So I’ve been looking through my local library to see if Milton Friedman ever commented on his son David’s work, but I can’t seem to find any reference to the latter except in his memoirs and most of those are remarks from his mother about non-economic affairs. I know Walter Block in a correspondence once brought it up, but Milton didn’t respond on that point. Does anyone know of a time in which Milton addressed his son’s work in either economics or its implications in political theory?
Seeing “Milton on David”, I clicked on this hoping to read something beautiful that the English poet John Milton wrote about Michelangelo’s David. Compounding my expectations was the fact that it was posted by “Michelangelo”. Oh well…
NEEEEEEEERRRRRD
NEEEEEEERRRRD
I’ve seen David mention his father a few times… including a conversation where David said that if Milton were right about his monetary policy, that a market would provide those kinds of banks. He said Milton didn’t disagree. I kind of got the impression that Milton didn’t want to engage David academically. Could be for a lot of reasons.
I think in his last interview with Charlie Rose (around 2005) he makes a few comments about his son and even his work on anarchy. If you have time, watch it and see if my memory serves me correct.
All you need to know about Monetarism is in the first 20 seconds of that video.
Hehe
Let us know what point he talks about his son, if you find it.
Watched the whole thing. Perhaps my volume was too loud, but everytime he sort of stuttered, it sounded too much like wheezing, and made me sad to the fact that he died soon after the interview. NOTHING on David.
Milton was around when David was promoting anarchism, so was Mises for Rothbard. It’s always sort of bothered me that neither really said anything about market anarchism.
It sometimes takes a new generation to takes things to it’s logical conclusion.
Milton Friedman did comment on anarcho-capitalism at one point, but he didn’t include his son in his answer.
Friedman: That’s right. Because now liberal is so misinterpreted. So I am a Republican with a capital “r” and a libertarian with a small “l.” I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles, but because that’s the way I am the most useful and have most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian.
However, libertarian is not a self-defining term. There are many varieties of libertarians. There’s a zero-government libertarian, an anarchist. There’s a limited-government libertarianism. They share a lot in terms of their fundamental values. If you trace them to their ultimate roots, they are different. It doesn’t matter in practice, because we both want to work in the same direction.
I would like to be a zero-government libertarian.
Reason: Why aren’t you?
Friedman: Because I don’t think it’s a feasible social structure. I look over history, and outside of perhaps Iceland, where else can you find any historical examples of that kind of a system developing?
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds/3
A while ago I also stumbled up a yahoo question, where the original poster asked what Milton Friedman thought about David’s views. David Friedman actually ended up responding and said something along these lines: “My father thought it might work, but it probably wouldn’t. I on the other hand thought I might not work, but it probably would.”
Unfortunately, now I can’t find a link to that topic.
But David has been known to lurk these boards, so perhaps he can give us an adequate answer.
Thanks for the quick replies everyone, and I apologize for my lack of knowledge in poetry. Although I am sure we have a poet or two somewhere on here…
The Reason article is interesting. Would it be too far an argument to make that Milton was a closet anarchist? Not that I haven’t already suspected that for sometime. What I am curious about is whether Milton approved of David’s (and by extension Patri Friedman) application of economic knowledge in the political realm, or not. I suppose I’ll just have to wait to see if David ever writes his memoirs.
I think (obviously a personal conjecture) that Milton Friedman was too intellectually brave and honest to covertly hide such a foundational belief (and his economics and policies would probably have ventured into more radical territory if he harbored anarchistic inclinations).
^ That seems probable, unless he thought talking about such things would be far to distracting for positive discourse.
“But David has been known to lurk these boards, so perhaps he can give us an adequate answer.”
Your summary is accurate. We don’t know enough to prove what sets of institutions would wouldn’t be stable. I think anarcho-capitalism, under some circumstances, would probably work–but might not. My father thought it might work, but probably wouldn’t.
And he was more interested than I am in shorter range issues.
@ David
Nice that you answer. May I ask you additional questions?
First a few facts, please correct me if I got them wrong:
- You emphasize that your are not an austrian but an chicagoan
- You didn’t like Rothbard, at least when its about the history of economic thought
- As far as I know Rothbard was the first or at least one of the first who called himself an anarcho capitalist publicly
Questions:
- What/Who did influance or triggered you to convert to anarcho capitalism. Did Rothbard or any austrian play a role in that?
- Do you think it is good that the austrians (still) exist (as school of course
and that they propose ancap? Do you think they make a good job in proposing ancap and also educating people economics ? - Can you name me other chicagoans who are ancaps, whose writings I could study?
- Do you think that the general basis of discussion between the main different schools of thought are on the whole fine and respectful, or that they are venomed and much too often include insults, disrespect and bias?
I know this is directed at David Friedman, but I actually read “Free to Choose”, and promptly asked my AP economics teacher why we didn’t just privatize everything including roads and national defense. He said “we don’t want to go that far”, and I asked “why not”, to which I cannot remember his answer. I didn’t know anything about public goods or externalities at the time, but I definitely thought it was a good idea just from understanding Friedman’s economics.
I believe at his Mises Brazil lecture, Professor David Friedman articulated that he considers himself an ‘American economist’ and that he doesn’t particulaly like the notion of different ‘schools’ of economic thought. There exists only good economics and bad economics. I believe he also addresses his views on Rothbard during the Q&A period of this same lecture.
I’m almost positive that Milton and Rothbard had an exchange via letters on anarchy.
@Runyan Is there any videos of this lecture?
I am not certain, but I think Milton Friedman implicitly mentions his son in his famous Icelandic interview. (Apparently the socialist blond guy presided over Iceland as of the bankruptcy, a couple of years ago. eheh)
He is asked why he won’t defend his work against criticism from some British professor (the work in question is the monetary history of the US, I think). Friedman reply is that he takes care of his work like he takes care of his children: while they are young, he will actively defend them. But once they mature, he lets them fend for themselves.
I also thought that was his justification for not actively (and even passively, when asked) discuss his son’s ideas. He figures his son is around and is a big boy, so let him address those.
Again, I watched the interview some years ago, so I am sure he expressed himself much differently than how I am portraying it, and I am not certain he said such a thing in the first place. 
Anyhow, the interview is too long, so I will let you guys confirm it. I think this exchange took place more to the end of the interview.