Friday, November 17, 2006

Nobel Prize-Winning Libertarian Dies

Milton Friedman, Libertarian Economist, died yesterday at 94.

Socialists in Stockholm literally stood up and screamed when this Free Market economist won the Nobel Prize. Watch this CNBC report. He was frequently heckled when he spoke publicly.

He was a radical libertarian. The New York Times wrote:
As a libertarian, Mr. Friedman advocated legalizing drugs and generally opposed public education and the state’s power to license doctors, automobile drivers and others. He was criticized for those views, but he stood by them, arguing that prohibiting, regulating or licensing human behavior either does not work or creates inefficient bureaucracies.

Mr. Friedman insisted that unimpeded private competition produced better results than government systems. “Try talking French with someone who studied it in public school,” he argued, “then with a Berlitz graduate.”
Professor Walter Block remembers Friedman as a perpetual campaigner, someone every libertarian candidate can learn from:
The honor once befell me in the 1980s to serve as Milton Friedman's chauffeur. I drove him around Vancouver, British Columbia during the day of one of his speaking engagements there that evening. The trip was part tourist and part business: pick up at the airport, lunch, a few radio and television interviews during the day, setting up the podium for his evening's speech, etc. I was amazed and delighted at his pugnaciousness in defense of liberty. He would engage seemingly everyone in debate on libertarian issues: waitresses, cameramen, the person placing the microphone on his lapel. He was tireless, humorous, enthusiastic.
Like Friedrich Hayek, another towering giant in defense of the Free Market, Friedman was not a consistent libertarian, and unintentionally sowed the seeds of statism. Gary North recalls Friedman's role in setting up income tax withholding, an "emergency" measure enacted during World War II, which has long outlived the emergency and conceals the real impact of government theft. And the CNBC report shows that his "criticism" of Federal Reserve policy, unaccompanied by a clarion call for its outright abolition, has been used by present Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to undergird a claim that another Great Depression will never happen again (because the Fed, thanks to Friedman, is now so much wiser).

Still, Milton Friedman was a superb communicator (unlike most scholars), eager to communicate with those outside academia (also unlike most scholars), and generally unafraid to pursue the implications of Liberty consistently, even when unpopular. The Free Market has lost one of its greatest defenders.

1 comments:

Bernie said...

The very first thing
I look for in a person's
ideas to determine if they
are a true libertarain is to
see if they believe in a
Competitivised and Privatised
( I like s instead of z )
market in the Money/Currency
Industry.

Milton Friedman does
not seem to be one of these people
which makes him
A BELIEVER IN COMMUNISM
or Fascism for the
Money/Currency Industry.

Now, I should give him a break here
because he secretly probably did
believe in that free market
but knew too much said articulately
would result in a Kennedy style
public execution by
military style triangualtion fire.
Or just simply being shunned
by the media and every other
institution that the
financial elite control.
Or very likely the
now common and over-used
small plane crash
(a la John Kennedy junior. )

He should have wrote a book
entitled "Free to Produce"
instead of "Free to Choose."
In there he could have had a chapter about how people
should be able to freely
produce in the Clothing
Industry.
Then he could have had another
chapter about how people should
be free to produce in
the Money/Currency Industry.

He could have explained
that a free market would consist of a currency backed by gold.
Then he could have said that he just made a mistake about the
gold backing idea,
and that a REAL free market would
be competitive with easy entry
into the industry and that
currencies should be backed by
anything two or more
people voluntarily agreed upon.
That could be gold or silver or copper
or titanium, or playing cards
for that matter.

If 100 million people in the USA
decided they wanted a currency backed
by cherry wood or silver
or titanium it would be
"illegal" to force them
by a State Law to use gold as a backing. Would Friedman have
agreed with that?