I am perplexed by Alan's quotation, especially in the light of
Samuel's statements (and my sense that Friedman, like some
economists, sharply separates the economic and the political.)
If Pinochet's regime was 'a terrible political regime,' violent and
murderous as well, how can you explain Friedman's working for it?
Does raising the standard of living of an oppressed people while
working for their oppressor (and, by the bye, almost surely therefore
keeping him in resources and power) justify economists' aiding
tyrants? Especially when, to use the current jargon, they kill their
own people?
Perhaps we need a list. (Even if you could do so safely,) would you work for:
Hitler? Stalin? Saddam Hussein? Mugabe? Gaddafi? Mubarek? the Saudi
ruling family? Putin? ....
By what criteria can one draw the line? To me, state terror would be
pretty important. So would be political freedom.
As far as I can tell from Samuel and Alan, neither state terror nor
political freedom would be relevant to Friedman, at least from what
we've been told. (Relevant to his 'personal' views, of course; but
his 'personal' views seem not to have any particular relevance to his
life.)
Peter G. Stillman
>On 5/11/2011 12:00 PM, Samuel Bostaph wrote:
>>I find this concern with Friedman's personal attitude
>>toward Pinochet's use of violence against his opponents
>>puzzling. It would be surprising if Friedman approved of
>>it, given his political views.
>
>
> "I have nothing good to say about the political
> regime that Pinochet imposed. It was a terrible
> political regime."
>
> -- Milton Friedman, "Economic Freedom, Human
> Freedom, Political Freedom," Address at the Smith
> Center, November 1, 1991
> http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/frlect.html
>
>Cheers,
>Alan Isaac
--
Peter G. Stillman
Department of Political Science
Vassar College (#463)
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0463
[log in to unmask]
office: 845-437-5581
FAX: 845-437-7599
http://faculty.vassar.edu/stillman/
|
