Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Milton on David

Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 28 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
391 Posts
Points 6,975
Michelangelo posted on Tue, Jan 25 2011 11:52 PM

So I've been looking through my local library to see if Milton Friedman ever commented on his son David's work, but I can't seem to find any reference to the latter except in his memoirs and most of those are remarks from his mother about non-economic affairs. I know Walter Block in a correspondence once brought it up, but Milton didn't respond on that point. Does anyone know of a time in which Milton addressed his son's work in either economics or its implications in political theory?

  • | Post Points: 50

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Not Ranked
78 Posts
Points 2,005
Verified by Michelangelo

"But David has been known to lurk these boards, so perhaps he can give us an adequate answer."

Your summary is accurate. We don't know enough to prove what sets of institutions would wouldn't be stable. I think anarcho-capitalism, under some circumstances, would probably work--but might not. My father thought it might work, but probably wouldn't.

And he was more interested than I am in shorter range issues.

  • | Post Points: 40
Not Ranked
78 Posts
Points 2,005
Verified by Michelangelo

-You emphasize that your are not an austrian but an chicagoan

Correct.


- You didn't like Rothbard, at least when its about the history of economic thought 

I've never been a fan of Rothbard. My basic objection to him is that I think he was willing to use arguments he had to know were bad when they produced the result he wanted. My criticism of his work on the history of thought is one example. He accused Smith of being opposed to free trade on the basis of his support for an export tax on wool without ever telling his readers that what Smith was proposing was to replace an absolute ban on the export of wool, enforced by ferocious restrictions on the wool trade, with an export tax. He argued for the superiority of Turgot to Smith, cited Smith's (actually quite ambiguous) support for the existence of a government role in schooling, and didn't mention Turgot's proposal that the French monarchy take over the entire French school system. For details of that argument see:

https://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/6d7fce6151d53dfc/cc3e3b99db7ba2b1?hl=en#cc3e3b99db7ba2b1

But there were earlier examples in other areas. We had a substantive disagreement on the nature of the legal system of a society without government, but that wasn't the reason for my reservations about Rothbard.


- As far as I know Rothbard was the first or at least one of the first who called himself an anarcho capitalist publicly

Very likely correct.

Questions:
- What/Who did influance or triggered you to convert to anarcho capitalism. Did Rothbard or any austrian play a role in that?

No. I don't think I had read any Rothbard at that point.

My position at about age 15 was classical liberalism, with one problem—I didn't see why obeying laws was morally obligatory, or how a society could work if people didn't feel it was. When visiting colleges I was applying to I met the late Robert Schuchman, who offered arguments for private roads, one of the things I had thought had to be provided by government. But the biggest influence was reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I thought I could prove that the framework for a private property society had to exist outside the market, provided by government. Heinlein offered a convincing counterexample, a description that seemed internally consistent of a (fictional) society in which law and law enforcement were endogenous, themselves a part of the market system.

One counterexample is enough to refute a theorem. So that started me thinking about how an analogous system would work in something close to our society. Out of that came the analysis that ended up in The Machinery of Freedom.

- Do you think it is good that the austrians (still) exist (as school of course ;) and that they propose ancap? Do you think they make a good job in proposing ancap and also educating people economics ?

I expect there are Austrians who do a good job and others who don't. The libertarian movement, like other political movements, is largely composed of people who think the arguments for their view are simple, obvious and correct, and are mistaken. My usual test is to ask whether someone could do a good job of arguing for the other side--about as good a job as most on that side could do.


- Can you name me other chicagoans who are ancaps, whose writings I could study?

I can't think of anyone else who would clearly classify as Chicago school and as anarchist. Gary Becker once commented that he thought his position was between mine and my father's, but I don't think he has ever called himself an anarchist. Jim Buchanan refers to himself as a philosophical anarchist, and wrote the one really good review of The Machinery of Freedom, the one review that pointed out real problems that I had to think about, but I'm not sure if he would be better classified as Chicago, Austrian, or Virginia school. There is a bunch of younger people, such as Peter Leeson and Bryan Caplan, largely at GMU, who have anarchist sympathies and who I think are closer to Chicago school than to Austrian, but again I'm not sure of clear cases.

On the other hand, I think the younger generation of economists are much more open to the possibility of law and order and property without the state than my father's generation were, or mine.

- Do you think that the general basis of discussion between the main different schools of thought are on the whole fine and respectful, or that they are venomed and much too often include insults, disrespect and bias?

I had a low opinion of Rothbard's contribution to that exchange, but I haven't paid a lot of attention to other disputes between the schools. Bryan Caplan has a webbed piece on why he is not an Austrian which strikes me as respectful and well argued, and is based on a much more detailed understanding of the Austrian position than I have:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sat, Jan 29 2011 9:13 AM

Skylien:
- What/Who did influance or triggered you to convert to anarcho capitalism. Did Rothbard or any austrian play a role in that?
I know this is directed at David Friedman, but I actually read "Free to Choose", and promptly asked my AP economics teacher why we didn't just privatize everything including roads and national defense. He said "we don't want to go that far", and I asked "why not", to which I cannot remember his answer. I didn't know anything about public goods or externalities at the time, but I definitely thought it was a good idea just from understanding Friedman's economics.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
64 Posts
Points 670
Runyan replied on Sat, Jan 29 2011 10:06 AM

skylien:

@ David

Nice that you answer. May I ask you additional questions?

First a few facts, please correct me if I got them wrong:
- You emphasize that your are not an austrian but an chicagoan
- You didn't like Rothbard, at least when its about the history of economic thought 
- As far as I know Rothbard was the first or at least one of the first who called himself an anarcho capitalist publicly

Questions:
- What/Who did influance or triggered you to convert to anarcho capitalism. Did Rothbard or any austrian play a role in that?
- Do you think it is good that the austrians (still) exist (as school of course ;) and that they propose ancap? Do you think they make a good job in proposing ancap and also educating people economics ?
- Can you name me other chicagoans who are ancaps, whose writings I could study?
- Do you think that the general basis of discussion between the main different schools of thought are on the whole fine and respectful, or that they are venomed and much too often include insults, disrespect and bias?

I believe at his Mises Brazil lecture, Professor David Friedman articulated that he considers himself an 'American economist' and that he doesn't particulaly like the notion of different 'schools' of economic thought.  There exists only good economics and bad economics.  I believe he also addresses his views on Rothbard during the Q&A period of this same lecture.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
753 Posts
Points 18,750

I'm almost positive that Milton and Rothbard had an exchange via letters on anarchy.

Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,189 Posts
Points 22,990

@Runyan Is there any videos of this lecture?
 

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
313 Posts
Points 4,390

I am not certain, but I think Milton Friedman implicitly mentions his son in his famous Icelandic interview. (Apparently the socialist blond guy presided over Iceland as of the bankruptcy, a couple of years ago. eheh)

He is asked why he won't defend his work against criticism from some British professor (the work in question is the monetary history of the US, I think). Friedman reply is that he takes care of his work like he takes care of his children: while they are young, he will actively defend them. But once they mature, he lets them fend for themselves.

I also thought that was his justification for not actively (and even passively, when asked) discuss his son's ideas. He figures his son is around and is a big boy, so let him address those.

Again, I watched the interview some years ago, so I am sure he expressed himself much differently than how I am portraying it, and I am not certain he said such a thing in the first place. :-) Anyhow, the interview is too long, so I will let you guys confirm it. I think this exchange took place more to the end of the interview.

Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
313 Posts
Points 4,390

@Runyan Is there any videos of this lecture?

You can find links to David Friedman's Mises Brazil lecture, as well as some of his other lectures, over his website: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html

Patri Friedman's Mises Brazil lecture is also recommended!

Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
64 Posts
Points 670
Runyan replied on Sat, Jan 29 2011 2:05 PM

Libertyandlife:

@Runyan Is there any videos of this lecture?

http://vimeo.com/user3865467/videos

http://vimeo.com/13711761  - start at 25:38 for the few points I mentioned earlier

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
286 Posts
Points 4,665

 

@ Sieben
I am still on the minarchist side, since I had not enough time yet to read and think about law, enforcement, and punishment in an anarcho capitalist society. For this task it is nice to know what made people actually become ancaps. And while it is quite clear for me, who and what the most people in this forum and Mises Institute made change their mind, it was really strange for me to find out that there is also another one. Someone who on the contrary, strongly emphasizes not be austrian (only in an economic sense, but I guess this is clear here..), also became it. For my point of view this seems odd, because if you don't share a very big part of the economic reasoning of AE, how can you also become an ancap?

It is really somewhat weird to find out about the relationships between all the different important people, "schools" etc...

The vidz of his talk in Brazil was really great! Thanks Runyan! I will just check out his site more closely. It seems his books are also for free. So I guess some of my questions will be answered here and there (as Question 2 in this Brazil talk).

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sun, Jan 30 2011 9:31 AM

Skylein:
For my point of view this seems odd, because if you don't share a very big part of the economic reasoning of AE, how can you also become an ancap?
Because government is a totally bankrupt philosophy from every angle? See here for the finance derrivation.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
78 Posts
Points 2,005
Verified by Michelangelo

-You emphasize that your are not an austrian but an chicagoan

Correct.


- You didn't like Rothbard, at least when its about the history of economic thought 

I've never been a fan of Rothbard. My basic objection to him is that I think he was willing to use arguments he had to know were bad when they produced the result he wanted. My criticism of his work on the history of thought is one example. He accused Smith of being opposed to free trade on the basis of his support for an export tax on wool without ever telling his readers that what Smith was proposing was to replace an absolute ban on the export of wool, enforced by ferocious restrictions on the wool trade, with an export tax. He argued for the superiority of Turgot to Smith, cited Smith's (actually quite ambiguous) support for the existence of a government role in schooling, and didn't mention Turgot's proposal that the French monarchy take over the entire French school system. For details of that argument see:

https://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/6d7fce6151d53dfc/cc3e3b99db7ba2b1?hl=en#cc3e3b99db7ba2b1

But there were earlier examples in other areas. We had a substantive disagreement on the nature of the legal system of a society without government, but that wasn't the reason for my reservations about Rothbard.


- As far as I know Rothbard was the first or at least one of the first who called himself an anarcho capitalist publicly

Very likely correct.

Questions:
- What/Who did influance or triggered you to convert to anarcho capitalism. Did Rothbard or any austrian play a role in that?

No. I don't think I had read any Rothbard at that point.

My position at about age 15 was classical liberalism, with one problem—I didn't see why obeying laws was morally obligatory, or how a society could work if people didn't feel it was. When visiting colleges I was applying to I met the late Robert Schuchman, who offered arguments for private roads, one of the things I had thought had to be provided by government. But the biggest influence was reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I thought I could prove that the framework for a private property society had to exist outside the market, provided by government. Heinlein offered a convincing counterexample, a description that seemed internally consistent of a (fictional) society in which law and law enforcement were endogenous, themselves a part of the market system.

One counterexample is enough to refute a theorem. So that started me thinking about how an analogous system would work in something close to our society. Out of that came the analysis that ended up in The Machinery of Freedom.

- Do you think it is good that the austrians (still) exist (as school of course ;) and that they propose ancap? Do you think they make a good job in proposing ancap and also educating people economics ?

I expect there are Austrians who do a good job and others who don't. The libertarian movement, like other political movements, is largely composed of people who think the arguments for their view are simple, obvious and correct, and are mistaken. My usual test is to ask whether someone could do a good job of arguing for the other side--about as good a job as most on that side could do.


- Can you name me other chicagoans who are ancaps, whose writings I could study?

I can't think of anyone else who would clearly classify as Chicago school and as anarchist. Gary Becker once commented that he thought his position was between mine and my father's, but I don't think he has ever called himself an anarchist. Jim Buchanan refers to himself as a philosophical anarchist, and wrote the one really good review of The Machinery of Freedom, the one review that pointed out real problems that I had to think about, but I'm not sure if he would be better classified as Chicago, Austrian, or Virginia school. There is a bunch of younger people, such as Peter Leeson and Bryan Caplan, largely at GMU, who have anarchist sympathies and who I think are closer to Chicago school than to Austrian, but again I'm not sure of clear cases.

On the other hand, I think the younger generation of economists are much more open to the possibility of law and order and property without the state than my father's generation were, or mine.

- Do you think that the general basis of discussion between the main different schools of thought are on the whole fine and respectful, or that they are venomed and much too often include insults, disrespect and bias?

I had a low opinion of Rothbard's contribution to that exchange, but I haven't paid a lot of attention to other disputes between the schools. Bryan Caplan has a webbed piece on why he is not an Austrian which strikes me as respectful and well argued, and is based on a much more detailed understanding of the Austrian position than I have:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Top 150 Contributor
Male
753 Posts
Points 18,750

**Sorry to hijack the tread**

David,

Not too far back you made a comment in a Stephen M. video about schooling that I thought was fabulous. You mentioned that teachers and professors have too much power in their hands being the continuous intellectual-head of their classroom. Such continuous bouts of power lead them to place too much weight on their own opinion; they develop a sense that they must be right. The opinion you present on this is so far reaching, but I’ve never heard it purported by anyone else. I was wondering if you knew of anyone who developed or carried this argument further in an article or paper. If not, would you be willing to offer your opinion if I were to write up something?  

 

Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
286 Posts
Points 4,665

@David
Thanks! I highly appriciate your answer. Wow never thought that you made this step so early (Hm what was it that I thought of when I was 15..? I guess I tried to use the most economical way of getting through school while maximizing my time in playing Baldurs Gate ;). 

I know the Caplan essay and part of the following discussion, but I have no final opinion about it yet. But it is definitely well argued, and I read regularly his short blogs on econlog.econlib.org.

@ Sieben
I already somehow fear the day when I probably have to say to my friends and family: Listen, but I am an anarchist now..

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sun, Jan 30 2011 8:23 PM

Skylein:
I already somehow fear the day when I probably have to say to my friends and family: Listen, but I am an anarchist now..
You can also go the other way and accuse them of being anarchists. The state apparatus is judge in its own case. At best, democracy is anarchy for the majority with a pre-defined rightless underclass... except the majority can only govern themselves by the impotent process of voting, so its a totally chaotic and lawless idea all around.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
391 Posts
Points 6,975

I have nothing further to contribute to this thread, however I feel obligated to thank Mister D. Friedman for answering my question.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (29 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS