Political Theory

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Fephisto — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:44 GMT

I remember reading Friedman's Machinery of Freedom (it was in my library. Sorry, I like to do things on the cheap :p).

I tend to think of it as Rothbard took things in a Kantian-esque rights-based approach, while Friedman took the Utilitarianistic approach.

I.e., libertarianism have all the major ethical theories covered! Now, when do the Ancaps take over?

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:32:23 GMT

I think he, Ed Stringham and Bryan Caplan do - but other than that, you're right.

-Jon

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

krazy kaju — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:29:53 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Hold your horses - an Austrian!? I think he works within the neoclassical framework. He might have some affinities with Austrianism, but none that I've noticed really, aside from support for anarchism. Anyway, his book is great. I prefer Rothbard's FANL and Hoppe's DTGTF, but his book is also a great primer, and is good for converting the "average Joe" type.

My bad. I assumed he was an Austrian. Not many neoclassical economists support anarcho-capitalism, you know? lol

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:23:09 GMT

Hold your horses - an Austrian!? I think he works within the neoclassical framework. He might have some affinities with Austrianism, but none that I've noticed really, aside from support for anarchism. Anyway, his book is great. I prefer Rothbard's FANL and Hoppe's DTGTF, but his book is also a great primer, and is good for converting the "average Joe" type.

-Jon

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

krazy kaju — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:19:33 GMT

I have the book Anarchy and the Law (edited by Stringham) which has an excerpt from Friedman's book. It is indeed an excellent excerpt, so the book is probably good as a whole too. Friedman does take the argument from a utilitarian perspective, but so does Rothbard, to an extent. Rothbard often shows how a libertarian society would leave everyone better off and then he includes why it would be morally superior from his natural rights POV.

Also, I have no clue why you mentioned the Chicago School. David Friedman is an Austrian just like Rothbard. I think you might have mixed him up with Milton Friedman, who was the famous monetarist and leader of the Chicago School in the 20th century who brought semi-libertarian economics to the forefront.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Grant — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:46:48 GMT

Chriscal12:
A big theoretical difference in their respective visions of anarchy is that Friedman believes law would be created on the market, for profit, and that you may occasionally have less than libertarian outcomes, although rarely. Rothbard believed that a basic libertarian code must be set down first, and then a successful anarchist society could follow. It's also worth noting that the two men did not like each other.

Reading his blog, he always seemed like more of a public choicer (though I admit I have no idea if accepting public choice theory is popular in the "Chicago School").

Chriscal12:
David Friedman is a Chicago School economist, but as he has said, don't confuse methodology with policy conclusions. He's an anarchist and certainly doesn't believe in government controlled money, but he also does not subscribe to Austrian methodology in economics. He came to anarchy differently than Rothbard.

I side with David on this one. Even if one accepts natural rights ethics, the illigetimacy or moral bankruptcy of states isn't going to make them go away. Popular normative beliefs are the result of positive phenomena, not the other way around. In my opinion, people will adopt libertarian ethics when it is clear that it is in their self-interest to do so - in a similar manner to how the vast majority of people are libertarian in their personal associations.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Callisthenes — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:42:37 GMT

Friedman was pretty much the only economist who was discussed at my law school. Other economists would come up now and then, but only in terms of evidence, not theory. I didn't take any courses where we used his text, but we definitely read excerpts or articles and had lectures on some of his work.

Edit: Actually, we talked about Posner too, probably more. Don't know how I could have forgotten that.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

MacFall — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:17:37 GMT

Woah, that was sort of awesome

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Nitroadict — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:52 GMT

Brainpolice:

Ha!

Seconded; that gave my brain it's daily surrealist tickle.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

wombatron — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:20:22 GMT

Welcome to the forum. One of the nice things about a classier forum like this one, is that the experts actually post on it

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

Brainpolice — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:18:07 GMT

Ha!

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

David Friedman — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:58:30 GMT

MacFall:

What school teaches David Friedman?!

That got me curious, so I googled for [Law's Order, Friedman, syllabus]

My book appears to have been used as a text at some point in recent years at:

University of Georgia. University of Virginia, George Mason University, Santa Clara University, University of Pittsburgh, San Jose State University, Keio University (I think in Japan), Campbell College and London Metropolitan University. It was used at Northwestern before it was published, from the webbed draft with my permission. I expect there are other schools that I didn't find with the search.

The book continues to sell. Judging at least by current figures on Amazon, I outsell both Cooter and Ulen and Posner by large margins. That may be partly because my book is aimed both at the textbook market and at the intelligent layman who wants to learn things himself. Also, I'm available in paperback and Posner, I gather, isn't.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

histhasthai — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:07:37 GMT

Tbonesw:
His theory is based upon the belief that anarcho-capitalism would be a more efficient system from a cost-benefit analysis rather than the idea of natural rights.

I've debated extensively with him "face to face" online, many years ago when Usenet was all the rage. He takes the solid utilitarian premise that anarchy precludes any social or political order being pre-determined, that anarchy by it's nature will allow whatever orders emerge from it. Therefore, he is explicitly amoral in his economic and political theories, believing that what would emerge would be generally libertarian and peaceful even though it would not and can not be an explicit goal of "the system". The basic reasoning for that is that aggression and conflict are expensive, and without the massive imbalance of power the state provides, would not generate enough resources to justify the cost, and so markets would seek ways to minimize conflict and reduce the cost of settling what conficts do arise.

Philosophically, he rejects any notion of ought-from-is, and this informs his utilitarian approach. He is very conversant in objectivism, and sympathetic to it, but does not consider himself to "follow" it or any other normative school of thought. He is libertarian, but only because he prefers it, in the economic sense of "prefer".

I don't believe he is strictly Chicago school economically, as it implies a level of state intervention that he rejects. When I used to debate with him, I wasn't then aware of Austrian theory, so I can't speak very confidently to his tendencies there, but I don't recall him bringing up anything that I would now recognize as such. I know he never brought up subjective value theory, at least not explicitly, because I clearly remember first hearing about it at a later date.

As to comparisons with Rothbard, Friedman comes at it much more from rightist sensibilities. His focus is on the institutional apparatus that would arise in a free market, such as PDA's and courts, positing a complex heirarchy of them that would in many ways resemble the enforcement, adjudication, and even legislative functions of a state, with the exception that participation and funding is voluntary and not geographically divided.

He's just about the most unfailingly polite and on-message person I've ever debated with online, to the point of causing me much frustration at times. A very nice guy, but never reluctant to overwhelm an argument with his own premises and conclusions. They aren't quite wrong, but the amorality is like a brick wall to anyone arguing from a normative point of view. Nonetheless, he was quite challenging, and I learned a hell of a lot, even though I continue to disagree with some of his ideas.

For a glimpse of him in action heavily outnumbered but holding his own, do a Google Groups search on "prudent predator" and dig into some of the threads, particularly the 1990's ones on the objectivist groups.

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

JohnSchreimann — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:15:36 GMT

I read his blog from time to time. It's pretty slow sometimes (like recently), but sometimes he writes some pretty inciteful stuff.

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

There are some samples here from Machinery of Freedom:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html

Re: Thoughts on David Friedman

ChaseCola — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:44:35 GMT

As his name might suggest, he is the son of Milton Friedman. He is an Atheist as well.