Libertarianism - Good or bad?

[Surlethe]

The idea that greater economic freedom leads to greater political and human freedom is, I feel, a central argument of any stripe of libertarianism (even the wackjob ones). The concept is basically that if a person is relatively poor, they're going to focus their efforts on essential needs first and foremost, namely shelter, food, and water. It's asserted that greater economic freedoms should lead to greater economic prosperity over the long term. The newly prosperous then, now that they no longer need to worry about their essential needs, can and will focus their efforts on acquiring their psychological needs, namely the demand for greater political and human rights.

I don't directly recall the details of Friedman's argument, but I think there are two differences between what you said and what he would argue. First, and perhaps crucially, he points out that economic freedom is necessary but not sufficient for political freedom. His stronger, more central argument is that if a central entity controls the means of production, it can at will impede the free flow of ideas. Therefore, then, to ensure free flow of ideas, control of the means of production must be distributed and private. Second, and I think this is much more similar to what you said, (I think he'd say) there's a psychological component to economic freedom as well. If the government does not impinge on a person's economic decisions, she'll become unused to the idea of the government dictating with whom she can associate and what she may or may not believe.

I'm not contradicting that what you said is an essential component of libertarian rhetoric, I'm just adding some additional arguments and nuance.

[Archaic`]

I don't directly recall the details of Friedman's argument, but I think there are two differences between what you said and what he would argue. First, and perhaps crucially, he points out that economic freedom is necessary but not sufficient for political freedom. His stronger, more central argument is that if a central entity controls the means of production, it can at will impede the free flow of ideas. Therefore, then, to ensure free flow of ideas, control of the means of production must be distributed and private. Second, and I think this is much more similar to what you said, (I think he'd say) there's a psychological component to economic freedom as well. If the government does not impinge on a person's economic decisions, she'll become unused to the idea of the government dictating with whom she can associate and what she may or may not believe.

I'm not contradicting that what you said is an essential component of libertarian rhetoric, I'm just adding some additional arguments and nuance.

I don't really recall much of Friedman myself, but those arguments you've outlined there sound fairly similar to my own, though you're right in that I've been remiss in not mentioning the issues with a central entity. Actually, you make a very good point there in that it's not just that the means of production should be private, but that they should also be distributed. Far too many free market worshipers who call themselves libertarians seem to miss that point, failing to see how a monopoly or strong oligopoly could be seen as a "central entity" as much as government can.

I think as far as the second point you've raised, I'm not sure I'd agree with that perspective on it. I've heard it expressed in those terms before, but I don't really think it holds a lot of weight that way. The government will always impinge on a person's economic decisions in some manner. One might seek to minimize the impact of that, but there's still going to be taxes, there's still (probably) going to be some form of patent protection (though I'd love to see that scaled back from what it's become, patents as currently used seem to stifle innovation rather than protect), and there better damn well be some strong environmental policy for working against climate change. I don't think it's realistic to think that people will become unused to the idea of government dictating things. I think it's more a matter of people who are in a position of having satisfaction of their lower order needs (which greater economic freedoms would in part lead to for a greater percentage of the population) being in a better position to express their displeasure with how their government does things.

[ThomasP]

Though I can't speak for all of those, from my readings of Hayek I would suggest it's not near-worship of his writings, but more near-worship of strawman caricatures of his writings by people who have never read them, and whose only information on them are cherry-picked out of context quotes from extreme right wing pundits and shock-jocks.

I think that's a fair point. Most political discussions become charged along the lines of confirmation bias, with parties defending their existing beliefs and excluding anything that challenges them. Real debates that acknowledge the nuance of competing ideas are truly rare.

[Surlethe]

I don't really recall much of Friedman myself, but those arguments you've outlined there sound fairly similar to my own, though you're right in that I've been remiss in not mentioning the issues with a central entity. Actually, you make a very good point there in that it's not just that the means of production should be private, but that they should also be distributed. Far too many free market worshipers who call themselves libertarians seem to miss that point, failing to see how a monopoly or strong oligopoly could be seen as a "central entity" as much as government can.

Oh certainly. The argument is also often coupled to the (empirically testable) belief that monopolies are transient because barriers to entry into markets are often low. I don't know how much I agree with it, but that's what they say.

I think as far as the second point you've raised, I'm not sure I'd agree with that perspective on it. I've heard it expressed in those terms before, but I don't really think it holds a lot of weight that way. <shnip>

I pretty much agree with you. I'm not myself a libertarian, just probably more (classically) liberal than the European mainstream.

[K. A. Pital]

That sounds like Friedman using Chile to vindicate his belief that greater economic freedom will eventually lead to greater political and human freedom.

Indeed, it suggests that while economic freedom facilitates political freedom, political freedom, once established, has a tendency to destroy economic freedom.

He clearly values economic freedom more than political one and considers that political freedom destroys economic freedom. Ergo, undesireable from his own point of view. He called democratic Britain "socialist" and lamented that in the very same paragraph!

One visit and subsequent letter a personal advisor makes?

This is a detailed recipe of shock laissez-faire reforms, which were enacted in many nations in a very similar fashion under the guide of either Friedman himself or his dedicated followers. It's not just a "Wish you well, Pino!" letter.

[SpaceMarine93]

He clearly values economic freedom more than political one and considers that political freedom destroys economic freedom. Ergo, undesireable from his own point of view. He called democratic Britain "socialist" and lamented that in the very same paragraph!

Aren't all of Europe considered by Americans as being 'socialist'?

[Simon_Jester]

He clearly values economic freedom more than political one and considers that political freedom destroys economic freedom. Ergo, undesireable from his own point of view. He called democratic Britain "socialist" and lamented that in the very same paragraph!

Aren't all of Europe considered by Americans as being 'socialist'?

Depends on which Americans you ask, and how much of their brain is working.

The hallmark of socialism is state control of the means of production, or a state of affairs functionally equivalent to such. You don't see much of that in Europe. "Authority over," yes, "control of," no.

[Surlethe]

He clearly values economic freedom more than political one and considers that political freedom destroys economic freedom. Ergo, undesireable from his own point of view.

That is not clear at all, especially given the context that he was admitting (in 1991) that freedom is a lot more complicated than he had proposed in 1962.

This is a detailed recipe of shock laissez-faire reforms, which were enacted in many nations in a very similar fashion under the guide of either Friedman himself or his dedicated followers. It's not just a "Wish you well, Pino!" letter.

Of course not, but neither is it evidence that he was a personal advisor, as you suggested. It's evidence that he was asked to give advice and gladly gave it.

[K. A. Pital]

That is not clear at all, especially given the context that he was admitting (in 1991) that freedom is a lot more complicated than he had proposed in 1962.

The complication being that political freedom happened to be post-facto incompatible with his vision of economic freedom - "once achieved, tends to destroy economic freedom". If you ask me, I fail to see how this is not an endorsement of political unfreedom in the name of the free market. After all, in many of his lectures and texts Friedman explicitly noted that economic freedom is preferrable to other conditions (whatever they may be, and this includes political freedom too). This is just one example.

Of course not, but neither is it evidence that he was a personal advisor, as you suggested. It's evidence that he was asked to give advice and gladly gave it.

Who is a "personal advisor" then? Pinochet got no other economic advice than that of Friedman and his followers - and even if he got this other advice, he clearly did not follow it. If it will be more correct, I'll rename Friedman to the sole (as in, no other advisors' opinions were acknowledged) and critical (as in, critically important) economic advisor for Pinochet. There, now it doesn't sound like Friedman is some lapdog of Pinochet or something.

[Surlethe]

The complication being that political freedom happened to be post-facto incompatible with his vision of economic freedom - "once achieved, tends to destroy economic freedom". If you ask me, I fail to see how this is not an endorsement of political unfreedom in the name of the free market. After all, in many of his lectures and texts Friedman explicitly noted that economic freedom is preferrable to other conditions (whatever they may be, and this includes political freedom too). This is just one example.

Seems to me that Friedman believed that economic freedom led to the other freedoms (as he tried to demonstrate with the example of Chile). I also think that he originally believed that economic and political freedom were perfectly compatible, late in his career (again, the speech you cited is from 1991, nearly thirty years after he published Capitalism and Freedom) began to realize that matters were more complicated than he had believed, and tried to figure out the best balance of freedoms. In light of that, I'm finding it difficult to read the combination of endorsement of economic freedom with recognition that sometimes political freedom restricts economic freedom as a de facto denigration of political freedom.

Who is a "personal advisor" then? Pinochet got no other economic advice than that of Friedman and his followers - and even if he got this other advice, he clearly did not follow it. If it will be more correct, I'll rename Friedman to the sole (as in, no other advisors' opinions were acknowledged) and critical (as in, critically important) economic advisor for Pinochet. There, now it doesn't sound like Friedman is some lapdog of Pinochet or something.

As far as I'm concerned, personal advisor tends to connote a long, working, and friendly relationship. Karl Rove was Bush's personal advisor. Anyway, whether or not he exaggerated about Chile's economic "miracle" it's worth reading his explanation (in that speech) of why Pinochet took his advice, to see Friedman's perspective on the matter. Looks to me like the calculation figured that Chile with economic freedom but no others was better than Chile with no freedom at all.

[PainRack]

I would also point out that having read the book J stated, one SHOULD remember that in the case of china, the shocks "did" bring a bout a better tomorrow.

China growing pains in the late 80s and early nineties is now the superpower of the 21st century, and its success must be linked to the economic reforms enacted in the 80s. The strong dose of political will is now paying off socially now. And as the population gets wealthier, conditions get better, more and more freedoms are coming to Chinese youth.

The real evil appears to be the case of corporatism, as described in other parts of the book where wealth friendly policies created wealth only at the top and not at the bottom(Russia, New Orleans, Iraq, Poland.)

[K. A. Pital]

In light of that, I'm finding it difficult to read the combination of endorsement of economic freedom with recognition that sometimes political freedom restricts economic freedom...

Are you trying to water down his statements just for a debate purpose? Because only polemics could change "having a tendency to destroy" into "sometimes... restricts". I don't deny Friedman believed economic freedom leads to other freedoms. However, I take issue with him trying to figure out some "best balance" of freedoms. When, if at all, did he try to talk about "balance"?

As far as I'm concerned, personal advisor tends to connote a long, working, and friendly relationship.

I agree, my characteristic was wrong. Pinochet's real advisors were the Chicago Boys, who were learning monetarism from America's leading intellectuals in the field of economics. Friedman need not be deeply involved; his followers occupied key positions anyway.

[Surlethe]

Are you trying to water down his statements just for a debate purpose? Because only polemics could change "having a tendency to destroy" into "sometimes... restricts".

No, I'm just not going back and double-checking the speech every time I post. So his words are being filtered through my (non-libertarian) brain, which thinks that what Friedman would call "destruction of economic freedom" is actually "mild restriction of free markets." (Remember, he characterized the US after eight years of Reagan and another three years of Bush I as socialist[!].)

I don't deny Friedman believed economic freedom leads to other freedoms. However, I take issue with him trying to figure out some "best balance" of freedoms. When, if at all, did he try to talk about "balance"?

He didn't. But it seems to me the best interpretation of his talk about political freedom destroying economic freedom is that he was trying to figure out how freedoms worked, whether giving up some types of freedoms to preserve other types of freedoms was good, whether there were any "general freedom equilibria" (having an economics training, you have to agree he was wondering about that ). It's Friedman admitting a little bit that the world is a lot more complicated than he thought, not making a dogmatic stand on economic freedom at any human cost.

[K. A. Pital]

Friedman believes that without economic freedom, political freedom is impossible (though by no means guaranteed). How is this not acknowledging the primacy of economic freedom? And if you acknowledge the primacy of economic freedom, the natural conclusion would also be to acknowledge its supremacy. Because any society which has no economic freedom automatically can't have political freedom in Friedmanverse.

I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity

Now, the evidence is obviously circumstancial.

Remember, he characterized the US after eight years of Reagan and another three years of Bush I as socialist[!]

Which points to another issue with Friedman's definitions. One minute these are societies marked "by a large measure of political freedom" because they use "a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity", the next minute they're "socialist". Makes you wonder.

But I would want to go back a page and admit my mistake. The quotes openly favoring dictatorship over democracy (so as long as it did "the right thing") didn't come from Friedman.

"My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism."

Now granted, Hayek isn't part of the official "Chicago School" because he was teaching at another department at the time, but as a part of an economic school of thought he clearly belongs to that club of market radicals. I consider my point well proven by the above. Also:

Where Friedman made allusions to the superiority of economic freedom over political freedom in his defense of Pinochet, the Chicago group institutionalized such a hierarchy in a 1980 constitution named after Hayek’s 1960 treatise The Constitution of Liberty. The new charter enshrined economic liberty and political authoritarianism as complementary qualities. They justified the need of a strong executive such as Pinochet not only to bring about a profound transformation of society but to maintain it until there was a "change in Chilean mentality." Chileans had long been "educated in weakness, " said the president of the Central Bank, and a strong hand was needed in order to "educate them in strength." The market itself would provide tutoring: When asked about the social consequences of the high bankruptcy rate that resulted from the shock therapy, Admiral José Toribio Merino replied that "such is the jungle of . . . economic life. A jungle of savage beasts, where he who can kill the one next to him, kills him. That is reality."

Of course, you can also try to transform this into something less supportive of dictatorship, but that'd be a lot harder.

Part of the problem of both radical right and radical left is that they openly and unabashedly support dictatorship for some undefined "interim period" wherein greater freedom (of course!) will arise as a result of their economic policies. When something doesn't go as planned (the political freedom never materializes or the economy collapses) they just ignore it and gleefully continue singing the old tune instead of trying to revise their theory. That's why competing schools of though is a good idea, instead of some "dominant" one which infests the political establishment with intellectuals who then dogmatically follow their theory until the bitter end. Dogma is alien to good science (which economics, admittedly, hasn't been much of).

[Surlethe]

Sorry for the late reply, Stas. I got busy.

Friedman believes that without economic freedom, political freedom is impossible (though by no means guaranteed). How is this not acknowledging the primacy of economic freedom? And if you acknowledge the primacy of economic freedom, the natural conclusion would also be to acknowledge its supremacy. Because any society which has no economic freedom automatically can't have political freedom in Friedmanverse.

I simply don't see how "primacy" (whatever that is) implies "supremacy," and I haven't see that argument in Friedman's writing. (And I don't think he'd put it in code, either. He was an academic used to making unpopular arguments.)

Which points to another issue with Friedman's definitions. One minute these are societies marked "by a large measure of political freedom" because they use "a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity", the next minute they're "socialist". Makes you wonder.

Oh, I don't disagree with your evaluation of his definitions. I think not precisely defining "socialism" is a failure of Friedman's political ideology. (He might argue that a nation is socialist precisely to the extent to which it distorts the functioning of the free market, but that again begs the question you asked.)

But I would want to go back a page and admit my mistake. The quotes openly favoring dictatorship over democracy (so as long as it did "the right thing") didn't come from Friedman.

AH, this makes more sense. I do not know as much about Hayek as I do about Friedman, except ...

Now granted, Hayek isn't part of the official "Chicago School" because he was teaching at another department at the time, but as a part of an economic school of thought he clearly belongs to that club of market radicals.

The Austrian school and the Chicago school are clearly distinguishable. The Chicago school takes after Friedman in preferring the existence of a monetary authority, and preferring any countercyclical policy to be monetary. It also admits government intervention, but prefers such intervention to be strictly rule-based, e.g., Friedman's preference that the Fed not target anything, but instead expand the monetary base at 3%/yr, rain or shine, or Friedman's proposed negative (flat) income tax, and not discretionary.

The Austrians instead blame recessions on the existence and intervention of a monetary authority, and prefer instead no government intervention at all in the operations of the market beyond enforcement of property rights. I want to say that the Austrians labeled Friedman a socialist, but that might be Randroids instead. My memory of the anecdote is failing me.

[Lord Zentei]

Just wanted to make a quick comment on something from page 1:

Capital-L Libertarianism, on the other hand, blurs the lines between it and anarchy. The main difference is that Libertarianism supports the existence of large corporations that operate without regulation and with minimal laws and generally says that, outside of a military (maybe), the government is an outright hindrance to human endeavor and that government ought to be small and ineffective (small enough to drown in a bathtub, as has been said). It's a much uglier philosophy, and would allow for legal discrimination, rampant environmental pollution, and the existence of company towns and debt slavery.

While I don't have a problem with your earlier commentary, this part is just wrong: the capital-L Libertarians are absolutely not in favor of oligarchs and large corporations at all - in fact many of them hate them with just as much fervor as liberals. Their position is that large corporations are enabled by large government, and that regulations are mechanisms that empower the corporations rather than curbing their excesses. Of course, plenty of objections may be raised to such an idea, but it's not as far fetched as it sounds, especially when one considers the extent to which regulations are actually written by lobbyists nowadays.

The capital-L Libertarians are to be distinguished from "libertarians" in the Republican party (what kind of a Libertarian would make alliances of convenience with social conservatives?) who denigrate the label with their shenanigans. Those clowns absolutely do fit the description you used for the capital-L libertarians, in that they serve the interests of the corporations to a t, and are more often than not in their unofficial employ accepting bribes from them have strong connections with the pro-business lobby.

[Archaic`]

(what kind of a Libertarian would make alliances of convenience with social conservatives?)

I understand why it happens, though I feel their thinking here in this instance is quite flawed.

It essentially goes back to them feeling that people will start to demand more social freedoms (and that they will be able to put more power behind these demands) if their economic situation is improved. So long as the social conservatives support them on the economic issues then, there should be no real issues, since the social conservatives become disposable after the economic objective is achieved.

Where it falls apart in the case of the US I think is that the only thing currently holding back said social reforms being put in place are these social conservatives, who've been given disproportionate power by the "Libertarians" allying with them. The people already are largely in a situation where they are making these demands, and making them strongly, but they're up against an entrenched power structure that's being propped up by the "Libertarians".

The only other potential reason I see (personal religious belief) would probably be a bit too "socialist" and "nanny state" for the average Republican "Libertarian" I think, but if they view government as having a moral and ethical obligation to do right by and protect its citizens, they may very well feel that "doing everything possible to prevent as many of their citizens from going to hell as possible" is a responsibility of government.

[K. A. Pital]

Many libertarians make alliances with extreme social conservatives, the Church and even the Devil himself. Better dead than Red, or something like that.

Their position is that large corporations are enabled by large government, and that regulations are mechanisms that empower the corporations rather than curbing their excesses. Of course, plenty of objections may be raised to such an idea, but it's not as far fetched as it sounds, especially when one considers the extent to which regulations are actually written by lobbyists nowadays.

Part of the objection is that in places with a smaller government and less regulation/more privatization, the excesses of corporations are far worse than in large governments. For example, a private fire extinguishing service corp. may watch your house burn to the ground unless you pay. And I'm not joking, at all. That's a real story from the Philippines. That would be unfeasible in a First World nation.

Moreover, there's also the problem that smaller governments (e.g. Latin American, Central Asian, etc. ones) are absolutely in no shape to curb the excesses of corporations (which includes both domestic and foreign ones). The stories of United Fruit, Haiti jeans lobbying, etc. demonstrate that a small government is not exactly offering any greater protection from corporations.

Oh, and by the way, I was the person who was missing you lots on the board, Zentei! Welcome back!

The Austrian school and the Chicago school are clearly distinguishable. The Chicago school takes after Friedman in preferring the existence of a monetary authority, and preferring any countercyclical policy to be monetary. It also admits government intervention, but prefers such intervention to be strictly rule-based, e.g., Friedman's preference that the Fed not target anything, but instead expand the monetary base at 3%/yr, rain or shine, or Friedman's proposed negative (flat) income tax, and not discretionary.

The Austrians instead blame recessions on the existence and intervention of a monetary authority, and prefer instead no government intervention at all in the operations of the market beyond enforcement of property rights. I want to say that the Austrians labeled Friedman a socialist, but that might be Randroids instead. My memory of the anecdote is failing me.

Damn, you're right. Well, it's not that Hayek said Friedman was a socialist, but I think Friedman said Hayek's economic were totally bunk. However, what is interesting - at the same time Friedman acknowledged Hayek as being very important to his own economic philosophy. Friedman even wrote that Hayek attracted a sort of a libertarian club back when he was still at the uni. This is interesting, because while F. and H. clearly belong to different schools of economics, they converge as far as economic libertarianism is concerned. After all, both Chicago school and Austrians are libertarians.

[Lord Zentei]

Part of the objection is that in places with a smaller government and less regulation/more privatization, the excesses of corporations are far worse than in large governments. For example, a private fire extinguishing service corp. may watch your house burn to the ground unless you pay. And I'm not joking, at all. That's a real story from the Philippines. That would be unfeasible in a First World nation.

Moreover, there's also the problem that smaller governments (e.g. Latin American, Central Asian, etc. ones) are absolutely in no shape to curb the excesses of corporations (which includes both domestic and foreign ones). The stories of United Fruit, Haiti jeans lobbying, etc. demonstrate that a small government is not exactly offering any greater protection from corporations.

IMHO it depends on the substance of the government, not the size of it. Obviously if lobbyists can write the legislation then when the policy is to deregulate they get to decide which regulations are removed, just as easily as they decide which regulations are enacted at other times. So, if they know that they have to remove stuff, then they just remove the ones protecting consumers and such, and leave the ones that grant them artificial advantages. But I hold that one should pick a smaller regulatory body before a larger one, when they offer the same level of protection, if only because it's cheaper and because redundant regulations can have unintended results that someone can exploit. The solution is of course to fight corruption first and foremost, rather than just trying and change the regulations.

Oh, and by the way, I was the person who was missing you lots on the board, Zentei! Welcome back!

D'awww.

Waitaminute.... HOLY SHIT WHO MADE STAS A MODERATOR???

And in News and Politics, no less. I mean, that's like giving Shep his own History forum or something.

[Surlethe]

Brief point, then back to grading tests (raaaaaage) --

Stas:
(1) Yes, you're right that the Austrians and the Chicagoans are both libertarian. I'm just saying that they were in different parts of the libertarian encampment. I tend to get annoyed when people (not necessarily you) lump all of their ideological opponents into one giant category and dismiss the whole shebang as though they all use cookie-cutter arguments. That happens with Christianity (how many people would know the difference between a Calvinist and a Catholic?) and libertarianism -- the Austrians, the Monetarists, and the Randroids are three different camps within "libertarian" and they're as often at each other's throats as they are at the throats of the "socialists" (to whom they commit the same crime).

There are of course caveats to this pet peeve; if it's an argument or claim that the whole camp uses (e.g. "markets function more efficiently when government is less involved", "a personal god exists"), then I'm sympathetic to lumping them together. But as often as not, treating all libertarians/Christians/socialists/whatever as the same is an intellectually slothful substitute for actual research.

Again, not accusing you of this, just explaining why I was making the distinction.

Stas/Zentei:
(2) I'm surprised regulatory capture hasn't been mentioned yet. It's an obvious case for regulatory reform: when a market is specialized enough, the only people who know enough to regulate it are the people who participate in it. For example, US financial markets -- weren't there 'scandals' where people from Goldman Sachs, e.g., sitting on the board of the SEC or somesuch?

And of course there's also the issue of restriction of supply through (self-)regulation. For instance, people from an industry who sit on a licensing board have incentive not only to keep frauds out, but to keep honest practicioners out so that profits stay artificially high. After all, in a truly free market, the profit of the marginal supplier is zero.

Also

And I'm not joking, at all. That's a real story from the Philippines. That would be unfeasible in a First World nation.

Happened in Ohio, I believe.

Zentei:
(3): Welcome back!

[Surlethe]

Ah-hah. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... scription/ Tennessee.

[K. A. Pital]

But I hold that one should pick a smaller regulatory body before a larger one, when they offer the same level of protection, if only because it's cheaper and because redundant regulations can have unintended results that someone can exploit. The solution is of course to fight corruption first and foremost, rather than just trying and change the regulations.

Well yeah, if you put it that way, that's pretty much obvious. You can do more with less, or something like that. There's no point in having a larger bureaucracy if it offers the same protection as a smaller one. The problem, of course, is offering decisive proof of that.

Waitaminute.... HOLY SHIT WHO MADE STAS A MODERATOR??? And in News and Politics, no less. I mean, that's like giving Shep his own History forum or something.

Actually, Shep's a mod in History. Heheh.

Also

And I'm not joking, at all. That's a real story from the Philippines. That would be unfeasible in a First World nation.

Happened in Ohio, I believe. ... Ah-hah. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... scription/ Tennessee.

Ow, ow! As for your points, I do understand them. In this case I think the distinction is warranted; if nobody in the Chicago school actually openly spoke in favor of dictatorship (whatever positions they might have occupied in the Pinochet government), then it might be unfair to lump them together with Austrians, etc. So far I've only found Chilean functionaries with Chicago training speaking in favor of dictatorship; which isn't the same as Friedman or the like giving them a blessing.

[Surlethe]

Happened in Ohio, I believe. ... Ah-hah. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... scription/ Tennessee.

Ow, ow! As for your points, I do understand them. In this case I think the distinction is warranted; if nobody in the Chicago school actually openly spoke in favor of dictatorship (whatever positions they might have occupied in the Pinochet government), then it might be unfair to lump them together with Austrians, etc. So far I've only found Chilean functionaries with Chicago training speaking in favor of dictatorship; which isn't the same as Friedman or the like giving them a blessing.

Da. Although if a Chicago boy were actually in Chile giving an interview and a journalist asked, "What do you think about dictators imposing free markets? Is the free market worth horrible human-rights abuses?" I don't know that you could call his answer uncoerced.

[K. A. Pital]

Da. Although if a Chicago boy were actually in Chile giving an interview and a journalist asked, "What do you think about dictators imposing free markets? Is the free market worth horrible human-rights abuses?" I don't know that you could call his answer uncoerced.

Yeah, part of the reason why I think it can be discounted. That's like asking a Soviet economist inside the USSR if planned economy is worth having a dictatorship. The answer will only indicate loyalty, not true opinion.

[Lord Zentei]

Well yeah, if you put it that way, that's pretty much obvious. You can do more with less, or something like that. There's no point in having a larger bureaucracy if it offers the same protection as a smaller one. The problem, of course, is offering decisive proof of that.

Yes, obviously. Or is it? I'd think that if you want to add a large bureaucracy you need to provide evidence that the cost-benefit of that endeavour is favourable. Burden of proof must rest with the one who wants to spend more money, right?

In any case, I think it pretty clear that all too often a bureaucracy will favor special interests, as per capture theory.

Actually, Shep's a mod in History. Heheh.

That's the joke.

Zentei:
(3): Welcome back!

Thanks.