======================== HES POSTING ==================  
  
In response to the posting by Dan Hammond in which he said: 
 
> Jim Craven's baseless and vulgar charge against Milton Friedman brings to 
> mind that Friedman's advocacy of freedom, noninflationary monetary policy, 
> and limited government has indeed been associated with efforts to censor. 
> But Friedman was never the censor; he was the one censored. 
 
My Response: What does the censorship or attempted censorship of  
Friedman have to do with the nature of the regime (Pinochet) with  
which he worked, the fact that he worked with than regime, the  
consequences of the policies of that regime or the consequences of  
Friedman's work with that regime in consolidating and legitimating  
it? This is a non-sequitur and sleight of hand. 
 
What does it take to document the nazi-like nature of the Pinochet  
regime? Perhaps we could begin with a list of all of those nazi war  
criminals like Walter Rauff (designer of the mobile gas chamber) who  
held high-level internal security positions in the Pinochet regime.  
Perhaps we could note that many of the same groups targeted by the  
nazis (progressive intellectuals, gays, trade-unionists etc) were  
also the targets of the Pinochet regime. Perhaps we could note the  
virulent anti-Semitic and cultist propaganda coming out from the  
Pincohet regime. Perhaps we could note the torture techniques that  
were directly and explicitly copied from the nazis. I find it  
interesting that anyone would question or at least summarily wave  
away consideration of the ugly fascist nature and consequences of the  
Pinochet regime while being so concerned about Friedman's  
sensibilities or free speech. However much inconvenience or distress  
Friedman may have suffered (and I do not support shouting him down  
but I do support protesting against him like protesting against any  
other collaborator with evil) it was nothing compared with the death  
and torture suffered by those victims of that regime for which he  
worked. 
 
Dan Hammond wrote:  
 
> Before Chile, in 1974, members of the Students for a Democratic Society 
> tried to shout Friedman down as he gave a talk at the Oriental Institute in 
> Chicago. After Anthony Lewis's _New York Times_ article (October 2, 1975) 
> accusing him of contributing to repression of Chile's poor, a "Committee 
> Against Friedman/Harberger Collaboration With the Chilean Junta" was formed 
> at Chicago. The group's posters on the University of Chicago campus called 
> for members of the community to "drive Friedman off campus through protest 
> and exposure." 
>  
> After the announcement of Friedman's Nobel Prize there were protests, and 
> the Friedmans were given special protection during their stay in Stockholm 
> for the ceremonies. Other efforts by demonstrators to silence him followed 
> after the Friedmans returned to the U.S. 
>  
> If censorship is measured by the effort made to silence a person, which 
> economists have been subject to more censorship than Milton  
Friedman? 
 
My response: 
 
Is this really serious? Orlando Letalier was an economist and he is  
dead--murdered by the Pinochet regime. Along with Letalier, many  
other economists and non-economists have suffered the ultimate form  
of censorship--torture and death. One of my dear friends, an  
economist, watched his wife being gang-raped and murdered in front of  
him; they kept him alive because they thought he was some kind of  
militant and leader--he was neither at the time, but remains so today. 
And since we are playing guilt by association--lumping me in with  
those who sought to silence Friedman on the basis that I also condemn  
Friedman as a collaborator with fascists so therefore I must also  
advocate silencing him--let's play the same game: what is it about  
Friedman and his policies and ideology that the highly ideological  
fascists of the Pinochet regime would find attractive or able to work  
with? 
 
This is simply sleight of hand--diversion of attention to the  
purported censorship of poor Friedman from attention to the nature of  
the regime with which he worked, the policies and consequences of  
that regime, the consequences of Friedman's work with than regime,  
the naked hypocrisy of Friedman's purported obsession with "personal  
liberty" and "anti-government" while working for a regime that  
respected neither "personal liberty" nor "limited government". 
 
I retract nothing about Friedman that I have said. In fact, in  
deference to some of the "refined intellectual" sensibilities obvious  
in the writings on this list, I have been extremely measured in  
expressing the absolute contempt I have for the likes of Friedman or  
anyone who works with despotism--on the right or on the left. 
 
Jim Craven  
Dept of Economics 
Clark College 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]