milton friedman chapter 1

'capitalism and freedom'. it seems that there is the inherent contradiction between "the preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing government power" and then advocating for state militarism and absolute control. One might even say these are opposites. 'Contradictions don't exist.' Is it like the perversion of communism under totalitarianism pretending it is marxism? did he actually see Chile in its form as being free? on to chapter two. no. not yet.

Questions and critiques. Perhaps chapter 2 will make more of a case that capitalism is PRO freedom rather than using the law of negatives. Totalitarian communism limits freedom. capitalism apparently is the exact opposite because it is NOT communism, (stalinist) therefore, it is free.

Question: why is freedom important? eg - what do you get out of it? ayn rand would say it is for the expression of the ego. But he states that in a "society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom... leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with.." Briefly used an example of amazing writers as a product of nongovernment interference, but did not equate freedom with being amazing. (also did not include space exploration, or government funding in research, including his own school...)
- i am also looking for a better definition of coercion

I agree: the market place should be: "both parties to an economic transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed...individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary"
- however, he seems to define involuntary as explicit state violence. does not address other types of involuntary transactions such as forced labor (poverty, child labor, etc)

"Economic power can be widely dispersed...But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed."
what??? no comment. democracy... (true democracy)

"historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market." he backs this up with "i know of no example". he doesn't use any historical evidence, so one must trust that him not knowing is equivalent and better than backing up statements with facts. He uses this "not that i know of" to back up similar wild statements.

he critiques socialism: "in order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living". precisely. This is one of the biggest critique of the free market!! because it leaves most the population unable to earn a living. therefore, unfree. right on, miltie.

This one had to be quoted in its entirety:
"In a capitalism society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institution with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful.."
- does this not then advocate that capitalism is irrational? quality need not be important in the free market. the only obstacle is you need to persuade a rich person. At what point does the idea change from 1. working in the area one wishes to work, 2. pandering to what the population will consume 3. pandering not only to the population but to the rich financier. there are inherently less millionaires than poor people.

when Hollywood people were blacklisted (by Hollywood, not the government..) and says "Their appeal to the fifth amendment would have been a hollow mockery without an alternative to government employment."
I agree. however, he fails to recognize the same goes true when there is no alternative to exploitative employment. And by using the Hollywood example he plainly shows that private enterprises indeed discriminate. the free market, just like government is made up of people.

"To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary co-operation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate."
one word. Pinochet. Why did he advise the dictatorship and draw up plans for its economy? I don't understand. I had been wondering if he did believe that the ends justified the means, but he says he doesn't. So what then explains for this glaring contradiction?