I’m referring to, among others, Milton Friedman.
He isn’t a true Scotsman either.
Oh, then you can quote him saying, for example, “So when Pinochet rounded up the undesirables into a soccer stadium and had them shot, that was ok.” Right?
“Chicago boys”?
I think he means this:
About which Friedman had this to say (from wikipedia):
This thread has helped me put my finger on a thing that’s long bugged me about libertarianism, but I haven’t been able to put into words until now. Libertarianism is all about maximizing freedom - which sounds great, who doesn’t want maximum freedom? It turns out the problem I have is in exactly how libertarians define and measure freedom, which seems to be “absence of laws forbidding you to do things”. I think this is flawed. Let’s see why with set theory:
Let’s say you have a set of all possible things a person would like to do, and another set of things that are forbidden. We do some quick subtraction and come up with this formula:
<Set of all actions I’m able to do> - <set of forbidden actions> = <set of things I’m allowed and able to do>
The realization I’ve made is that libertarians ONLY care about minimizing the size of the forbidden set, but what I care about is actually maximizing the set of things I’m allowed to do. Let’s think about a really simple scenario:
Let’s say at the start there are zero things forbidden. Sweet, maximum freedom! Now let’s say we add one thing to the forbidden set: You are now forbidden from dumping chemicals in rivers. Ok, now I’m not able to do that one thing. Less freedom. But now my set of all things I’m able to to do has increased! Now I’m also able to swim in the river, go on a canoe trip, go fishing, etc. More freedom! So in my view, we’ve removed a freedom, but created other ones. By adding one item to the forbidden set, we created more items in the set of all things I can do in the end.
I’m pretty sure that at this point libertarians are thinking “Strawman! Libertarians don’t advocate dumping chemicals in the river, etc etc”. And sure, that’s a pretty dumb example, but I think it makes the point in how I look at calculating how much freedom exists. A more complex example might be something like: Forbidding banks from gambling with their customer’s savings accounts. This might makes banks less free, but now all the customers have a new thing they are free to do: Put their money in a bank account and participate in a highly complex modern economy, instead of keeping their savings as cash under the floorboard.
It’s not just a simple matter of what’s forbidden, it’s a matter of what’s possible. If forbidding a few things expands the horizons of what everyone is able to do, then by gum, it’s well worth it. I guess the libertarian counter argument is that in minimizing the set of forbidden things, somehow the set of things I’m able to do also is maximized, but I just don’t see any evidence of this having ever played out anywhere in the world. It seems like anywhere in the world where there are very few rules, there are also very things worth doing there as well. America has more laws and rules than it has ever had in its history, and yet would I want to trade places with someone from some past time? Absolutely not. They might have had the freedom to build in a wetland and discriminate against whoever they choose, but I have the freedom to fly anywhere in the world, read the internet, live a long and healthy life, be protected from abusive employers, and live free of fear. Seems like a good bargain.
Your first example is a straw man, because you’re not free to dump chemicals in a river in Libertaria.
And your second example offers a false dichotomy.
Sure, it’s a straw man, but a useful one : It illustrates that yes, it is absolutely possible that restricting a freedom results in more net freedom. It’s the “more net freedom” part of the equation that I want to maximize. Do you believe that it’s theoretically possible that restricting one freedom might create others?
Not at all. The evidence you’ve offered is biased. And if I don’t accept the validity of your evidence, I don’t have to accept the validity of your conclusion.
You are making the common mistake of confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy. Libertarians don’t believe that you have the freedom to take away freedom from someone else. They wouldn’t allow dumping chemicals in the river precisely because it is an act of coercion against others. This is the simple adage that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. That is perfectly compatible with Libertarianism.
A better example is welfare. Libertarians would be opposed to welfare (although not to private charity). You may think you have the right to life, but you don’t have the right to make me give you life. So, if you want the “freedom to be on the dole”, then Libertarianism isn’t for you.
I haven’t tried to disprove your premise. Others have. And if you want to claim “bias”, you have to prove it, not simply assert it.
I did? Not at all. I was responding to your demand for the calculus of freedom, and I showed you that in the calculus of freedom one man’s gain is another man’s loss. I was making no moral judgments, merely following the alleged logic of libertarianism to yet another lunatic conclusion.
Indeed the prohibition of slavery could be seen – and was seen – as a major imposition by “government authority” on the “business owners” of the Old South, who after all had major investments in their business enterprises of which they were being deprived by distinctly non-libertarian principles. Are you now implying that because slavery is cruel and reprehensible that the libertarian calculus suddenly has to take into account moral values?
What moral values would those be? Those of our time, or those of the 19th century, or what? Plantation owners of the 19th century would sure as hell have disagreed with you. They went to war over it. Even some of your libertarian friends here claim – even today – that “the power to collectively force people to stop doing something you find morally reprehensible is wrong”. So, no, I’m not the one that’s “disturbing”. I’m just the one trying to illustrate by example the shallowness and naivete of libertarian thinking.
You’ve stacked the deck with fatally flawed assumptions in your OP, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. You do not get to define libertarianism in a way that suits you and then force others to defend your definition. If all you really want is another echo chamber where all dissent is stifled, you’re probably not going to enjoy the rest of this thread.
If it’s a zero sum game, as you claimed, the yes you absolutely equated the two. If you don’t want them to be equivalent, then you need to admit you were wrong about the whole zero sum game thing.
You do know what a zero sum game is, don’t you? It’s when whatever is gained by one party is equaled by the loss incurred by another party.
I’m saying that government enforced slavery cannot, by definition, exist in a Libertarian society. Any such society cannot be called Libertarian. In the same way that any society were people are not allowed to vote cannot be called “democratic”.
Well, I will agree with you that you are illustrating shallowness of certain idea. But it’s not Libertarian ideas.
I presented my definition of libertarianism and then presented three questions which supported my definition.
So far no libertarian has stepped forward to refute that evidence. They’ve just asked to have the evidence ruled inadmissible because it hurts their claims.
The bias is pretty obvious: the claim that the only acceptable source for information about libertarianism is libertarian literature.
If we were debating whether or not Jesus was a divine figure and I said that the only acceptable source of information about Christianity was the New Testament and other Christian literature, the bias would be the same.
Obviously any literature produced from within a movement is going to offer support for the movement. And it’ll simply ignore anything which might call the movement into question. If you want to get an honest appraisal of a movement, you have to listen to its critics as well as its supporters.
Do Libertarians believe you have the power to stop somebody from taking freedom from someone else?
That’s not the claim. The claim is that if you want to say Libertarian philosophy is not self-consistent, you can’t introduce definitions that Libertarians don’t accept. Definitions are axioms, not “information”.
I think the problem many people have here is divorcing themselves form “Libertarianism is a bad idea” when trying to discuss “what do Libertarians claim”. You see this all throughout this thread. Posters can’t help themselves from shitting all over Libertarianism and how much it is teh suxxor, instead of actually understanding what it actually is.
I’m not a Libertarian, and I don’t advocate it as a model for society. But I can discuss what it actually is based on Libertarian thought without advocating for it or telling everyone how terrible it is.
And what is someone who rejects your definition supposed to say?
No, I’m not criticizing Friedman for giving a speech in Chile. I’m criticizing elements associated with the Chicago School of Economics that decided that the best response to a military takeover of a 100 year old democracy would be to flood the country with free market consultants. They propped a dictatorship with bad advice from the perspective of economic performance but great advice from the perspective of consolidating the violent oligarchy. Classic libertarian actions.
You see John, that’s the difference between modern conservatives and normal people. If I see a thug repeatedly stomp on a homeless person’s face, I don’t necessarily take his claims about his love for the fatherland at face value.
Take Milton Friedman for example. He was only mildly critical of the Chilean dictatorship (eg “Freedom is pwetious”) while he stated that there was, “The stench of Nazism” in Sweden in an age that pre-dated Godwin. I’ll quote from James Street, professor of Economics at Rutgers University: There is something wonderful about the world as perceived through the eyes and nose of Milton Friedman. He attributes the acute economic problems of countries like Chile to volatile inflation rates and government intervention. Yet it is clearly the form of intervention to which Mr. Friedman objects. He is only mildly critical of the present Chilean regime, one of the most interventionist in the country’s history.
…
Mr. Friedman finds “the stench of Nazism” in Sweden, where there was never the slightest doubt that he would be permitted to air his views, but has little to say about the total suppression of free expression in Chile, a country that not long ago rivaled Sweden in freedom of speech, press and political activity. In Chile, where all institutions of learning have been massively intervened and the study of the social sciences virtually abolished, only the “Chicago boys,” devout followers of the school of thought with which Professor Friedman has been associated, are permitted to speak or to shape public policy. It would be good if an economist of the stature of Mr. Friedman could detect the stench of Nazism where it actually reeks. I discussed all of this in a 2011 thread.
Post: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14571251&postcount=60
Thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=633539&page=2
Oh I’m not making value judgments about libertarianism. I’m just observing that libertarians are perfectly willing to side with violent dictators and thugs when it fancies them. Just an observation.