Dear Diana:

That quote comes from a lengthy book. It is wholly unfair to judge the man, so harshly, based on two paragraphs -- two paragraphs that clear up, importantly, a common misconception about control economies AND support a wider thesis that no Objectivist can logically call swill.

OOPS.

Sorry, Phil.

The same piece also appeared at townhall.com as well as Reason.

The theme of the piece is how to properly label a proponent of capitalism when that term will most likely be misconstrued:

Like Hayek and the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, Friedman resisted the solution of calling himself a conservative. "The 19th century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions," he wrote. "So too must be his modern heir."

A brief post, but:
Sullum on Friedman on Reason Blog

(Probably Orson's html is malformed.)

Orson, I wanted to check out the Jacob Sullum piece...but what you posted doesn't seem to be a link...When I click on it nothing happens.

My above opinion is seconded by syndicated columnist "Jacob Sullum":

"Like Hayek and the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, Friedman resisted the solution of calling himself a conservative. 'The nineteenth century [classical] liberal [or Whig] was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions,' he wrote. 'So too must be his modern heir.'"

The piece is entitled "Milton Friedman, Archliberal," which provides sources and some details. There are many more, however. For example, on the occasion of his 90th birthday (winter 2004-5), he was interviewed on C-SPAN's "In Depth" program for two-hours. It was scintillating enough for me to watch twice.
(The link is dead at this hour, and thus I cannot check to see if it's available to view for free. If not, it can surely be purchased.)

> Friedman's advocacy of the right-minded respect for fundamental freedom against the state became louder, clearer and more consonant with Objectivist views in the two decades following Rand's demise. It is therefore unsurprising that her recorded opinions on Friedman would not reflect these posthumous changes. Yet we are mistaken if we do not include the fact that Friedman's views grew closer to Rand's radicalism later in life. Could this have also been Rand's ultimate triumph? Her ideas influencing Milton Friedman's? [Orson]

Interesting, if true. You'd have to know a lot about Friedman to say this.

The only evidence I have about this is reading a couple recent interviews with him in which he is uncompromising and not merely 'pragmatic' in his defense of both personal freedom...drugs should be legal, etc...and economic freedom.

Certainly if you are going to evaluate a thinker or make a declaration about his whole consistent intellectual position, you have to evaluate his entire career, if he is someone who has changed his views across it (not simply hunt through all his work and cherry pick a single worst quotation or phrase.

Once again, it would be rationalistic and 'deductive' to form one's conclusions about "Uncle Milty" or anything else by simply accepting what Ayn Rand ("well, I always trust her judgments since she's a great genius")... or what anyone else says without offering your own first hand evidence.

Friedman was not perfect but he and Hayek destroyed the Keynesian consensus that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s. That is the context in which his contribution to economics and politics must be viewed.

Friedman's great strength was his ability to communicate. I cannot think of another free market economist who would been given the opportunity to make a series like Free To Choose. Friedman introduced me to free market economic economics and libertarian ideas. For that, he will have my eternal gratitude.

Views like Diana's and their lesser but more caracatured echoes dimminishing or indicting Milton Friedman miss the fact that even this man's politico-economic views evolved over time.

Friedman started out as a Leftist. Armed with a masters in economics while working for the US Treasury during WWII, he devised the witholding system as a war-time funding measure. But he grew to honestly accept it as the worst idea of his the government ever accepted!

Rand's views of Friedman were largely informed by his stint as a Newsweek columnist in the 1960s and 70s. This was in an era in which simply defending a mixed-economy really was really improvement upon the statist idols academe embraced - alternative opionions need not apply (unlest also Leftist).

In the period after he left teaching economics at Chicago, Friedman came under the more radical influence of his son David, who left a career in physics to emulate his father in economics. David Friedman travelled a path in libertarianism, Austrian economics, and Gary Becker influenced applied economics. Whatever his path, David's influence upon Milton proved only to make him more uncompromising in his advocacy of free-market economics. After "Free To Choose" in the 80s, Friedman advocated a considerably more moral perspective on the value of freedom. Whether or not he ever abondoned his utilitarian positivsm or not, I cannnot say. But his interviews after retirement definitely reflect a more vigorous respect for the fundamental value of freedom in all matters.

One historical evaluation of political change concerns the post-Vietnam reform of the US Military from conscription to the All Volunteer Army in the 1970s. Most accounts credit Friedman for making it respectable for those among the Right to support this change. But I wonder how much a more general revival of natural rights ideas among the Right may have been wielded by Ayn Rand. If so, Rand set up a crucial cultural precondition that Friedman, the academic authority, merely refocused upon institutional reform by showing its superiority in practice. In this account, they really worked in tandem to make important political change possible in the US. Rand's role is very much underplayed. This injustice needs to be remedied.

Friedman's advocacy of the right-minded respect for fundamental freedom against the state became louder, clearer and more consonant with Objectivist views in the two decades following Rand's demise. It is therefore unsurprising that her recorded opinions on Friedman would not reflect these posthumous changes. Yet we are mistaken if we do not include the fact that Friedman's views grew closer to Rand's radicalism later in life. Could this have also been Rand's ultimate triumph? Her ideas influencing Milton Friedman's?

Far more than Friedman’s code of freedom is
Allowed by Mises in his sentences. C

http://theeleutherian.blogspot.com

"I simply object to putting Rob in the same universe as TAS."

Your right. I stand corrected. I was unfair.

Bill,

I'm not disputing that there is a pattern. Nor am I disputing that it is a negative one. (TIA's haphazard schedule, its lack of non-current events articles, its friendliness towards neocons, and Rob's colonialism are the reasons why I let my subscription lapse. So I agree with you on those points). I simply object to putting Rob in the same universe as TAS.

- Mike

Oh ok, I misunderstood what you are saying. I agree with you about the quality of content from TON on. With a few exceptions, I was not very impressed by what was in TOF. TOS, on the other hand, I think is excellent.

- Mike

"From what I gather, he thinks the Objectivist view of philosophy of history is a misapplication of Objectivist epistemology." Mike Mazza

I got more the impression he was criticizing one (shared by some) interpretation of Objectivism's philosophy of history.

You may want to respond to this (if at all) on the Philosophy and History thread, where it is more relevant.

Jeff

He's got three installments left in his "What Went Right" series. In his first three he managed to draw the critical response of Binswanger, Ed Cline, Diana and others. It will be interesting to see what the next three bring.

On HBL within the past year, John Lewis objected to one of his print articles (and with an air of disdain I might add). I personally asked Yaron Brook what he though of Tracinski's war posture and he replied to me that it he felt elements of altruism where present and he adamantly rejected Tracinski's "colonial solution." Tracinski pissed off every soccer loving Objectivist with his stupid (and totally serious) comments that soccer was a socialist game because you're not allowed to use you hands (no joke). And too many Objectivist bloggers to note have written him and his commentary off as less than worthless. Nick Provenzo has called him the Fox News of Objectivism (and justifiable so in my opinion).

Is he an Objectivist? My guess is that he is but I (and others) feel that he is (seriously) misapplying the philosophy which wouldn't be bad if he was just a blogger or some such. But he's putting this stuff in The Intellectual Activist, which was formerly know as "an Objectivist Periodical."

My only real point is that I see a pattern developing and I'm not the only one. I may be wrong. We'll see.

Mike,

Thanks, I'm aware of all that. I've read most of the issues of TOF, and a few of TIA early on. There were many good articles in them.

I stand by my statement. None of those journals, authors, nor articles has - with a few occasional exceptions - ever been anywhere near the quality, fundamentality, and accuracy as TON or The Objectivist.

But, I can't think of anyway to settle that, so just take it as my (arbitrary, if you wish) opinion.

Jeff,

On the history of Objectivist publications. The Objectivist Forum ran for eight years I think. Rand endorsed it and it was edited by Binswanger. All the big timers in the 80s published in it. After TOF closed they started publishing in TIA. For example, Peikoff published Fact and Value in TIA. If I recall TIA might have been given a more qualified Rand endorsement, but I may be wrong on that point. Until two or three years ago TIA used to have one article a month of the kind TOS publishes now. For example Harriman wrote published two articles about Newton and a few about Galileo. There were some about the philosophy of math. As late as April 2004 TIA had an article about philosophy of mind. Now TIA is just Tracinski and Wakeland writing current events. You can see the entire history of TOF and TIA (including who wrote in them and what the articles were about) here

- Mike

But Rob has offered his critique as a critique of Objectivism. He's not saying that his position really is Objectivism when it isn't (like Kelley). Nor is he claiming to be an Objectivist to us, but hiding his Objectivism from the public (again like TAS). From what I gather, he thinks the Objectivist view of philosophy of history is a misapplication of Objectivist epistemology.

Moreover, TIA Daily is labeled as "daily news & analysis from a pro-reason, pro-individualist perspective," not from an Objectivist perspective.

So it's unclear if he still considers himself an Objectivist. So he's nowhere near TAS land, and to say so is an (unjustified) insult to him.

As to his management of TIA, that is a different issue. Running a bad magazine doesn't matter in any conversation of what Rob's views are. Though it is a valid reason to criticize him. It's also one of the reasons I let my subscription of TIA lapse a few years ago.

- Mike

Bill,

I'm not looking to start any hostility here, but I'm genuinely curious. Do you believe that someone can be an honest, sincere Objectivist intellectual and openly 'critique' Objectivism? A fortiori, can such a person actually disagree with some Objectivist positions, be right, and still be an Objectivist?

I should think it would depend on what was being critiqued, how, and what conclusions the person drew.

If you could find some examples, other than the relatively inconsequential one, of Tracinski turning away from Objectivism, I'd be curious to see them. I'm not suggesting you can't or he isn't. I just don't know.

On the, very minor, point of TIA being the 'standard bearer', this may be a matter of perspective but I have never seen it as that. There hasn't been such a journal, in my view, since The Objectivist ceased publication nearly 40 years ago. (TOS may be the new one on the scene... I don't have enough information to judge.)

It was only part mockery. I actually think he is going down that path. He's openly critquing Objectivism*, misattributing positions to Objectivist intellectuals, disprespecting (IMO) Dr. Peikoff (the Dominique Francon crticism), and putting out really sloppy and poorly reasoned drivel like the Milton Friedman quote I indicated. It really does seem he is looking to instigate some kind of controversy.

I would not be suprised if Tracinski ended up as some kind of "independent". You know, the kind that is "sympathetic but critical" of Ayn Rand's ideas.

IMO, Tracinski has ruined The Intellectual Activist. Don't even get me started on the erratic (in fact non-existent) mailings of the print edition. I'm very down on RT and JW.

* There is nothing wrong with this mind you. But just dont do it and claim to be an Objectivist and then do it in the once standard-bearer of Objectivist periodicals.

I think Robert Tracinski may soon be an honorary lecturer at TAS's summer lectures.

I don't think that is appropriate at all. Rob may be wrong, but he doesn't deserved to be mocked.

- Mike

I think Robert Tracinski may soon be an honorary lecturer at TAS's summer lectures. When he is not busy critiquing the "flaws" in the Objectivist view of the role of ideas in history he is busy writing sop like this regarding Milton Friedman:

"He is one of the men who held up the roof of American civilization and saved us from collapse."

Tracinski is on an express elevator. Going down.

MF did make one notable argument in the right direction, though I don't recall details on whether he watered it down with bad stuff: that the "social responsibility of business" is to make money for its stockholders. Of course, that's not really a "social responsibility" in any sense. MF just didn't have a well-grounded, integrated intellectual system to argue for these points in the only fundamentally effective ways. Conflating the (egoistic) purpose of corporations with something about social responsibility is simply confused.

MF was a notable popularizer of economic ideas that were a nicer alternative to the statist mainstream establishment of his day, but he did water down his arguments with some bad philosophy (going also to his methodology of "positive economics") and his true effectiveness in defending anything like a consistent form of capitalism pales in comparison to Rand. He was my hero early on -- before I discovered CTUI. At which point it was time to move on. MF is like a muddled elementary school lesson before the advanced studies of Rand.

> "voluntary cooperation enters to supplement central planning or to offset its rigidities" [Friedman]

Is this -- which is Friedman making the point many Oists have (and that Anthem makes) that any TOTALLY unfree economy would collapse in short order and must admit some degree of incentive and profit and free exchange -- the same as saying: "In other words, there's no real difference in kind between a free country and a totalitarian dictatorship"? [Diana's "essentialization"]

Give me a break.

Just as Ayn Rand's total condemnation of Ronald Reagan was an exaggeration and misstatement of what he believed, so it was in the case of Milton Friedman...and Oists have been blindly following it ever since.

The fact that Ayn Rand would disagree with me is no argument.

As for the idea that he only defended capitalism pragmatically, the very first sentences of moral defense of freedom i ever read, that men -ought- to be free, if I recall correctly was from Milton Friedman...somewhere in "Capitalism and Freedom".

Was he consistent? No: He was not an Objectivist or a philosopher.

Milton Friedman was not an Objectivist.  But then, there aren't that many Objectivists in the world.  I like to see the good in people wherever it exists, and there was plenty to admire and enjoy in Friedman.  I took a colloquium course in college based on the Free to Choose book/TV series, and thought it was wonderful.

Friedman did approach the study of economics from an amoral standpoint; I think most economists do.  He was not a philosopher, and he didn't consider moral pronouncements to be part of his job.  I think it's acceptable to study economics without morality, just as it's OK for a doctor to treat a dying patient without sobbing about the patient's sorry state at every appointment.  The advantage of leaving morality out of it is that it provides objectivity.  We can be pretty sure that if Friedman advocated something, it was because he thought it worked best economically, not just because he was trying to rationalize a pre-existing moral position.  His contribution was to attack the opponents of freedom on pragmatic grounds.
 
You want government schools so that everyone is guaranteed an education?  Friedman showed that public schools are not the best solution. 

You want government regulation to ensure safe food and drugs?  Friedman showed that government regulation could actually be counterproductive toward that goal. 

You favor centralized planning because you want an efficient economy?  Friedman showed that a free market is more efficient than a planned economy.

You favor price controls to ensure price stability?  Friedman showed why that was a bad idea, and why inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

Friedman gave us another angle of attack on bad ideas.  It's not complete, but it's another weapon in the arsenal.  So, when opposing price controls, for example, we can argue that first of all it's outrageously wrong to force people to sell or buy goods for a price that's determined by government whim -- oh, and another thing -- it is also a stupid idea because it will only lead to shortages! 

When watching the Free to Choose series, I was always astonished at how "Uncle Milty" could just lean back in his chair and chuckle when confronted with an opposing view.  Maybe he didn't understand the life-and-death importance of the issues, or maybe he just considered his opponents too weak to get upset about. This personality trait of his probably outraged Ayn Rand, and I have to admit it bugged me a bit, too.  But I think he did a great thing with his Free to Choose series in educating the populace in common-sense free-market economics.

Wanting to make economics an amoral science wouldn't make Friedman different from Mises, though. The main difference is that Friedman implicitly panders to utilitarian-type values in his defense of (well, not capitalism, but an interventionist model). That's why he comes out with interventionist middle-way policy recommendations, e.g., school vouchers. Mises keeps it pretty well clean of that without selling out to collectivist values, though he's still coming from a mixed philosophical perspective. (Mises doesn't actually concede anything to collectivist moral theorists, being that he isn't a moral theorist, period. Friedman basically takes mainstream altruism-heavy values for granted and says, "Since these are the values you hold, here's how to better fulfill them. Government will do a better job helping the poor through these other less-interventionist measures than what it's doing now.") But, yeah, the quotes you provide does indicate some contempt.

I don't exactly follow your take on Friedman's views about command and voluntary elements. He does see a fundamental difference (in kind, perhaps even) between a free society and a dictatorship -- but you're right, his argument pretty much leads to a disastrous wiping out of the distinction if you take it to its conclusions.

Well, Friedman was a really nice guy at least. That oughtta make Hudgins particularly proud.

Regarding Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand said in a letter:

"I have virtually nothing in common with Mr. Friedman, whom I do not regard as an advocate of capitalism..."

In a Q&A from Ayn Rand Answers, she describes him as follows: "He is not for capitalism; he's a miserable eclectic. He's an enemy of Objectivism, and his objection is that I bring morality into economics, which he thinks should be amoral." She then described the circus as more worthwhile television programming than his Free to Choose program. I think that shows some strong contempt.

She would have been thoroughly disgusted by Ed Hudgins' praise for Milton Friedman, particularly his praise for "his strong advocacy of individual liberty as well as free markets and limited government." He wasn't an advocate of capitalism but of a mixed economy.

Just consider the following quote from Free to Choose, recently sent to me by a friend:

Russia is the standard example of a large economy that is supposed to be organized by command--a centrally planned economy. But that is more fiction than fact. At every level of the economy, voluntary cooperation enters to supplement central planning or to offset its rigidities--sometimes legally, sometimes illegally....Numerous restrictions affect who may work where, and, of course, the laws prohibit anyone from setting up as an employer--although numerous clandestine workshops serve the extensive black market....A resident of Moscow whose household equipment fails may have to wait months to have it repaired if he calls the state repair office. Instead, he may hire a moonlighter--very likely someone who works for the state repair office. The householder gets his equipment repaired promptly; the moonlighter gets some extra income. Both are happy. (pg 9-10)
...
Just as no society operates entirely on the command principle, so none operates entirely through voluntary cooperation. Every society has some command elements. These take many forms. They may be as straightforward as military conscription, or forbidding the purchase and sale of heroin or cyclamates or court orders to named defendants to desist from or perform specified actions. (page 11)

In other words, there's no real difference in kind between a free country and a totalitarian dictatorship. Any court order is on par with the gulag and the draft. (No wonder David Friedman, described by Ed as a "strong free market advocate" is an anarchist!)

The author of that swill ought never be described as "one of the most intelligent and articulate voices for liberty."

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

that Rand didn't care for or approve of Friedman, but it seems that she didn't have the kind of contempt for him that she had for some others, like Hayek, Rothbard, and other various "conservatives" (Fuckley, anyone?) and "libertarians."

Hayek and Friedman advanced some pretty bad arguments at times and she kicked their asses for it, though I think that her hostility to Hayek was a bit overblown. He made some useful contributions in terms of social/institutional theory.

[Also keep in mind the context of the time, when socialist ideas and bad philosophy were so the rage, that few thinkers could bring a radical new context to the whole thing like Rand did. It's a generational thing; the "older" guard thinkers like Mises, Hayek and Friedman were pretty well set in their views and didn't hook onto Rand's novel (heh) approach. The newer guard has the benefit of Rand's trailblazing. But I think all of these older-guard thinkers were admirers of her work, Hayek included.]

I have just been watching some interviews with Friedman on a PBS series called, "uncommon knowledge". At the beginning of the interview he describes an Ayn Rand Type of Libertarianism that he doesn't agree with, he agrees with a consequentialist version.

You can watch it here at Google Video. Even though the audio is out of sync, that comment comes right the beginning if anyone wants to watch it. I am sure Ayn Rand would have hated it.

Uncommon Knowledge: Milton Friedman

Is this a read-only-to-cure-insomnia piece? I wouldn't want to end up dozing off near the middle.

I don't know that much about Friedman, but he seems to have been a mixed bag.

"Yet a late endorsement came from a most unexpected left source: when the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, introduced the central London congestion charge in 2003, he joked that he had stolen the idea from Friedman, who had apparently written in favour of such a charge in a paper in 1951."

Obituaries: Milton Friedman