Political Clientism Matters, but Ideas Matter More

For a candidate who is consciously trying to play it safe, Romney sure does make a lot of gaffes.  He's like the QB who just wants to run out clock, but when he goes to take a knee...he throws a freakin' interception!  (please excuse the sports metaphor).

As soon as Mother Jones released the latest campaign faux pas, it was obvious what would happen next.  Umbrage was taken and battle lines were drawn.  Meanwhile, another opportunity to tackle the real issues of our time slips out of reach.  

My goal is to enter the belly of the beast and see if anything of real substance can be salvaged.

To begin, I am not shocked by Romney's statements.  This 47% trope is not new, and many conservatives have communicated it in terms quite similar to the Governor's speech.  So, do I concur with the thrust of Romney's assertions?  Absolutely not.  

Before I grab my pitchfork and join the mob, let me be fair to Mr. Romney for a moment.  With an entitlement state of our size, it would be silly to deny the existence of some sort of entitlement culture.  Exploring the relationship between irresponsibility/dependence in the populace and our increasingly extractive, parasitic state seems like a reasonable enough endeavor.

If this is Romney's takeaway point, well, fair enough.  Political clientism is bad.  Greece's "rousfeti"alone should put the fear of god in all nations.  

However, Romney failed to articulate this general concern, and instead made some clearly erroneous claims.  First of all, American welfare is cross-cultural.  Government largesse does not flow directly to some monolithic Democratic-voting bloc.  Hell, American welfare doesn't even really flow to the relatively poor.  

Yes, entitlements pave the road to our fiscal cliff.  But social security and medicare--entitlements for wealthy, old people--pose the greatest danger for a healthy, solvent tomorrow.  What are bailouts if not welfare for big corporations and big labor?  When the Fed gets all easy with the money supply, to whom are those extra dollars channeled?  

Many different sub-groups receive government hand-outs, not just the 47% who don't pay income tax.  The feeding of this frenzy is a bipartisan effort.  Sorry, gov'nah!  

Furthermore, voters are not mere feedholes--welfare check goes in, vote for me comes out, taadah! Believe it or not, they have a brain at their disposal.  As Matt Welch, editor in chief at Reason magazine, points out, this vulgar economic determinism.  Yes, Romney's electoral analysis was based on the materialist postulates of Marx. 

This is misguided for many reasons.  For one, human nature tells us that citizens underestimate how much they benefit from government programs.  In general, people believe that their neighbors unjustly receive government succor.  They tend to forget that time they went on unemployment or received a government-backed student loan.  

Even if people could accurately surmise which party would better line their pockets, people won't check their ethical considerations outside the voting booth.  Perhaps I could vote my neighbor's jacuzzi right into my backyard.  But maybe that wouldn't be very ethical of me.  And maybe I would vote with my conscious and not my insatiable desire to lounge in those warm, frothy bubbles.  

Basically, ideas matter.  Convictions matter.  Frankly, Mitt Romney should reflect on his own convictions and decide if he truly favors a society of independent individuals.  I'm afraid Mr. Romney merely prefers moocher-parasites who have a house with a view and will support his candidacy.

Daily Literature of the Revolution

• Democracy:  When modern democracies fall short, it is often because of anxieties surrounding the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Another equally weighty problem was on display at both the Republican and Democratic National Convention (watch short videos here and here to see the stories unfold). A democratic state must figure out a how to package and present decisions to the people. When it comes to anointing a serious candidate or deciding what policies are given serious consideration, the parties operate like tyrannical oligarchies. These conventions how real kratos (power) is plenty divorced from the demos (people). For a while, the vast majority of people seemed content with this arrangement. But as Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie argue in their book, The Declaration of Independents, people are becoming increasingly (albeit slowly) disabused of the Team Red versus Team Blue windmill jousting. There are exogenous reasons such as increased customization in our culture (less Kodak vs. Fujifilm, more Instagram; less Major News Networks, more political blogs). There are also endogenous reasons such as {the banal and baneful similarities between the two parties and} the equal vigor with which both parties crush our civil liberties. If citizens come to apprehend this predicament, there is a strong chance that elected officials will start to represent independent people rather than special interests.
• Public Education: I came across this story and figured it would be a good opportunity to touch briefly on teacher union abuses. Public teacher unions create problems all the way down, but, as seen in the LA Times pieces, the really culpable graft tends to occur near the top. This short video (4:30) is a good explanation of why pension-spiking is a predictable consequence of the teacher union machine. One can hope that these audits throw a wrench in the pension-spiking operation. It would be better to remove the incentive structure that is the fuel for this type of corruption. 

• Free Speech: Remember Citizens United? Well, for a moment, forget about who can give which kind of money and how much and where it can go. An often forgotten part of that case, as the Institute for Justice's Make No Law Blog points out, is Justice Thomas' lone partial dissent (Thomas is often at his best when acting alone). The other 8 justices signed off on the forced disclosure of certain types of anonymous political advocates. Are we living in the dystopian world of Eric Blair?....err, George Orwell, as we now know him. Maybe not, but as Thomas notes in his dissent, forced exposure hampers free expression by inviting two types of retaliation. The most troubling example is of the political incumbent who seeks revenge on those who were silly enough to support the challenger. Sitting politicians have always wanted to hunt down their anonymous critics. Today, forced disclosure is pleasantly cloaked as a common-sense fight against monied interests. But the 1st amendment stands as a reminder of the value in anonymous speech. Anonymous speech was there at our beginning, as Publius (Madison, Jay and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers) duked it out with the Federal Farmer and other pseudonymous writers in the Antifederalist Papers over whether to adopt a new constitution. Publication and circulation are part and parcel of effective political speech. If the financial backers of a modern day Publius remain anonymous, what exactly is the problem? Shouldn't we judge based on content? The people can take into consideration the unknown origins of this or that piece of information. But as long as advocates can be forcibly unmasked, this tool will be used to intimidate those who would loudly question the status quo. Moreover....shouldn't we encourage the haute bourgeois to use their money and new forms of productive forces so they can unwittingly usher in a proletariat paradise? Or am I mixing up my Marx and Hegel? 

• Quebec Politics: Quebec had its provincial elections on the 4th. I’m a novice in Canadian politics, but I've yet to be won over by any major party and I'm not holding my breathe (the provincial parties are even less appealing than the national ones). The separatist Parti Quebecois came away with enough seats to form a minority government. The Coalition for Quebec's Future (CAQ) may have played the spoiler role in their first election. I admire the rebel spirit of the their leader, François Legault, but he also wants to intern "keep" Quebec-educated doctors from leaving the province. The hot-button issue of the election was (is) the fracas over tuition hikes. I will have an article on this juicy issue when the time comes. For now, Jacob Levy speaks my mind (more intelligently, of course) concerning the silliness and subtleties on both sides of this issue. My favorite line: "'special law' is every bit the contradiction in terms that 'student strike' is.” If people truly appreciated these two concepts..well, si ça arrive, je vais péter le feu!Yoga: 

• Yoga:  Speaking of Quebec, if you've ever been to a Cirque du Soleil, then these silk hammocks may look familiar. I'm glad to see that aerial yoga is proliferating. I think it will be attractive to a diverse set of students. For those who've lost some mobility, there is a lot you can do in the hammock with limited effort and a little guidance. And, let me tell ya, just hanging upside-down can feel amazing for your achy back. For thrill-seekers and people who missed out on joining the circus, I recommend finding a studio with high silks. I really enjoyed this new studio back in San Diego. After seeing the extraordinary Cirque du Soleil routines, it was a little intimidating, but it is actually fairly simple to learn a few tricks that will get you airborne in no time.

Our French Holiday

Last month, I made a commitment to blog more consistently.  I even concocted a plan to keep me on track.  But the end of summer is a lousy time for new undertakings.  The day after I decided to spend more time on A Libertarian Yogi, my wife and I woke up with a travel bug that could not be ignored. 

Since we met in Oxford, the Old World holds a special place in our hearts.  Living in California for the past few years, we had mostly dedicated ourselves to local travel, but now that we were settled in Montreal, we felt powerless to Europe’s magnetic pull.  The trip was conceived of at 8am, and by 11pm that evening, we were cruising at 30,000ft toward Paris.

Before we left, we frantically sent e-mails to some of Fannie’s friends half-way across the world.  Despite our haste, we were greeted with the utmost hospitality.  We stayed in Paris for a few days before flying down to Nice.  We made arrangements for a rental car using Rentalcars.com.  DO NOT USE RENTALCARS.COM!  After some grief, we received our “vehicle”* and our journey began.

It will come as no surprise that we had precious little time to plan our road trip.  Most of the route and destinations were settled upon less than 12 hours before we set out.  In general, we would drive, stop at places of interest, make it to some destination, explore, sight-see, feast, and then figure out where we wanted to go the next day as we fought off sleep.  For the most part, it worked out well.  

As it were, we set out northwest from Nice up through the Gorges du Verdon, staying overnight in Moustiers-Sainte-Marie.  From there, we made our one ill-planned stop near Cassis.  We recovered and forged back up north through Les Baux-des-Provence before reaching Avignon.  We did some more exploring in the Provence region, with stops in several gorgeous little communes like L’Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, Fontaine-de-Vaucluse, Rousillon and Gordes.  After that we made the long trek to our westernmost destination, Carcassonne, a (controversially and strikingly) renovated medieval town.  A little luxury was waiting for us back at the coast in St-Aygulf.  We found great beaches and delicious food in this beach-y village, often overshadowed by nearby St-Tropez and St-Rafael.  From there we hugged the coast all the way to Villefranche-sur-Mer, just east of Nice.  At this point, we said goodbye to the Mediterranean, but not before stopping at the highest littoral town in France, St-Agnes.  Only 4km from the sea (as the bird flies), this small village towers above Menton and the rest of the Cote-d’Azur, giving the visitor a truly remarkable view.  Our next destination was the Alps.  We spent nights in Casterino and Briancon, and we were rewarded with captivating scenery as we hiked (and picnicked) all day long.  From there, we made one last stop in the charming town of Annecy.  A beautiful morning kept us in Annecy longer than we had expected, and we paid for it with stormy weather on the final drive back to Paris.  We spent some more time with our courteous Parisian host before hopping on our flight back to Montreal. 

It was an amazing vacation, enjoyable and rewarding.  We embraced the whirlwind circumstances, just being so grateful that we could make it there on such short notice.  Anybody who has travelled outside the world of all-inclusive resorts understands the potential stress and pitfalls that lurk beneath an otherwise pleasant trip. 

We had some things working in our favor.  My wife was born of French tongue and has lived and traveled a fair amount in France.  And I happen to have quite a knack for navigating the Internet and finding the best places to stay.  There was also a priceless little independent association that made our rambling route quite a bit more delightful.

For a while, I had been captivated by this project, “Les Plus Beaux Villages de France.”  It lists around 150 little French communes—the criteria being that they must have less than 2,000 inhabitants and contain at least two historical or picturesque protected areas.  As I gazed at the pictures and descriptions, I longed to feel what is was like to walk through these quaint little villages.  And I was not disappointed!  The history pulsated through the cobbled streets.  I often fantasized about retreating to a little apartment in Gordes or Ménerbes for a book assignment….one day!   

Still, as North Americans, there were some less enchanting aspects of our trip.  The notable one being the customer service at some lodgings and restaurants.  My wife is a francophone Canadian, but the cultural barriers became obvious when we had to make some customer request.  The familiar notion that the customer is always right is truly foreign in this foreign land.

I recalled a book on French culture, history, and life that I had read a couple years ago, Sixty Million Frenchman Can’t Be Wrong.  In the introduction, the authors note that when an Anglo-American visits a place in Asia, they have no problem accepting the major differences in culture.  But when it comes to France, we forget that their culture has grown up around their own distinct foundation, their own historical conditions and assumptions.  This isn’t some post-modern relativist observation.  You can judge another culture’s practices, but you should remember you are judging a whole new beast. 

On that note, I observed our Parisian friend and how he was always able to receive perfect customer service.  A reminder that there is more than one way to skin a cat. 

Overall, the trip was everything I wanted it to be.  It was fast-paced,  especially compared to our fellow travelers, who were mostly French (sometimes Italian or Spanish depending on where we were).  August equals holiday for the French, and many take this time to travel in country.  We seldom bumped into North Americans, even in the more popular tourist destinations.  One thing we noticed about the French vacationers:  children of any age stayed with the family until the adults felt like heading home.  As we were throwing in the towel, sometimes near midnight, parents would stroll past with their 4-year olds in tow, pushing their sleeping infant in a stroller.  We approved.

We were also surprised by the stark changes in topography.  France is a truly a diverse and gorgeous country.  Also, the culture is very salient; the visitor always has something novel to experience.  It has left reinvigorated.  And though the travel bug may not be sated, it has definitely been appeased.  

*Rentalcars.com is a car rental aggregator.  My wife told them on the phone that we would be landing in Nice at 2pm and needed a car.  They said: no problem, we gotcha! and we booked.  When the cab dropped us off at the car rental place, the place was locked up as they had closed at 1pm (yes, 1pm on a Monday).  We had already made plans to leave town and stay near the Gorges du Verdon that night.  We called Rentalcars.com and they basically said:  quelle dommage, there's nothing we can do.  Luckily, we were able to make arrangements to stay in Nice for the night.  We went to the rental place the next day and, as we had feared, they had rented our car.  The only automatic they had left was....a Smart car!  In the end, the Smart car turned out to be a far more useful than our friends at Rentalcars.com.  We are currently trying to receive some compensation for our wasted expenses, but it is not looking good.

Daily Literature of Revolution

• Via Cafehayek comes this link to Dierdre’s McCloskey’s review of Michael J. Sandel’s What Money Can’t Buy:  The Moral Limits of Markets.  McCloskey, like Sandel, is interested in the moral dimension of commercial society.  However, she presents a very different view of morality in our modern marketplace.  In a projected pentad, McCloskey will show that when it comes to the seven virtues, free market capitalism delivers the goods.  (She’s finished two; I’ve read the first one and it is impressive).  For an aperitif, her website contains links to shorter essays on the topic.  McCloskey’s apologia for the market is aretaic—meeting people like Sandel on his alleged home-turf.  For a utilitarian analysis, I’ve always enjoyed Richard Epstein’s essay “Libertarianism and Character.”  

• Meanwhile, London has some bad news for Cameroon, a country that has yet to embrace capitalism or individual rights.  Via Reason’s 24/7 Newsfeed:  7 Cameroonian athletes have fled the Olympic Village.  The BBC tentatively notes the most logical explanation—namely, that the competitors are determined to remain in the relatively greener pastures of Europe.  Last week, the New York Times had a short article on asylum-seeking athletes.  In the Olympic’s vainglorious haze, these stories of human desperation crop up fairly often.  At least one dash for freedom has led to political asylum.  I’ll try to stay updated on this story, including any compelling legal aspects.  

• If you are a state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensary (MMD), the Feds may or may not arrest you, but they certainly will take your money.  Illegal income is taxable; this much is well-established law.  Last Thursday, though, the tax code became medical marijuana’s fully loaded lethal enemy.  Here’s the rub for dispensary owners:  section 280E maintains that a taxpayer may not deduct expenses incurred in the trafficking of controlled substances, including medical marijuana.  Applied literally and stringently, this could leave MMDs paying taxes on their entire gross income, an untenable proposition for most any business. Previously, in Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner (CHAMPS), the Tax Court fashioned a reasonable compromise by separating a dispensary’s caregiving expenses (deductible) and it’s pot-selling expenses (non-deductible).  But with the Vapor Room’s case (Olive) last week, the Tax Court hath taken away (or severely limited) this minor solace.  Now MMDs must pass a high standard in showing that they maintain a second business (one that is not pot trafficking).  In Olive, the Court found that the Vapor Room was solely engaged in marijuana selling.  (p. 33, Olive).  In turn, the court declined to bifurcate the expenses, sticking the Vapor Room with all their operating costs.  (p. 39, Olive).  They can’t deduct wages, salaries, rent, payroll tax, repairs, security, utilities…nothing!  MMDs may still deduct the Cost of Goods Sold (yes, even their pot), but their sales record will be thoroughly scrutinized.  Reading through the Olive opinion, you get a sense that the Court regarded the Vapor Room as a lackadaisical outfit; whereas, in the CHAMPS case, the Court seemed impressed by the dispensary’s staid and conventional directors (note p. 20-1, CHAMPS).  Whether you’re on the left or right, this case should cast light on the Federal government’s incorrigible tentacles.  On a lighter note, the Tax Court does seem favorable to MMDs renting out extra space and offering yoga classes for its customers (p. 6, CHAMPS case).     

A New Segment: Daily Literature of Revolution

In order to induce more consistent blogging, I’ve planned this recurring section called Daily Literature of Revolution.  Shamelessly copying many other blogs, there will be a list of recent items from the news or the blogosphere.  I will then relate the primary item to its larger theme with links to books, academic scholarship, studies, court cases, white papers, etc.

The installment’s name comes from the first chapter of Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution ("The Literature of the Revolution").  I'll now gratuitously quote Mr. Bailyn to explain why I'm using his words for my title.  First, of course, the wonderful John Adams epigraph:

What do we mean by the Revolution?  The war?  That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it.  The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was [effected], from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.  The records of thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies, ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of Parliament over the Colonies.

-John Adams to Jefferson, 1815

Describing the leaders of this thought revolution, Bailyn remarks:

They wrote easily and amply, and turned out…a rich literature of theory argument, opinion and polemic.  Every medium of written expression was put to use.  The newspaper…were crowded with columns of arguments and counter-arguments appearing as letters, official documents, extracts of speeches, and sermons.  Broadsides…appeared everywhere; they could be found posted or passing from hand to hand in the towns of every colony. (p. 1).

These were not literary masterpieces.  The colonists had their Thomas Paine’s, but most of the pamphleteers were “amateurish."  Nonetheless, they compensated for “practiced technique” with great passion and purpose.  

Above all else, the Revolutionary writers aimed for “the communication of understanding”.  (p. 19).  They responded to the political and social “disturbances of the 1760s” by taking to their pens and presses; there they “sought to apply advanced principles of society and politics to their own immediate problems.”  (p. 20).  Bailyn praises this pre-Declaration of Independence period as the most radical, creative, and foundational of the American Revolution. (p. 21).

Simply put, waves of people used every resource possible to produce their own jeremiads against tyranny.  Simply put, no monolithic group designed the recipe for 1776.  It was a bottom-up, well-reasoned, pluralistic analysis of society.  And it just so happened to lead more and more people to the cause of liberty.

The circumstances of 20^th century media made this type of pamphleteering unfeasible.  (see FN 3, p. 2).  Today, the single-minded orthodoxy is crumbling.  Bloggers, fact-checkers, and independent reporters stalk the Internet.  Moreover, academic literature is easily accessible outside the Ivory Towers.  You don’t have to be in D.C. to watch the Cato Institute or Brookings’ latest conference.  And so on.  

Today, conditions are ripe for another multifarious discussion of society.  Soul-searching with references and citations.  Let the chips fall where they may.      

Honoring and Resolving Milton Friedman's Legacy

In 7th grade, I had an unforeseen life changing moments.  Seated at the dinner table with my Mom, Dad, Sister, and closest extended family, my favorite family member (that is, until I met my wife) resolutely broke in, “I do believe you’re ready.  I’m giving you some books tomorrow.”

The next day, my beloved Grandmother showed up at my door proffering two tomes and a bit of advice.  “These authors set me on an intellectual path that has enriched my life.  I’ve always wanted to share these with you."  She said I would be rewarded with the consummate judgment contained therein.   She warned that this sort of stuff was uncommon, even neglected, especially in public school curriculum.  My Grandmother was a sharp woman.  I remember her for many reasons, but nothing reminds me more of her than these books.          

One was Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.  The other was Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose.  I finished both of them, and dove into many other books of the libertarian oeuvre.  As a 13 year old, Rand’s brazen, never-compromise attitude—not to mention her staunch defense of individualism—was quite alluring.  Of course, every operative part of that sentence is an understatement.  Rand’s M.O. was to bulldoze the false edifice of collectivism with the brute force of her mind.  A bit of a scattershot, she left plenty of collateral demolition in her wake. 

Right off, I sought to emulate her style.  When a person hinted at some collectivist assumption, I would gladly dismantle their utterly defective world-view.  Suffice it to say, I chalk this up as one of my many  teenage shortcomings.  

A Kinder, Gentler Libertarian Ethos

As I finished high school, I acknowledged Mr. Friedman’s different tact—namely, he had it in spades.  He was magnanimous with those he disagreed and never lost his cool.  How does one foster these skills?  I believe this quote by Nick Gillespie reveals much about Mr. Friedman’s impeccable demeanor:  “Milton Friedman gave us something much better than revealed truth:  He showed us the process by which we might continue to indefinitely learn about our world and the human condition.”  This commitment to learning as a continual process requires respect for your fellow travelers regardless of where they stand.

Sometime after high school, I sensed that being cordial was of particular importance for libertarians.  Bryan Caplan affirms my intuition with an astute observation:  “All radical critiques of the status quo are fundamentally not humble.  After all, most people oppose major changes in the status quo.  So you can’t really advocate big changes unless you think, ‘I’m right and almost everybody else is wrong.’”  As Mr. Caplan notes, this means libertarians need “friendliness”, and he and I agree that Mr. Friedman exuded graciousness.  Call it graciousness under radical convictions.  

A Little on Friedman's Scholarship (and a necessary exegesis of one particular paper)

His technical achievements are remarkable.  To this libertarian mind, his first big achievement was lamentably in wartime tax policy, helping to create the withholding tax.[i]

But the yeoman work that must have gone into A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (co-authored with Anna Schwartz) is astounding.  The book is rewarding to both the educated novice and expert (this much I infer), assuming they have the corresponding 93 years to read about “the stock of money in the United States” through that pivotal time period.

Prominent libertarian economists have different takes on monetary policy, but it is puzzling to see a journalist (Mr. Wapshott) attempt to caste doubt on Mr. Friedman’s limited government bona fides.[ii]  In his article, Mr. Wapshott quotes from a Friedman essay (titled John Maynard Keynes) and then suggests that Mr. Friedman’s followers should be “rooting out corrupt officials” rather than “[railing] against the size of the state”. 

Yes, in big, bold type, we are told that Mr. Friedman believed that "where government was administered with integrity and honesty, governments have grown large without endangering the public good."  

How can this be so?  In fine classical liberal form, Mr. Friedman consistently advocated curtailing the size and scope of government.[iii]  Placing that elephant to one side, Mr. Wapshoot uses the following quote as evidence that Friedman believed better public officials are the key to an improved state: 

Britain retains an aristocratic structure, one in which noblesse oblige was more than a meaningless catchword.  Britain’s nineteenth-century laissez-faire policy produced a largely incorruptible civil service, with limited scope for action, but with great powers of decision within those limits.  It also produced a law-obedient citizenry that was responsive to the actions of the elected officials operating in turn under the influence of the civil service.[iv]

Without context, not much stewing there, right?  Earlier in the essay, Mr. Friedman states that, “Keynes was exceedingly effective in persuading a broad group…that all will be well if only good men are in power.”[v] 


This is the “moral authority” viewpoint.  It assumes government can solve anything with enough moral authority—Mr Wapshott holds this view, Lord Keynes held this view, the status quo of both left and right hold this view.  But it is clear, even from this very essay, that Mr. Friedman withheld his assent.  I believe it was Aristotle who said:  "It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  Mr. Wapshott sees attestation where there is only consideration.     


In the paragraph before Mr. Wapshott’s excerpt, Friedman makes clear that if an approach assumes that politicians will act in a morally benevolent fashion, it “is bound to contribute to an expansion in governmental intervention in the economy.”[vi]   We can agree that Mr. Friedman disliked such a tendency. 

Moreover, it is a well-trodden assumption that Britain’s nineteenth-century aristocracy maintained a certain moral vigor in administering public affairs.[vii]  However, Mr. Friedman did not imply that the “noblesse oblige” of the ruling class was sufficient for a well-administered state.  Rather, Mr. Friedman found that “Britain’s nineteenth-century laissez-faire policy produced a largely incorruptible civil service” and a properly functioning state.[viii]  [emphasis mine].  The limited government message is in plain sight.  

On top of that, in the sentence following Wapshott’s excerpt, Friedman asserts that “the welfare state of the twentieth century has almost completely eroded both elements of this heritage.”[ix] This is copacetic with Mr. Friedman’s oft-stated (and written) opinion that government expenditures are prone to miss their mark because “spending other people’s money on other people” is the least desired way to get something accomplished.

I agree with Mr. Wapshott that Friedman expresses some nuanced views in the essay, but they do not accord with the idea that better public officials are a sufficient (or even necessary) component of a better state.  Instead, this idea represents, as Friedman put it, Keynes’s “political bequest”.[x]  The essay's denouement makes clear Mr. Friedman's feelings on this subject: “I conclude that Keynes’s political bequest has done far more harm than his economic bequest”.[xi]  When it came to the state, Mr. Friedman wanted to scrap or rectify most parts of the system; he did not think the system could be fixed by better politicians.  

A Public Intellectual for the Ages

Mr. Friedman was a clear, convincing, and friendly diplomat for freedom and liberty.  He was able to take Mont Pelerin ideas and share them with the masses through his books and television series.  At least two generations of people have been inspired watching Mr. Friedman speak truth to power (his legacy is illustrated in a homey way by his son and grandson).  The movement for freedom is stronger—far, far stronger—because of his efforts and fortitude (and genes).

But he did not rest on inspirational speeches about what government could or should look like.  Where government exercised too much power, he assiduously carved out spaces for individual liberty and choice.


What does one do with a static behemoth of an educational system?  Milton Friedman pioneered the voucher system to induce a little competition and consumer/parental choice.  What about wars of choice with conscripted soldier-slaves?  Mr. Friedman did whatever he could to help end the draft and keep it at bay.[xii]  These accomplishments alone are enough to fill a few centuries, but his track record keeps going.

Milton has saved lives and let us live those lives more to our own liking.  What more could we ask of a public intellectual/economist?  Many others try to do the same and come up short.  Mr. Friedman’s secret was that he asked government for less (never letting his soft heart turn into a soft mind), and he maintained his inviting joie de vivre even when debating the most consequential of topics.  In an unforeseen side-effect, he taught me how to be a better person and a better advocate for freedom.  Happy birthday Milton!

---

[i] Friedman has offered rationales and apologies for his gift to big government.  He has never been contradictory in his statements, though—always mentioning that he wished it no longer existed.   Nevertheless, the withholding tax spread to other countries and states, and appears to be with us for the long haul.

[ii] I concede that Mr. Wapshott takes the time to note the obvious: that Friedman often “trumpeted the virtues of free enterprise” and that he often debated Keynesian economists.    

[iii] What was Milton Friedman all about anyways?  Let’s go to the Friedmans directly (via the Master Resource blog):  “Our central theme in public advocacy has been the promotion of human freedom…[It underlies our opposition to rent control and general wage and price controls, our support for educational choice, privatizing radio and television controls, our support for educational choice, privatizing radio and television channels, an all-volunteer army, limitation of government spending, legalization of drugs, privatizing social security, free trade, and the deregulation of industry and private life to the fullest extent possible.”  (quote from Two Lucky People, Milton and Rose Friedman (1998), p. 588).  Every single one of these goals aims to either take away a government power or limit the scope of a government program. 

[iv] Quote appears in the third to last paragraph of Wapshott’s article, and p. 21 of Friedman’s John Maynard Keynes (JMK) essay.

[v] p. 20, JMK

[vi] p. 21, JMK

[vii] Deirdre McCloskey’s briefly describes this alleged phenomena in The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce:  “The English aristocracy defended itself in a democratic age as a service class, going to Eton the better to serve king and country.  Dedicated to loving England, and incidentally getting employment in politics and the empire.”  (Chapter 8, toward the beginning of the 2^nd section; Location 1824 in the Kindle eBook edition). 

[viii] This appears at p. 21, JMK.  It is also the middle sentence in Wapshott’s excerpt.  However, Mr. Wapshott ignores the fact that Mr. Friedman is indicating causation between “Britain’s laissez-faire policy” and the “largely incorruptible civil service”.  Many libertarians (and I’d include Milton Friedman in this group) believe that an increase in government’s economic power tends to increase the favors dished out by government (see this LearnLiberty video for a basic explanation). 

[ix] p. 21-2, JMK.  It isn’t 100% clear which two elements Friedman means here.  It could be a) the “aristocratic structure”, b) the “laissez-faire policy”, or c) the “incorruptible civil service”.  By my reading, he means b and c.  But even assuming it is a and c, this means that Mr. Friedman conceives that even an incorruptible, aristocratic civil service cannot withstand the emergence of a welfare state (i.e. bigger government). 

[x] p. 20, JMK.  In the second paragraph on p. 20, Milton Friedman signifies his attempt to synthesize “Keynes bequest to politics”.  At the bottom of the page, Friedman describes Keynes political bequest as twofold: one being the “public interest concept of government” and the second that “all will be well if only good men are in power.” [my emphasis.]  It is primarily this second concept that we are dealing with here.

[xi] p. 22, JMK.  Unless Mr. Wapshott sees something I do not, it appears that Mr. Friedman is very clearly distancing himself from the idea that a big government is benign so long as it is strive for more virtuous politicians. 

[xii] David Henderson relates Milton Friedman’s tireless and fruitful efforts to fight conscription in this article at Antiwar.com.  Perhaps the best story on this topic is related in the epigraph to the article.