Free To Choose

Great Debates
1

There have been a lot of threads around here lately on Libertarianism, with a lot of confusion as to what it’s about and what libertarians believe.

In the ‘Libertarian Mythology’ thread I posted a link to Milton Friedman’s ‘Free To Choose’, which is one of the most influential Libertarian works.

The book was made into a PBS miniseries, and the entire series is now available on Google free streaming video.

If you really want to know the underpinnings of Libertarian thought in terms of economic principles, I highly recommend watching this.

If you’re not a libertarian, at the end of each episode there is a roundtable debate in which Friedman has to defend his views against a number of leading academics. Points are scored on both sides, and the debates are worth watching just to help you clarify your own ideas as to what Libertarianism is and how libertarians believe the market works.

If you want to watch it, we can open a discussion about each episode here on the SDMB as sort of an extension of the series. I think that would be interesting, and at least we’d all be talking about the same thing.

Link to the entire series is here: Milton Friedman - Free To Choose Video List

If we want to have a debate on an episode-by-episode basis, I think that would be interesting as well - we can either start a thread for each episode, or just discuss them one at a time here if anyone is interested.

The first episode is: The Power of the Market.

Hopefully a good debate can flow from this.

2

Freedom to not pay taxes…Freedom to discriminate against the blacks…Freedom to seek and maintain rents…That’s American libertarianism.

All the academic discussion about what it theoretically could mean completely ignores how it actually manifests itself in living, breathing people. Notions of personal freedom have taken a back seat to unenlightened economic self interest. Its philosophical underpinnings, as espoused by eager internet advocates, comes across as naive and idealistic as communism.

3

One the Friedman’s most famous and powerful disciples, Alan Greenspan, has already admitted the market failed to adequately police it self during the recent financial crisis.

What exactly do you want to debate? How impractical libertarianism is in a modern functioning society?

4

For those who do not wish to wade through entire Milton Friedman videos, maybe Sam could summarize salient points made in a particular “episode” and those could be debated.

5

Free to Choose is interesting, but flawed. It’s inevitable when a book on economics is written for a non-economic audience, but Friedman uses this to gloss over fundamental mistakes. In particular, he doesn’t clearly state his assumptions, viewing them as givens and brooking no opposition to them - such as his view that the velocity of circulation of money is unchangeable, for example. His analysis of free trade in Free to Choose is laughable static as well.

6

What an exciting prospect, Sam! Ten solid hours of Milton Friedman! Truly, the pulse fairly pounds, the breath comes short, wait…I need a moment to regain my composure. There. But that’s not all! No, indeed!

After we watch this scintillating series, we will be fully conversant with libertarian thought, and then might be well schooled enough to meet with Sam on an equal footing, finally, we would have enough of a grasp of the complex interworkings of libertarian philosophy to discuss the subject meaningfully. One gasps with rapture, one struggles contain oneself! And succeeds, of course, but one is made of stern stuff.

I mean, I can hardly catch my breath! I’m sure many, many Dopers react much like I have, electrified by the prospect of instruction by one of the major lights of libertarian thought! I wonder if this might as well function as a form of penance, for scurrilous lefties such as myself to cleanse themselves of sin, in order to arrive at a state of grace and acceptance into the libertarian communion.

However, I have a fear, a caveat. Have you opened the floodgates, Sam? Are you truly prepared to deal with the avalanche of excited minds, bubbling with the ferment of creative thought that such as Milton Friedman can inspire? Can you spare the time to deal with the clamor of eager converts, crowding around to sit at your feet and take notes?

But enough, I take up time and space, I must not stand in the way of the stampede of eager minds, hurling themselves into the arcane depths of libertarian philosophy. Plus, of course, I stand the risk of being trampled underfoot in the pell-mell rush.

TL:DR: Seriously, **Sam. **What the fuck?

7

It’s kind of bizarre heaping on Sam Stone about asking people to watch a video then discuss, as this happens here all the time. The above link is to a documentary that wasn’t even available for most of humanity to watch, but it didn’t prevent such comments as:

“It’s very interesting that those with a conservative bent economically haven’t tried to debate in this thread.”

So if you don’t want to watch the video, fine, but don’t mock the guy for starting the thread. :rolleyes:

8

It seems like a requirement to conversing on this topic is to watch at least fifteen hours of video. This isn’t a debate-it’s a college course, and Sam wants to play the Professor.

9

Translation: I have nothing intelligent to say, so I’m just gonna threadshit by repeating something I read on a blog.

10

There is in general on this board a not universally positive reaction to someone who doesn’t take the time to organize his own presentation on a subject, but instead links to a video or book and asks for reactions.

Add to that a series of recent postings by a self-characterized libertarian Doper and Ron/Rand Paul groupie (subsequently banned, if memory serves) who would cite his familiarity with various weighty tomes of economic theory and command doubters to go forth and similarly educate themselves before challenging him, and you have the makings of a not entirely enthusiastic reception to Sam’s proposal.

11

Quoth JohnT:

And when it happens, it also happens all the time that Dopers say “We don’t want to have to watch an hour-long video just to know what the point of your OP is”. How is this any different than any time before when folks have given the same response?

12

The first half are Friedman’s video, the last half is a debate. So some of the issues I’ve brought up are probably brought up in the debate.
These are problems I have with the video, obviously.

Friedman seems to present the idea that the generations of 100 years ago didn’t want or expect government help. But that was the same time period of hte progressive era, and many of those people were alive when the new deal took place. I tend to believe lack of regulation and wealth redistribution didn’t exist 100 years ago because people hadn’t asked for it yet, not because people didn’t want it.

He claims economic development is improving generation to generation, but many of us who are coming of age in this generation feel we are behind our parents, not ahead of them despite having the same or more education. This is a major cause of disillusionment with philosophies like his IMO, the fact that younger people aren’t seeing the benefits. Insecurity, unemployment and unliveable wages all seem worse than they were for our parents generation.

He claims hong kong succeeded due to free market economics. But most east asian nations saw massive economic growth over the 20th century. South Korea and Singapore are dictatorships (South Korea not so much now, but until 30 years ago it was) with heavy gov. intervention in the market and their growth rates were comparable to Hong Kong. Taiwan had intervention too. He rails against tariffs and talks about how a lack of them caused Hong Kong to grow. But he ignores the tariffs in other east asian nations that have seen 6-10% GDP growth. China has heavy gov intervention, and their growth rates are fast too. It is more an east asian thing (no idea why, but the asian tigers, Japan and China all grew rapidly), not free market vs. regulated market.

I don’t know who Friedman is debating with either. Even heavily socialized nations like the Scandinavian ones still seem to operate on supply and demand. People demand oil, so they drill for it. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t drill it. So who is Friedman debating with? Even communist nations try to match supply and demand. The debate is between regulated and unregulated markets. He seems to sidestep that in favor of a theoretical debate between a supply/demand market and a market that has no interest in cooperation or supply/demand. Markets like that don’t exist. He acts like he is debating with a soviet totalitarian state, as if the only 2 options in life are soviet totalism or Friedman liberal economics.

Also Friedman’s defintion of freedom isn’t the same as a liberal like me would define it. His definition of freedom leaves people with very little ability to fight back against plutocracy or corporate control. You can protest and boycott companies, and you can vote in democracies. But I think gov. is more responsive than corporations due to those options. His statement that one of the risks of gov. is that businesses can take it over and use it to their advantage, which is true.

But his argument against medicare is silly. It is cheaper and liked better by users than private insurance.

I’ve read one of the ways people are hanging onto health insurance in the US now is staying in bad marriages since a spouse may have good health insurance through their job. People have stayed in jobs they hate to keep their health care, and they’ve avoided starting their own businesses for it. But now people are staying in bad marriages. Nobody in France or Germany has to avoid starting their own business or stay in a bad marriage to avoid losing their health care. Why am I supposed to think I am more free than the French?

Anyway, the first episode wasn’t persuasive. I understand his philosophy, I just don’t agree with it. I need the government to help protect me from the wealthy and powerful, and I need the gov. to give me assistance in meeting basic standards of living so I am free to pursue my own agenda.

13

I’ve summed up my opinion of libertarianism based on common sense and my observations of the behavior and inconsistencies of its champions. If you can refute me without making me watch hours of Milton Friedman or pouting, be my guest.

As it stands, I don’t think a video series from 30 years ago outlining Friedman’s belief in free market principles has much to teach us today, considering how thoroughly that ideology has blown up in our faces.

14

>>Also Friedman’s defintion of freedom isn’t the same as a liberal like me would define it.<<

This, I think, marks the point of contention. Indeed, it’s one of the ways to order and make sense of history, as Eric Foner points out in The Story of American Freedom.

At least in the US, our history has been a constant battle over who gets to define this word, “freedom,” and what it looks like as applied. Indeed, especially with respect to America, our entire history might be organized around the overarching theme of this battle.

There is no “right-wrong” answer. Rather, there is the battle. The argument must be over the metric, not the semantics.

15

Or you know, watch one half-hour show and then debate its contents, like I suggested with the first episode.

You know, this isn’t exactly a crazy concept - just like threads in Cafe Society that discuss TV programs after everyone has seen them. The idea was to get everyone on the same page to avoid the straw-man arguments of the other libertarian threads.

And of course, if people didn’t want to watch the show or read the book, they had the amazing, unheard-of option of just staying the fuck out of the thread.

But you know what? If this is going to devolve into a bunch of pointless threadshitting by the usual suspects and a veiled personal slam by a moderator no less, then screw it. Just close the damned thread.

Wesley Clark: Thank you for being the only one to actually go to the effort and for the reasonable comments. If you want to debate those points, let’s take it to another one of the libertarian threads. I’m done with this one.

16

I just don’t think that watching the video will successfully educate me about typical libertarian values and beliefs, since those who presumably should have been directly influenced by a common source of information (whether this video, Friedman’s writings in general, or some other source), that is, Libertarians themselves, seem to not have a defining or cohesive ideology that they can convey.

Even now, the perhaps most widely put forth representative of Libertarianism, Rand Paul, is suggesting that listening to certain speeches should be illegal.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/rand_paul_making_a_name_for_hi029937.php

I’m linking to Washington Monthly’s version of this story since Steve Benen gave a shout out to the SDMB in another post recently (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/there_they_go_again029941.php; check for the hyperlink referring to “it’s taking longer than we thought”).

17

Maybe we just need to keep eating the low protein gruel before we can fully accept movementarianism…er, libertarianism.

18

Or you could have brought up something you wished to debate, and referred to quotes from the video in question to bolster your point. “Here’s a bunch of videos-is there anything in there you want to debate about?” might not be the best way to get the ball rolling.
BTW, in no way whatsoever did I even imply that I was speaking as a moderator. If you think that I was in any way abusing my position, take it to ATMB.

19

Wouldn’t that essentially make this thread no different from the half-dozen currently active threads on libertarianism?

20

Happily, even if a full compendium of Milton Friedman Thought might be daunting, he has provided us with a compilation of pithy aphorisms to whet our appetite. His Greatest Hits.

Well, maybe “pithy” isn’t the word. Or maybe “pithy” works pretty good, but “meaningful” doesn’t. They have the structure of a good solid aphorism, but when you chew on them a bit, they seem to sort of dissolve.

For instance, this gem:

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Poison the well, much? But what is the nature of this lack of belief? Is it that one doesn’t believe in the value of freedom? Or that one doesn’t believe that freedom itself actually exists? Surely it cannot mean that one does not believe in the free market, blessings and peace be upon it. Seems like most of the arguments have to do with the necessity of regulation and restriction, so that one privileged group doesn’t use the advantages of the marketplace to enjoy more freedom than one strictly deserves. Especially at the expense of another’s freedom.

Governments never learn. Only people learn
What governments are there that are not comprised of people? That’s like talking about matter not made of atoms. So if people learn, government learns, and most especially if the people are the government. Which is taking longer than we thought…

But this, this a ring-tailed rip-snorter…

The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that’s why it’s so essential to preserving individual freedom.

Balerdash, sir! Tommyrot! All manner of religious communes have exerted enormous energy to astonishingly successful ends, from the Essenes of biblical times, through the Shakers and Amish of the modern day! And how is it that Mrs Friedman’s boy Milton has never heard of a kibbutz? Brigham Young and the Mormons? Free and willing cooperation has enormous power, and can be derived from a multitude of inspirations. What, he’s never heard of a Stakhanovite? How much further from the free market can you fucking get?

Hell, cooperation within a group is the monkey way. Families to tribes, tribes to clans, and so on and so forth. Five monkeys is a family, fifty, a tribe, one monkey is a dead monkey. Cooperation is just about as inherently natural to humans as fucking.

If I am to be offered ten solid hours of this Deep Thought, I think I pass. And if this is what passes for deep thought, I don’t think so. Its deeper than *The Best of Burma-Shave. *