Milton Friedman

[Martin Hash]

Recently, I watched John Galbraith’s economic series “Age of Uncertainty” (made in 1977) on YouTube. It was great so I read the details behind it via Wikipedia. It turns out, at the time conservatives had a fit about the subject matter. (It is unclear whether any of them watched the series because for the most part it is simply history and takes no position on collectivism.) In response, Milton Friedman made the 10-part “Free to Choose” series. To be perfectly honest, whereas Galbraith’s series was intellectual and informative, Friedman’s was a rant with far more hypocrisy and demagoguery than information.



I used the “comments” function of YouTube to express my disappointment. Here is the subsequent thread:

Everything Dr. Friedman says in this episode is overly simplistic, and sometimes even misleading. Does he really mean that it would be better if doctors were not certified? Do pedestrians have to walk around bucket-makers who work on the sidewalk? What happens to people who simply can't do anything worth paying for? (Did you notice those "highly paid" workers in their underwear were carving elephant tusks!?)

You have to understand the market the video is aimed towards- not people who specialise in the subject of Economics/Modern History; but the layman. And I think Dr. Friedman did a wonderful job in putting his points across. I think many potential "misleading" ideas portrayed could probably be debunked by a more complex message from him.

I appreciate that the intended audience is uninformed, which makes it all the more shameful that Dr. Friedman politicized the subject matter - presumably "economics." I was pointing out the glaring weaknesses in his arguments as presented in this video.

I think Friedman would've, or was, (been) in support of private certification. The question of, why should the state have the monopoly of certification?

In fact almost all certifications are administered through the private sector: the bar, professional engineers, certified public accountants, etc. We as a society decided that the medical profession was one of those all-important functions that requires uniform application. This belief is so strong that now we as a society are trying to bring all of healthcare under the state umbrella. Health is very, very important to people; like the military, another socialized function.

By "Society", do you mean the Society of Doctors and Individuals versed in medicine, or the General Society? At this point, I'd like to quote the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher. "And, I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

I've often heard your ideology but society is whatever we define it to be. If we choose socialized healthcare, we will be healthy. If we choose to have building codes, we can have fine construction. If we choose workplace safety, we can prevent hazards. It is only a matter of proper presentation - which Dr. Friedman fails to do in these videos.

Things do not occur because we wish it- they occur because they are possible and are worked on. You have to remember how these things can function- they require effort and backing. I live in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service, a "Socialized" system, has existed since the end of the the Second World War- insufficiencies in it are blatant, and it has, overall, caused great strain to the country over it's existence. If American's want to Nationalize healthcare- where will they get the money? If they want to pay for the enforcement of Building Codes and Workplace Safety laws, how will they pay for the inspectors and regulators? We can't just say "it will be done", we have to think of where the actions and resources to carry these out come from- and in the end, it comes down to taxation. And I've always held that Taxation is the equivalent of sanctioned theft. In the end, it will be the Taxpayer who will provide the resources for this- why should he have an obligation to all the people that the Government will service with his money? Why are they entitled to his money? Why must he pay?

Dr. Friedman often made that point. He kept mentioning that it was "your" money. Ask yourself this question: if there were no police, no army, no judicial system, no investigators - how long would you keep "your" money? If you were dropped onto a desert island with $10 million - how much of that would you pay to go back to your hometown? What if it was all $10 million? You have no money, only a formal arrangement to live with other people.

I believe that the police, the army, and the courts are necessary. And funding them ensures that transactions can occur, and people can be free from coercion and threats. To pay taxation for them is the base rate of living in a country- and ensuring stability. It's basically a service provided by the institute that has the monopoly on coercion. I am a Minarchist, not an Anarchist.

But the other people you are making the deal with are not Minarchists. They want to have proven drugs, unemployment insurance, social security, and a safe workplace. They allow their sons & daughters in the military to protect those benefits. They are courteous to you even though they do not owe you (or anyone) courtesy. Dr. Friedman's video is patronizing as well as misleading.

The wants of all these people who want these services must somehow rule over my own wants? Why must their say have more than mine? What is their justification?

Isn't that obvious? Democracy is our chosen method of deciding things. Get enough Minarchists together, or Marxists, or Luddites, or any other group, and you can have your way. 100 years ago we let people die in burning locked factories, drink mercury-tainted water, suffer in their old age - that was the majority will then, this is the majority will now.

I have never believed that a majority has the rights to infringe upon the rights of others- I believe coercing money out of others is fundamentally theft, the amount of people who agree with it is irrelevant. I believe Collectivism, when voluntary, is a fundamentally good thing- and the only economic system that allows people to behave as they wish is Capitalism. And I believe that the improvement of conditions wasn't due to the actions of Government- but via that of the actions of the public, voluntarily. In a truly free market, people will be able to boycott companies that don't treat their workers as they believe they should, workers could work where they please, and the companies would have to make sure they appeal to workers to be able to have a work place at all. Living standards do not require Government intervention- they require people to provide their consent as to what will happen to them and their communities. As does treatment in old age- which can be provided well by charities and other institutions. I shall quote HL Menken on this one: "Democracy is a belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

Whatever the weaknesses of democracy, it is what we use for governance. The things you have, you keep only through our mutual agreement on this. Your options are: accept it, act within the system for change, rebel, or leave. These videos by Dr. Friedman are not convincing because they are hypocritical demagoguery.

End of thread.