Has Fisher/Friedman been more destructive than Keynes?

Nevermind.

Rooster:

Was pushing for the elimination of the draft evil because it did not also involve dismantling the military? Is calling for tax and spending cuts evil because you are not also calling for the elimination of government?

Yes. Support for government is evil.

Juan:

Yes. Support for government is evil.

Agreed.  Second bests are not progress.  The state has no legitimacy.  Negotiating with the state is a waste of time and energy.  No one has ever negotiated a state smaller.

Do I live by this perfectly (because someone will throw this lame argument up)?  No, I do not.  I don't think the state is legitimate, but I do know they will kill me if I resist.  But I am not drinking the koolaid that the state can be rolled back with compromise.

Juan:

Rooster:

Was pushing for the elimination of the draft evil because it did not also involve dismantling the military? Is calling for tax and spending cuts evil because you are not also calling for the elimination of government?

Yes. Support for government is evil.

Now don't try to evade your conclusion by adding "support for government is evil." I know you want to be as pure a libertarian as possible. Was pushing for the elimination of the draft evil or not? Was it a good thing or not?

Is any non-anarchist evil?

Rooster:

Now don't try to evade your conclusion by adding "support for government is evil."

What conclusion am I trying to evade ? Do you think that the fact that friedman got some things right doesn't mean he also caused damage by being a statist ?

Why should his 'mistakes' be tolerated ?

Is any non-anarchist evil ?

Are you talking about people interested in politics who want to tax and kill dissenters ? Yes, they are evil.

Juan:

Rooster:

Now don't try to evade your conclusion by adding "support for government is evil."

What conclusion am I trying to evade ? Do you think that the fact that friedman got some things right doesn't mean he also caused damage by being a statist ?

Why should his 'mistakes' be tolerated ?

Is any non-anarchist evil ?

Are you talking about people interested in politics who want to tax and kill dissenters ? Yes, they are evil.

You are changing the statement again. I'm talking about an example of a gradual change vs. total abolition of government, not whether we should tolerate Friedman's mistakes or whether he "caused damage." Is advocating some gradual change evil or not? Specifically, to give one example, was advocating the elimination of the draft evil?

You also added the bit about killing dissenters. Does Friedman qualify for this? How about Mises? Evil or not?

Rooster:

Is advocating some gradual change evil or not?

Wasn't I clear enough ? Yes it is.

Specifically, to give one example, was advocating the elimination of the draft evil ?

No, but so what ?

You are mixing two different things. "Advocating gradual change" is not the same thing as "only opposing X". If you tell me that you oppose X then fine. If I am to judge you only for your opposition to X then I can't say you are evil.

However, if you tell me you oppose X but support A, B, C, D, W and Z then the situation is a bit different....

You also added the bit about killing dissenters. Does Friedman qualify for this? How about Mises?

Of course. They would kill people who didn't admit the 'legitimacy' of their 'minimal' tyranny. But notice that is not my fault. It's theirs. You seem to be shooting the messenger...

Evil or not ?

Do you think I'm afraid of saying that these people held evil positions ?

Juan:

Rooster:

Is advocating some gradual change evil or not?

Wasn't I clear enough ? Yes it is.

Specifically, to give one example, was advocating the elimination of the draft evil ?

No, but so what ?

You are mixing two different things. "Advocating gradual change" is not the same thing as "only opposing X". If you tell me that you oppose X then fine. If I am to judge you only for your opposition to X then I can't say you are evil.

However, if you tell me you oppose X but support A, B, C, D, W and Z then the situation is a bit different....

You say that advocating gradual change is evil, but that eliminating the draft was not. Presumably you would admit that it had good effects. How do you reconcile this, and wouldn't you admit there is a place for gradualism then? What difference does it make whether Friedman was motivated by the ultimate goal of anarcho-capitalism as to judging this act? And are Friedman's (and presumably Mises's) theoretical sins really enough to call him evil? I personally find this a little childish, and certainly counterproductive if you have a goal of convincing people of your views. But OK, I just wanted to see how far you're willing to go. Rothbard has called Friedman a statist, but I don't think he would say he was evil (has he?)

Rooster:

You also added the bit about killing dissenters. Does Friedman qualify for this? How about Mises? Evil or not ?

Juan:

Of course. They would kill people who didn't admit the 'legitimacy' of their 'minimal' tyranny. But notice that is not my fault. It's theirs. You seem to be shooting the messenger...

Jeez, Mises would kill for not admitting legitimacy? Maybe you're right, Mises was evil.

You say that advocating gradual change is evil, but that eliminating the draft was not. Presumably you would admit that it had good effects.

Not sure what you mean. The good effects were that people at some given place and time were not enslaved.

How do you reconcile this, and wouldn't you admit there is a place for gradualism then ?

I already explained it. I'm sorry if you don't get it ... or prefer not to get it.

What difference does it make whether Friedman was motivated by the ultimate goal of anarcho-capitalism as to judging this act?

I'm judging Friedman's overall position. Friedman the guy who opposed military enslavement was a nice guy. Friedman the guy who supported american imperialism was certainly not a nice guy.

And are Friedman's (and presumably Mises's) theoretical sins really enough to call him evil ?

This is boring.

I personally find this a little childish,

I find your lack of consistency worse than childish.

and certainly counterproductive if you have a goal of convincing people of your views.

Your opinion.

But OK, I just wanted to see how far you're willing to go.

In stating facts ? I go as far as the facts go.

Rothbard has called Friedman a statist, but I don't think he would say he was evil (has he?)

I don't know. I don't take my cues from Rothbard anyway.

Jeez, Mises would kill for not admitting legitimacy? Maybe you're right, Mises was evil.

Maybe I'm missing something ? Do you mind explaining to me how a 'minimal' government works ? Is it a national monopoly backed by force, not reason ? Or ?

Now you say you're stating facts when I pressed you about calling someone evil? What is my lack of consistency? Gimme a break, you can't give a straight answer. I'm sure you realize you're just changing arguments when you can't answer something, so I'll just leave it there.

 

I think I gave you all the straight answers you wanted. I'm hardly impressed by the credentials of people like Friedman and I don't mind calling his actions evil. What else do you want me to say ?

Now, I'm assuming you are a so called 'miniarchist' ? if that's the case, be so kind as to explain why you consider your system to be legitimate ?

Juan:

I'm assuming you are a so called 'miniarchist' ? if that's the case, be so kind as to explain why you consider your system to be legitimate ?

This ^^^

Rooster:

That sure is a good target for your hate. Instead everyone should talk about how great it would be if we could go instantaneously to anarcho-capitalism.

Look what we're left with; the socialists are stronger than ever. Friedman's policies were doomed to fail, since they failed in the 20s under Fisher/Strong; and yet, Friedman was hailed as the champion of free market capitalism. His failure, in the eyes of many, meant the failure of capitalism. Look around you, the average person has never heard of Mises/Hayek, but Milton Friedman is that "greedy capitalist" who caused our financial mess, at least in the eyes of the ignorant "layman" (for lack of a better term).

I think the real question is - did Milton Friedman shift mainstream economics towards the free-market? He was certainly the most influential libertarian economist. Hayek is these days hardly cited by mainstream economists, it's mostly his work on legal topics that lives on.