Scan barcode
A review by rowanmcmichael
Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition by Milton Friedman
4.0
Firstly, I'm having trouble deciding between 4 and 5 stars, as this book is, to me, either a very high B-Tier, or a low A-Tier, so my rating may fluctuate several times while I think it over. Anyways~
Friedman does a brilliant job of portraying the tight intertwining between economics and politics, all but undoing the commonly asserted falsehood that "communism/capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political one!". He instills a beautiful mix of historical reference, ideological generality, and specific implementation that works to explain, support, and give precedent to his ideas.
While at times I find him to be more moderate and realistically more rational than myself, Friedman instills the values of a classical liberal in an effective and non-threatening, palatable way. The way in which he builds upon his thoughts is delightfully meticulous, and incredibly self aware. One of my favorite things about this book is how he will give historical references, but then expands into modern practical use, all the while explicitly stating that historical reference does not outright justify an idea (Marx must be shitting and crying after that one).
Friedman just outlines ideas that I'm not smart enough to properly argue for myself, particularly his section detailing his favor for a school voucher system and, in general, the role that government plays in education.
Friedman also dispels the woke crowd decades ahead of his time, quite impressive! Again, he proves how a free market system does away with racial issues that the government has worked so diligently to place in the forefront of the mind of the general public. He eloquently states how a racial focus is detrimental to the individual in a free market system, and delivers an inspiring slam against the entirely race and color fixated mindset that is so prevalent today. It amazes me how forward thinking and prophetic Friedman is, specifically in how he makes a spot-on prediction regarding racial quotas; "If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. While I do think he paints a picture of a "slippery slope" from time to time, I would also consider this instance to be just that, but its eventual birth into reality makes me reconsider if these other instances are too, just a slippery slope.
Friedman is entirely civil in his argument against a strong, centralized government, in essence giving the age old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" spiel. He avoids the issue of assailing his ideological opponent (for the most part), opting instead to worry about supporting his own argument rather than tearing down the character of "the enemy". In fact, he gives clear acknowledgment that these ideas that he blatantly disagrees with are not, in his eyes, evil, and gives an understanding to what he believes to be wholesome (although faulty) intentions on the part of his adversaries. To elaborate on what was earlier stated, he really only tears down the opposition when necessary to support his view, and he never goes out of his way to debase those which he does seem to consider as fellow intellectuals.
I do, despite all my praises, have disagreements with his assertions. My number one being his claim that: "government is necessary to preserve our freedom". I disagree wholeheartedly, as in my opinion, all rights and freedoms of man are natural and don't need to be granted by some central power. To imply that it is the right and responsibility of the government to protect our freedoms, is also to give them the power of controlling the freedoms we have, which is something that I will never accept. To thank the government of all things for protecting your rights is to thank the man who broke your leg for giving you crutches. I understand and generally agree with his argument that anarchism, while perhaps desirable to the classical liberal, isn't entirely feasible, however I think at times he gives a little more leeway and responsibility to government, which shows, as I stated earlier, that he is perhaps a little more moderate than myself. This leeway is especially evident in his general complacency with certain taxes, namely the income tax. He does, of course, have his critiques and solutions for it, but still I find his willingness for taxation to be a little higher than I would've expected.
There are times when I can get lost in his sea of generalities which he uses to portray his point, sometimes building mass amounts of context to where I've nearly forgotten what he's talking about, but generally speaking, as noted before, he communicates his ideas effectively. He's brought to my attention issues that I had neither the knowledge or awareness of, particularly with licensing which I found to be a fascinating section of his writing.
One of the most important foundations of classical liberalism which Friedman so clearly portrays is the belief in the freedom a man has to be stupid. Rather than some of his well-known ideological adversaries (namely Marx), Friedman explicitly calls against violence, and instead for person to person persuasion with the ultimate acceptance that whatever one's path is, it is theirs to decide.
All in all, though I consider him to be in some aspects more forgiving of authority and more moderate than myself, at times even resembling more of a "Republican-libertarian" (if such a contradiction truly exists), he instills in to the minds of his readers a litany of Classical Liberal ideas and ideals which are enlightening to read.
Friedman does a brilliant job of portraying the tight intertwining between economics and politics, all but undoing the commonly asserted falsehood that "communism/capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political one!". He instills a beautiful mix of historical reference, ideological generality, and specific implementation that works to explain, support, and give precedent to his ideas.
While at times I find him to be more moderate and realistically more rational than myself, Friedman instills the values of a classical liberal in an effective and non-threatening, palatable way. The way in which he builds upon his thoughts is delightfully meticulous, and incredibly self aware. One of my favorite things about this book is how he will give historical references, but then expands into modern practical use, all the while explicitly stating that historical reference does not outright justify an idea (Marx must be shitting and crying after that one).
Friedman just outlines ideas that I'm not smart enough to properly argue for myself, particularly his section detailing his favor for a school voucher system and, in general, the role that government plays in education.
Friedman also dispels the woke crowd decades ahead of his time, quite impressive! Again, he proves how a free market system does away with racial issues that the government has worked so diligently to place in the forefront of the mind of the general public. He eloquently states how a racial focus is detrimental to the individual in a free market system, and delivers an inspiring slam against the entirely race and color fixated mindset that is so prevalent today. It amazes me how forward thinking and prophetic Friedman is, specifically in how he makes a spot-on prediction regarding racial quotas; "If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. While I do think he paints a picture of a "slippery slope" from time to time, I would also consider this instance to be just that, but its eventual birth into reality makes me reconsider if these other instances are too, just a slippery slope.
Friedman is entirely civil in his argument against a strong, centralized government, in essence giving the age old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" spiel. He avoids the issue of assailing his ideological opponent (for the most part), opting instead to worry about supporting his own argument rather than tearing down the character of "the enemy". In fact, he gives clear acknowledgment that these ideas that he blatantly disagrees with are not, in his eyes, evil, and gives an understanding to what he believes to be wholesome (although faulty) intentions on the part of his adversaries. To elaborate on what was earlier stated, he really only tears down the opposition when necessary to support his view, and he never goes out of his way to debase those which he does seem to consider as fellow intellectuals.
I do, despite all my praises, have disagreements with his assertions. My number one being his claim that: "government is necessary to preserve our freedom". I disagree wholeheartedly, as in my opinion, all rights and freedoms of man are natural and don't need to be granted by some central power. To imply that it is the right and responsibility of the government to protect our freedoms, is also to give them the power of controlling the freedoms we have, which is something that I will never accept. To thank the government of all things for protecting your rights is to thank the man who broke your leg for giving you crutches. I understand and generally agree with his argument that anarchism, while perhaps desirable to the classical liberal, isn't entirely feasible, however I think at times he gives a little more leeway and responsibility to government, which shows, as I stated earlier, that he is perhaps a little more moderate than myself. This leeway is especially evident in his general complacency with certain taxes, namely the income tax. He does, of course, have his critiques and solutions for it, but still I find his willingness for taxation to be a little higher than I would've expected.
There are times when I can get lost in his sea of generalities which he uses to portray his point, sometimes building mass amounts of context to where I've nearly forgotten what he's talking about, but generally speaking, as noted before, he communicates his ideas effectively. He's brought to my attention issues that I had neither the knowledge or awareness of, particularly with licensing which I found to be a fascinating section of his writing.
One of the most important foundations of classical liberalism which Friedman so clearly portrays is the belief in the freedom a man has to be stupid. Rather than some of his well-known ideological adversaries (namely Marx), Friedman explicitly calls against violence, and instead for person to person persuasion with the ultimate acceptance that whatever one's path is, it is theirs to decide.
All in all, though I consider him to be in some aspects more forgiving of authority and more moderate than myself, at times even resembling more of a "Republican-libertarian" (if such a contradiction truly exists), he instills in to the minds of his readers a litany of Classical Liberal ideas and ideals which are enlightening to read.