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?
"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.
-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
Seeing "Milton on David", I clicked on this hoping to read something beautiful that the English poet John Milton wrote about Michelangelo's David. Compounding my expectations was the fact that it was posted by "Michelangelo". Oh well...
Michelangelo:So I've been looking through my local library to see if Milton Friedman ever commented on his son David's work
Danny Sanchez:Seeing "Milton on David", I clicked on this hoping to read something beautiful that the English poet John Milton wrote about Michelangelo's David.
I think in his last interview with Charlie Rose (around 2005) he makes a few comments about his son and even his work on anarchy. If you have time, watch it and see if my memory serves me correct.
Watching it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2963837673813979186#
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: Watching it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2963837673813979186#
All you need to know about Monetarism is in the first 20 seconds of that video.
DD5: All you need to know about Monetarism is in the first 20 seconds of that video.
Hehe
Let us know what point he talks about his son, if you find it.
Watched the whole thing. Perhaps my volume was too loud, but everytime he sort of stuttered, it sounded too much like wheezing, and made me sad to the fact that he died soon after the interview. NOTHING on David.
Milton was around when David was promoting anarchism, so was Mises for Rothbard. It's always sort of bothered me that neither really said anything about market anarchism.
Libertyandlife: Watched the whole thing. Perhaps my volume was too loud, but everytime he sort of stuttered, it sounded too much like wheezing, and made me sad to the fact that he died soon after the interview. NOTHING on David. Milton was around when David was promoting anarchism, so was Mises for Rothbard. It's always sort of bothered me that neither really said anything about market anarchism.
It sometimes takes a new generation to takes things to it's logical conclusion.
Milton Friedman did comment on anarcho-capitalism at one point, but he didn't include his son in his answer.
Friedman: That's right. Because now liberal is so misinterpreted. So I am a Republican with a capital "r" and a libertarian with a small "l." I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles, but because that's the way I am the most useful and have most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian.
However, libertarian is not a self-defining term. There are many varieties of libertarians. There's a zero-government libertarian, an anarchist. There's a limited-government libertarianism. They share a lot in terms of their fundamental values. If you trace them to their ultimate roots, they are different. It doesn't matter in practice, because we both want to work in the same direction.
I would like to be a zero-government libertarian.
Reason: Why aren't you?
Friedman: Because I don't think it's a feasible social structure. I look over history, and outside of perhaps Iceland, where else can you find any historical examples of that kind of a system developing?
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds/3
A while ago I also stumbled up a yahoo question, where the original poster asked what Milton Friedman thought about David's views. David Friedman actually ended up responding and said something along these lines: "My father thought it might work, but it probably wouldn't. I on the other hand thought I might not work, but it probably would."
Unfortunately, now I can't find a link to that topic.
But David has been known to lurk these boards, so perhaps he can give us an adequate answer.
Thanks for the quick replies everyone, and I apologize for my lack of knowledge in poetry. Although I am sure we have a poet or two somewhere on here...
The Reason article is interesting. Would it be too far an argument to make that Milton was a closet anarchist? Not that I haven't already suspected that for sometime. What I am curious about is whether Milton approved of David's (and by extension Patri Friedman) application of economic knowledge in the political realm, or not. I suppose I'll just have to wait to see if David ever writes his memoirs.
Michelangelo:Would it be too far an argument to make that Milton was a closet anarchist?
I think (obviously a personal conjecture) that Milton Friedman was too intellectually brave and honest to covertly hide such a foundational belief (and his economics and policies would probably have ventured into more radical territory if he harbored anarchistic inclinations).
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
^ That seems probable, unless he thought talking about such things would be far to distracting for positive discourse.
@ 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?