Contrast Mr. Allen’s fetish for political strongmen with Milton Friedman‘s attitude. When asked by an interviewer what he (Friedman) would do if he (Friedman) were dictator for a day, this great and good man answered “I don’t like dictators…. If we can’t persuade the public that it’s desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.” (Friedman gives this response starting at about the 24:20 mark in this taped interview. [HT Reuvain Borchardt])
Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, wise or foolish, informed or ignorant, smart or stupid, insightful or benighted – classical liberals and libertarians have none of the fetish for power that infects the minds and souls of so many people on the political left. And this fact alone goes a very long way to recommending classical liberalism (or libertarianism) over alternative ideologies. Indeed, fear of concentrated power – and the recognition that power is never remotely as concentrated or as dangerous as when it is in the hands of the state – might well be the single most important reason why persons become classical liberals or libertarians.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 145 comments }
← Previous Comments
What else could they have done? Plenty. For instance supported a transition to democracy in say 5 or 10 years rather than 18 (or the Pinochetista preferred route of 36!). There were MANY of responsible individuals and conservative voices who initially supported the coup but later spoke out against the brutality.
This to me is the whole point of this discussion. You and others seem to be saying that when it comes to choosing between “economic liberty” and “political liberty” you are willing to suspend the latter to guarantee the former.
I'm just arguing that the true libertarian, or true Liberal would not be willing to settle so quickly for dictatorship.
btw, there were extremely attractive tax incentives for saving 50% of the income.so luring them into investment rather than force may be a better description
I am asking sincerely if you think self preservation did not serve a big part in this?
Excellent points and clarifying presentation.
I'm just stuck at the crudeness of so many others on this board.
It would seem that with someone like you one could have a constructive dialogue based on an agreement on the general virtues of competitive markets and zero tolerance for dicatorship in any of its forms. That's the kind of dialogue someone like Milton Friedman invited when he proposed his negative income tax redistribution scheme. Along a left-right divide we might disagree on how much redistribution to have. Zero on the far right, something more of a significant lump sum transfer as you move to the left (a basic income). In practice the debate expands and gets frayed as people then start to talk about possible other market failures and government intervention to regulate or support markets can improve matters or make things worse.
I'm sure there will be those on the boards here who will say I'm having a fantasy if I think any 'left-leaning' person thinks that way. In their world leftist by definition means anti-market, and every step in the direction of redistribution or basic health coverage (no matter how implemented), is the first step on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
I don't disagree that much. But it is obvious from even the most basic of cursory glances of the data (which is why you pointedly did not talk about GDP per capita growth) that much faster and broader economic growth with significant poverty reduction did not occur until after Pinochet. Similarly most of the large infrastructure projects and sophisticated market-based mechanisms for concessions took place only after Pinochet had left. The modernization, democratization and decentralization of the state made far more advances post Pinochet than during Pinochet.
So yes they built on the base that the Pinochet government left them, but to suggest that what happened next was merely a minor tweak on that model seems to be missing a lot. Which brings me back to my point that there is a very constructive dialogue and debate to be had amongst people who are in basic agreement on certain key Liberal ideas: the broad virtues of markets and the vileness of dictatorship in any form.
Appalling statement by Woody.
Friedman's answer reminds me of how H. L. Mencken (our beloved hero, Don) replied when asked what he thought of slavery: “I don't like slavery because I don't like slaves.”
JohnK, quit grasping at straws! It's unlike you.
The question was whether or not legalizing drugs has widespread support, not whether or not legalizing only pot has widespread support. And why would only legalizing pot be any more libertarian than only legalizing only alcohol and caffeine? That said, there are plenty of people on both the right and the left who view pot as a “gateway” drug and don't want to legalize it. I don't know why they wouldn't want to admit anything on anonymous surveys.
Great. You just can't have that debate with anyone on the left because they hate dictatorship – UNLESS they can impose their world vision on the rest of the population in no other way. Then, the ends justify the means.
Woody, the incestuous pedophile, is in no way an exception on the left. They hate dictatorship, but see it as a necessary evil.
Yes most people support prohibitions of “hard” drugs.
But support for marijuana laws is waning.
I was splitting hairs on your use of the word “overwhelming”.
I ask those who support drug prohibition to give me a single reason to keep drugs illegal that couldn't be used as a reason to reinstate alcohol Prohibition. So far nobody has been able to do it.
I ask them about the violence, organized crime, and assaults against freedom that happened during the Prohibition era, and to compare that to what is happening today with drugs.
But getting people to make the next logical step is next to impossible, and I can't figure out why.
At the moment I am reading papers by Jose Pinera, one of the Chicago boys on the wikilist you linked above. I knew him from before as a big advocate for privitising social security which they have done here in Chile. His first paper mentions he was first invited to speak to Pinochet and his generals on May 23 1977, including Gustavo Leigh “el único miembro de la Junta de Gobierno que desconfiaba del modelo económico liberal.” The only member of the group that was distrusting of the liberal economic model. Above you mention that Joge Cauas was in the driving seat in 1975. I don't buy it.
That's a good question John, I was only addressing the conflation between economic liberalism and classical liberalism. Economic liberalism can be imposed though via the suppression of political and civil liberties which the people could use to oppose it such as free speech; but yes once you start cracking down on such civil liberties you really aren't a classical liberal and no classical liberal would trust someone to step down afterwards given human nature and the lessons of history.
“I'm just arguing that the true libertarian, or true Liberal would not be willing to settle so quickly for dictatorship.”
Then you agree with Don once you realize that he only said classical liberals and not the entire right, economic liberals, let alone everyone who generally supports private property.
From Jose Pineras Paper – La Conferencia, 1977
http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_conferenc...
Just copy and paste into googles translator and you'll get the jist.
Cuando juré el martes 26 de Diciembre de 1978 como ministro del Trabajo y Previsión Social me prometí ser siempre un “ministro de Estado”, como era la denominación formal, y no un “ministro de Pinochet”. Mi adhesión no era a un príncipe o un partido, sino a Chile.
Through most of the paper he expresses his discontent with how Pinochet took power. You may say as you have above that they were willing to settle or look the other way. I don't believe that for a second.
Vidyohs,
I respect you opinion and would like to run something by you that I have commented on in the past. Allende nationalized the copper in Chile and kicked some US companies out. You mentioned abouve you are a big time free marketeer, this obviously goes against that principle. Part of the CIA conspiracy was that Pinochet was aided to give those rights back to the US companies. He never did and Chile retains those rights today. I happen to be empathetic to the idea of a gov't owned industry for the sake of using the revenue to fund government. I know, the arguements against; they won't stop with copper, they are inefficient, they only succeed because the price of copper is high enough. Not that I don't disagree with the the arguements, I think Chavez is a prime example against. Also Chile has its own copper mining company Codelco. What if Chile and maybe Norway with natural gas do actually receive efficient revenue from these gov't controlled resources and it keeps the tax rate low to aid in economic growth? Just a thought. Also Chile's publically held debt is very low, from copper revenues?? Maybe this is all empirical, but the theory is what interests me. Thanks for your time.
I haven't seen many leftists in the U.S. advocating reasonable levels of redistribution along the lines of your Friedman example though, because expansive redistribution buys far more votes, explicit redistribution requires being upfront about its's costs, and it doesn't prohibit the masses from making what the experts believe to be wrong decisions.
Thus, its not surprising that average economically liberal folks feel that way. I'm not that well read in “progressive” thought so maybe you have some examples; but the only people I see advocating systems like Friedman's negative income tax are other economically trained classical and economic liberals.
Most current left wing proposals to reform health care have nothing in common with the kind of redistribution programs classical liberals could possibly support. They aren't limited to the poor, they aren't transparent, they don't give people the freedom to make their own choices with such money, and they are funded by taxes disproportionately placed on unpopular segments of society or with regulations on behavior like rationing or forcing insurers to cover some people below costs and forcing others to buy overpriced insurance to make up the difference (with no regard for income even, so its not even “progressive” in their definition but in fact regressive hitting up poor healthy young people to pay for richer sick old people). If it is really in all our interest to take care of the poor then everyone not poor should pay for some of it rather than just rich people, tanning salons, smokers and who knows who else. We should be honest about such policies, but when welfare is extended to part of the middle class then it is virtually impossible to be upfront about the costs.
They aren't necessarily steps down the road to totalitarianism as defined by regimes like Hitler/Stalin, but they certainly aren't steps down the road to freedom. The main reason that some classical liberals can get along to a degree on this issue is that some of our regulatory and transfer structure is so bad that we can simultaneously increase freedom, efficiency, and equity as defined by the left with such policies which hopefully lead to a world where such policies are less necessary; which is pretty close if I remember to Friedman's position on things like Negative Income Tax.
And here is Chris Mathews, hoping that Obama will nationalize the oil industry so there won't be any more spills. “Everyone says Capitalism is great, this is great?” he adds.
http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/20...
I would not argue against the points you made in the last two comments; but, they are nonresponsive to my comment suggesting you reconsider saying Singapore is not a police state. You can clothe steel swords in velvet scabbards, but it is still real steel ready to be drawn and used.
The whole time I spent replying to Big Liberal I kept thinking that the one we need to hear from is Surfisto, and now you gone and done it.
I am not sure I am up to the task of making sense of your scenarios or puzzles, all I can do is offer my opinion.
First off as a free marketeer I am for business finding resources and/or markets where ever they may. However; as long as this nation concept is the plan de jour, along with the concept of borders and exclusivity, then I have difficulty in understanding why any government would ever agree to selling or leasing natural resources or monopoly control over a piece of the markets, to the tune of more than 49%, and domestic retaining majority control over the resources or markets.
Okay Anaconda comes in with a proposal to dig and smelt copper in Chile, and they have the money and resources to do the job where Chile probably didn't back in the day this happened. Alright in my estimation it may have been and it still may be good business for the Chileans to do business with Anaconda, but not to give away control and a dominant share of the profits. Unfortunately we also know that no country is immune from corruptible leaders, so I can understand how a man of corruption could sell his fellow men out and anticipate having a nice fat Swiss bank account to live on when it comes his time to run.
As for Chilean government owning and running the copper mines, I think it is a bad idea under normal circumstances, simply because I have been too long exposed to government workers (in our own government) and I know how marginally (to negatively) productive they are (I can offer tons of anecdotal examples). So, in my estimation I think Chile might be loosing on the deal of ownership because of that reason. I am not suggesting selling it back to American corporations per se, but selling it to a Chilean firm. Perhaps Chilean workers are simply more ambitious and productive than American workers in the face of lack of incentive to push one's self; but, I'd be surprised to find it so.
We can “what if” in numerous ways; but, I will go this far. If Chile, or any government, actually did receive efficient and maximum revenues from the resources they control and exploit, and it could be shown that the graft and corruption is no worse than private enterprise, then it would be hard to speak against it.
I would be thoroughly surprised to find such efficiency in government owned and operated business. Plus I think the anticipated inefficiency would also cause problems in the part of the economy that services those state owned businesses.
The moral part of your question, which I think is your true goal, is answerable in what many will consider a very naive way, which would be that it is one thing to have a good life but wouldn't we all like to have the best life. In other words, in reference to the revenues from the mines, is Chile in a “settle for” mode? Is it just good enough to settle for. Is it immoral to knowingly “settle for” when the best is attainable?
It would be good to say that Chile receives ample revenues from operating the copper mines; but, is Chile receiving all that is probably there if those mines are operated with pure efficiency. Efficiency that is almost historically impossible to point to in other state owned enterprises around the world.
Another aspect on the moral issue, is any Chilean sure that they know for positive that the revenues being earned are being properly accounted for and used properly? This is a very proper question to ask as each Chilean citizen is automatically a shareholder in the copper mines owned by the government, if not considered as such, in my opinion they should be.
There are indeed a lot of troubling issues around the world regarding how business is done; but, in my heart and soul I remain convinced that all in all humans are better served if government stays out of business regulation and/or ownership, and is restricted to, and forced to, be an impartial referee that punishes crime no matter how wealthy the criminal.
Do I expect to see that in my life? No.
You're presenting this supposed variation of opinion between hard drugs and grass as if it makes any difference at all to the fundamental argument. Your body is still your body. Who has the right to dictate to an adult what he can or can't do to his own body – whether it's smoking weed or injecting heroin? The libertarian position is that nobody has that right. Libertarians don't differentiate between vices.
Legalizing marijuana only isn't legalizing drugs. The really costly drug war isn't even marijuana (since everybody and their brother can grow it and hide it pretty efficiently). It's the hard stuff.
BTW, you like my drug slang? I've never touched the stuff. Not once.
“What else could they have done? Plenty”
Is this enough from just one man?
http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_whatdidjp...
Let me know.
“But it is obvious from even the most basic of cursory glances of the data (which is why you pointedly did not talk about GDP per capita growth) that much faster and broader economic growth with significant poverty reduction did not occur until after Pinochet.”
Ugh… High GDP growth rates were already occurring before Pinochet left (which is why you pointedly did not link a graph in your comment)
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=...
With the exception of the period around the LatAm debt crisis, Chile saw GDP growth rates above 5%… and more often between 7 and 8%.
Methinks1776,
Tim was on the right track. My point was that libertarians hold many positions that don't really fit well in the classic right/left dichotomy. I wasn't trying to say that these issues are the exclusive domain of the right. Hence why I was saying that “nobody could fairly classify libertarians as right wing.” I could have, of course, just as easily said that you can't classify libertarians as left wing either, and listed several issues to propose at the DNC which would cause all manner of discontent. I might have done so, to make my post more thorough, but my work schedule takes up a heinous amount of my day.
Best,
Jack of Spades
Well, then I'm totally confused.
Big L wasn't talking about libertarians. He stated that the right has a fetish with dictatorship just like the left. To support that position, he dragged out the tired story of Milton Friedman and his legendary 45 minute love affair with Pinochet [/sarcasm]. I understand how much libertarians love to take any and every opportunity to assert our intellectual superiority and all, but aside from a near pathological need for acceptance, what is the point of answering a claim about the right wing with a lecture about the virtues of libertarianism? Libertarianism was never in question.
I'm tired these days, so I beg some slack. Did I miss something in your post and the two responses?
You're presenting this supposed variation of opinion between hard drugs and grass as if it makes any difference at all to the fundamental argument
I agree that it makes no difference in principle.
I only brought it up to split hairs about public perception. We're on the same page that a chemical is a chemical and a choice is a choice. But others don't see it so black and white. They have to argue about degrees.
We are in agreement.
It's JohnK, not DanyK.
whoops on the closing of the italics
Exactly right sir, and we can all take that to the bank.
You know…I'm so slow today, I almost didn't get the DanyK.
It is naiveté or ignorance only if their methods contradict their real goals. “Fiat economics” does accomplish certain goals. General prosperity just isn't one of them.
Bravo.
If only Chernobyl hadn't been a capitalist venture…
Matthews is dumber than a bag of hammers.
I think it's that many don't grok the idea of “coherence”.
Ideological magic land.
But they need to be called out when they hypocritically defend freedom on one had and oppose it in particulars.
The “right” as represented in the GOP cannot be trusted as defenders of liberty. Betrayal of freedom is acceptable to them if it means gaining political power.
“Only the Mob and the Elite can be attracted to the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.” -Hannah Arendt
To understand the motivations of a socialist, you only need to understand two other types of people–the thief, and the vindictive.
Cesar was in the 1st century BC. The Dictator was a constitutional term brought about when the Gauls attacked Rome in the 4th century BC and it had an expiry date of six months. Technically the first emperors were dictators that just have their term rolled over.
Drifting from Vidyoh's original point even further – I'm not sure, but I
don't think Augustus was ever a dictator in the constitutional sense. His
real power and position was informal and understood, but carefully draped
with a constitutional facade.
Don't forget the second-hander.
“Betrayal of freedom is acceptable to them if it means gaining political power.”
Sam,
IMO, the Constitution's lack of a parliamentary system encourages coalitions to be formed before elections, which makes two-party politics inevitable. If my assertion is correct, then do you think that the (capital 'L') Libertarian Party would be any different than the GOP in regards to the assertion quoted, if it were to become one of the two dominant political parties?
Or perhaps the lack of proportional representation vs winner take all.
It all comes down to what politically involved people demand from or tolerate in their government.
Political power attracts those who are attracted to political power.
“Political power attracts those who are attracted to political power.”
Yes. It selects for and facilitates a very uncivil tendency.
True, but capitalism naturally and smoothly regulates the booms and busts, provided it is allowed to be well-lubricated in liberty, and unhindered by our masters' dictates. History's worst booms and busts are almost all attributable to the folly of those lording over us.
Regarding Chile, may I suggest most of you to check your premises.
1. A man (Pinochet) who, asked by the Chamber of Deputies (Resolution of August 22, 1973), remove a dictator (Allende, per that Resolution) cannot. logically, be called a 'dictator'. We can discuss the appropiate term. As a Chilean, I will always call him a “liberator”.
2. We the Chicago Boys deserve the highest recognition and respect from every freedom lover citizen of this planet because of our decisive role in transforming Chile from country No 150 in the World Economic Freedom Index to country No 5.
3. By unleashing the forces of freedom in a semi socialist country, by engineering a process of 7% growth for 15 years that created a prosperous middle class, and, last but not least, by convincing President Pinochet to submit to a referendun a new Constitution (1980) establishing a detailed and wise path to political elections, we also restored the democracy destroyed by Allende.
A triple achievement. What would you have done differently?
Incidentally, let me clarify that Milton Friedman is just a footnote in our freedom revolution. Yes, he came in 1975 and preached his usual monetarism, but didnt say anything that was not in his books. His influence was just that of an academic. So, the leftist blitzkrieg against him is totally unjustified.
PS. Hayek was much more involved with Chile. He came 3 times and to show his support with us he even accepted to be Honorary President of the “Centro de Estudios Publicos”, our free market think tank founded in 1980 to support the Chicago Boys revolution. And he never apologized for all that. Hayek is the man (and Mrs Thatcher the woman! But to explain that would be a digression).
Regarding Chile, may I suggest most of you to check your premises.
1. A man (Pinochet) who, asked by the Chamber of Deputies (Resolution of August 22, 1973), remove a dictator (Allende, per that Resolution) cannot. logically, be called a 'dictator'. We can discuss the appropiate term. As a Chilean, I will always call him a “liberator”.
2. We the Chicago Boys deserve the highest recognition and respect from every freedom lover citizen of this planet because of our decisive role in transforming Chile from country No 150 in the World Economic Freedom Index to country No 5.
3. By unleashing the forces of freedom in a semi socialist country, by engineering a process of 7% growth for 15 years that created a prosperous middle class, and, last but not least, by convincing President Pinochet to submit to a referendun a new Constitution (1980) establishing a detailed and wise path to political elections, we also restored the democracy destroyed by Allende.
A triple achievement. What would you have done differently?
Incidentally, let me clarify that Milton Friedman is just a footnote in our freedom revolution. Yes, he came in 1975 and preached his usual monetarism, but didnt say anything that was not in his books. His influence was just that of an academic. So, the leftist blitzkrieg against him is totally unjustified.
PS. Hayek was much more involved with Chile. He came 3 times and to show his support with us he even accepted to be Honorary President of the “Centro de Estudios Publicos”, our free market think tank founded in 1980 to support the Chicago Boys revolution. And he never apologized for all that. Hayek is the man (and Mrs Thatcher the woman! But to explain that would be a digression).
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.