be FAR more monopolies. That’s why there are laws against monopolies, or is this too difficult for you to understand?
“But here’s the key difference – with state monopolies (like Alko) NO ONE may compete, with monopolies in the free-market, everyone has the opportunity to compete.”
As long as the awful state provides the protection for competitors. Without that, most monopolies would just dump prices as long as it takes to wipe out competition. And then raise prices EVEN more.
But concerning state monopolies (I know Alko is your favourite enemy – but could you PLEASE find another dead horse to beat, next time) what are there left really? Even the most likely NATURAL MONPOLIES have been given away, for free, to private “monopolies/oligopolies”. What is the point in having 2-3 competing GSM-networks (with different coverability in different areas of the country), when ONE network would be CHEAPER, and would provide FULL coverage of Finland. Your employer – being a network equipment developer – surely benefits. But in what sense does the consumer benefit from this FREEDOM. It can be expressed in two words: no way. The idiotic “privatisation” of the railways in the U.K. is just another example. What kind of de-monopolising is that, that you hand out tens of “sub-monopolies” to “private” entrepeneurs? Sadly, these – idiot libertarian – principles have gained popularity among politicians here in Finland as well. Thank you, to people like you, and the so called “kykypuolue”, which seems to be right up your alley mostly.
“Nah, in an Economics debate, I’d still take dead Milton over you or Finnsense”
I think Miltons monetarism is already yesterdays news. Of course, you are free to hang on to the good old days. But the train has already left the station – EVEN among the economists (so I’m told) – concerning Milton and his pal’s. Of course, it’s possible that Milton was right, and that monetarism was the “mother of all economic theories” but let me say that I doubt that.
I think it was just a theory, that fit the currents of time well. But, e.g. Keynes seems to be much more everlasting than good old Milton, who just had one uplift thanks to “genious” people like Reagan and Thatcher. Economic theory should – in order to be really great – be able to take into account changes in the surroundings.
“Often when non-libertarians speak of “freedomâ€Â, they’re instead speaking of “empowermentâ€Â.”
Without knowing the etymology of the word “empowerment”, I still think that most people – be they libertarians or not – mean “freedom” when they talk about “freedom”. What “freedom” means is a matter of debate. But “you, and your libertarian friends, do not have the MONOPOLY on the interpretation of that word, or do you?” to quote myself.
“In fact, freedom always seems to boil down to equivalence, which, for some reason is something freedom-loving individuals hate.
Do you mean equality?”
Whatever. What is your point? You FREEDOM-lovers simply cannot agree what the concept you so dearly love means. And EVERYTIME you FREEDOM-lovers define what the concept you – so much love – means, it’s actually an EQUALITY based definiton.
Equality w.r.t. taxes, be it poll tax or fix rate based.
Equality under law.
And so on…..
You FREEDOM-lovers are so equality-sensed, that communists would blush.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
But FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM allows me to do anything I please, including murder. If I’m not allowed to commit murder, then my FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM has been violated. Like it or not.
You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass. You’re talking about anarchy.
If the state wouldn’t “stick their nose in business†there would be FAR more monopolies. That’s why there are laws against monopolies, or is this too difficult for you to understand?
The further they stick their noses, the more monopolies we’d see for sure. If there’s laws against monopolies, why do I have visit only Alko for my Belgian ales?
As long as the awful state provides the protection for competitors. Without that, most monopolies would just dump prices as long as it takes to wipe out competition. And then raise prices EVEN more.
If you’re the only guy in town and you have insanely high prices, you won’t be the only guy in town for long.
But in what sense does the consumer benefit from this FREEDOM.
It’s called competition.
Thank you, to people like you, and the so called “kykypuolueâ€Â, which seems to be right up your alley mostly.
What is kykypuole?
You FREEDOM-lovers are so equality-sensed, that communists would blush.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
BTW – Why is the Finnish state selling off their shares in companies like Fortum? Do they really believe that privatization is more efficient? (I seriously doubt that) Or do they want to make a quick buck so they can spend it on some welfare state bullshit during their term in office?
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Somebody buys all the land around Phil’s house.
How would that be possible? They’d have to buy the road from the state, or my driveway from me.
Oh, I see, in your utopia the state owns the roads. What else? Anyway, you completed missed the point, but you have to know that yourself.
It seems as if alot of people aren’t understanding libertarianism, and that’s not your fault, it’s the fault of the anarcho-libertarians who have kinda taken over the whole party and movement.
Yes, I know there are all kinds of libertarians. Your kind seems to be some sort of Social Democratic one.
Comment by Tomi — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
Anyway, you completed missed the point, but you have to know that yourself.
Give me a realistic situation.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Phil:
“You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass. You’re talking about anarchy.”
No I’m not. Full personal FREEDOM means I’m allowed to murder anybody I like/dislike. Period. If I’m not allowed to do this my FULL PERSONAL FREEDOM is RESTRICTED by means of law,
“The further they stick their noses, the more monopolies we’d see for sure. If there’s laws against monopolies, why do I have visit only Alko for my Belgian ales?”
Are you actually claiming that there isn´t a whole lot of legislation (and laws – at least in Finland – are passed by the “state”) AGAINST monopolies? Are you claiming this isn’t the case in e.g. the U.S. Are you claimimng that the “state” doesn´t actively act against monopolies, via e.g. the kilpailuvirasto?
What planet are you living on?
Your favourite monopoly ALKO, and your extreme dislike for it is well known, and you do not need to bring this up once more. Or what does ALKO prove? The monopoly – in this case – brought upon us by law. But that doesn’t mean that the “state” doesn’t – through legislation – work actively against monopolies in other markets.
Furtermore, I don’t know what the “Belgian Ales” you like are, but there seemed to be ales inthe local Citymarket the last time I visited. So maybe your local supermarket has simply considered Phil´s Belgian Ales to be unmarketable.
“It’s called competition.”
So you would in fact consider competing water distribution networks, electricity distribution networks, railroads, … etc. sensible, just because they would bring on COMPETITION. Are you really this stupid?
The fact that we have several GSM-networks, is stupid enough, but your employer reaps millions, since they are able to sell three times as much network equipment for three separate networks. Do you seriously think that somebody else, except the consumer pays for this? Who is this invisible financer that you seem to have in mind? The famous “invisible hand” perhaps. Nowadays called the “invisible wallet”.
The libertarian naivety is simply astonishing, from time to time.
“What is kykypuole?”
It’s the Kokoomus-party.
“What do you mean by “equality-sensed? Like, equality is very important to libertarians?”
Yes. Equality is very important to libertarians. Even though they themselves usually don´t understand this. Equality is present – one way or another – in every definition of “freedom”. At least those I´ve come across.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Nov 26th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Phil:
In the very same response to a reader you write the following two phrases:
“No, because small government, or no government, can do things better.”
and
“Bad example because someone has unlawfully locked you in a room.”
Do you seriously not see how idiotic your freedom-loving is? just based on these two phrases.
If the “no government option you advocate in the first phrase was in use, then who the hell would declare “locking somebody in a room” unLAWful?
How naive can you get?
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Nov 26th, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Phil;
“Give me a realistic situation.”
I think Tomi gave you a perfectly REALISTIC situation, given the – underlying assumption of markets fixing it all, and no government in place – since in that situation (you should really be able to understand this, otherwise Nokia has made a shocking recruitement in your case) the STATE wouldn’t own anything. Thus it would be possible for SOMEONE, to buy all the land surrounding Phil’s house.
But – generally – for anyone being able to give REALISTC situations as arguments against your extremely vague notion of libertarianism, you would have to define what your libertarianism means. You don´t seem to be able to do this. you just whine about ALKO, goverment etc. But you refuse to give any alternative solutions (ok, in ALKOs case the solution from your viewpoint is rather simple, but in general you´re just whining in a rather irritating manner).
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Nov 26th, 2006 @ 5:11 pm