I was just reading a really interesting series of letters between Walter Block and Milton Friedman where Friedman calls Block a "fanatic" for his anarcho-capitalist views. As Block points out Milton's son, David, is also an anarcho-capitalist. Milton doesn't answer in the letter, so does anyone here know of anything on Milton's opinions of his son?
It would definitely be interesting to hear a first-hand account of those dinner table arguments.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Wow, that's a gem of an exchange, thanks for posting it. Walter Block is a pretty amazing individual, he's like a winsome attack dog when he spots cognitive dissonance.
Walter Block: and you telling us you’ll fire us if our departments are not ended within one year.
and you telling us you’ll fire us if our departments are not ended within one year.
Hilarious.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Block mentioned this Hutt book. https://mises.org/book.aspx?Id=29972 - !
If this could find it's way on line, that would be amay-zing.
Block was really firing on all cylinders in that article.
I especially like his quote on poverty.
I think that the best way to provide “a basic minimum level of
living” for the poor is to establish the free enterprise system, not a
negative income tax nor any other form of coercive welfare. If I were
placed behind a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” and told I would have
grandchildren who might be poor, and I wanted to protect their lives,
I would surely pick capitalism, not a welfare state, as their best protection.
powerful stuff.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
David Friedman is a member of the Mises Community, and pops in from time to time. I am a big fan of his views on anarcho-capitalism, in some ways, more so than I am sympathetic to Rothbard's conception of an ancap society.
Dr Block is charming as hell in those letters; not an ounce of phoniness either.
Conza88: Block mentioned this Hutt book. https://mises.org/book.aspx?Id=29972 - ! If this could find it's way on line, that would be amay-zing.
It's available at my school library. I think I'm going to give it a look.
David Friedman, Milton's son, is an anarcho-capitalist. I'm about half way through his "Machinery of Freedom." Its very lucidly written and easy to understand. I highly recommend it!
nirgrahamUK: I think that the best way to provide “a basic minimum level of living” for the poor is to establish the free enterprise system, not a negative income tax nor any other form of coercive welfare. If I were placed behind a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” and told I would have grandchildren who might be poor, and I wanted to protect their lives, I would surely pick capitalism, not a welfare state, as their best protection.
Man block goes on forever and ever writing though... It was interesting, but I felt neither side really argued very well (great writers though). I was rooting for Block, but there were times when I thought friedman was winning.
Snowflake:Man block goes on forever and ever writing though...
Friedman:
Please specify for me in not more than two brief paragraphs how you perceive a feasible transition in a nongradual way from the present state of affairs to your ideal, justified state of affairs.
Block:
[10 paragraphs]
Block did apologise, and he was right.
Angurse: Snowflake:Man block goes on forever and ever writing though... Friedman: Please specify for me in not more than two brief paragraphs how you perceive a feasible transition in a nongradual way from the present state of affairs to your ideal, justified state of affairs. Block: [10 paragraphs] Block did apologise, and he was right.
It would have been a lot shorter if Block would have simply said, "wtf u talkin' 'bout?"
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Thanks for leading me onto that, it was a lovely read, although by the end I had very little respect for Friedman.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Daniel: It would have been a lot shorter if Block would have simply said, "wtf u talkin' 'bout?"
Perhaps Block hadn't yet discovered teh internetz at this point. I woulda written, "lol wut?"
That was a quite nice collection of letters. Thanks for finding it and sharing it. It's amazing how many gems are lying around in the open, waiting to be pounced on.
David Friedman is not a pure anarcho capitalist. He thinks that a Government is necessary for National Defense.
deadmanoncampus:David Friedman is not a pure anarcho capitalist. He thinks that a Government is necessary for National Defense.
In the chapter on National Defense, he just confesses that he doesn't have a good solution for national defense.
Friedman:These arguments suggest that it may be possible to defend against foreign nations by voluntary means. They do not prove that it will be; I am only balancing one imperfect system against another and trying to guess which will work better.
That doesn't mean he is endorsing government in any way.
He is a utilitarian when it comes to Anarcho-Capitalism, not of a Natural Rights perspective.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
He's not a real utilitarian in any way. He simply states, that economic arguments are more or less leading to utilitarian arguments, and since economics as a sience is far more advanced than ethics, he's merely taking this route. He even admits to being more of a 'rights-based libertarian' at heart, but that he as an economist has more knowledge about what practically works instead of how society is supposed o be.
Andrew: He is a utilitarian when it comes to Anarcho-Capitalism, not of a Natural Rights perspective.
A subjective ethicist not an objective ethicist.
liberty student: Andrew: He is a utilitarian when it comes to Anarcho-Capitalism, not of a Natural Rights perspective. A subjective ethicist not an objective ethicist.
Someone's gonna have to explain the those terms to me. Or at least link me to an article. Grazie!
David Friedman has interesting ideas, if an anarcho capitalist society were to exist, I think it would make most sense for it to be implemented gradually.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: I think it would make most sense for it to be implemented gradually.
Why?
Libertyandlife: David Friedman has interesting ideas, if an anarcho capitalist society were to exist, I think it would make most sense for it to be implemented gradually.
Are you sure this is not just a subjective line of thinking rather than a rational line of reasoning?
You observe, but you do not see.
I don't know whether it's irony or fortunate evolution, but Milton's grandson is also an anarcho-capitalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patri_Friedman
I feel like there's some hope with educating our offspring.
I agree with this in principle, but reality leads me to a very different conclusion.
The immediate eradication of the State would mean that many many people suffer short term pain, and the country would suffer one hell of a recession. On the other hand, gradual eradication would mean that there'd be time for special interests to muster, practically stopping the process in its tracks.
I owe this point to Milton Friedman himself (in Tyranny of the Status Quo and Capitalism and Freedom, I think)
P.S. While I didn't enjoy The Machinery of Freedom, a pdf copy can be found here coutesy of this blogger.
Irish Liberty Forum
liberty student: Libertyandlife: I think it would make most sense for it to be implemented gradually. Why?
Because capitalism is still a radical idea to most, something only "extremists" adhere to. People don't understand it, aren't comfortable with it, and as such, will not immediately indorse it. The socialists have always been more strategic in their approach. Most liberals simply say they're right, and criticize those who are wrong; but this does not get us even one step closer towards our goal.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."