4 ms·

I'm not sure why you are writing about the Heritage Foundation or "Conservatism": Milton Friedman is a classic liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_l

I'm not sure why you are writing about the Heritage Foundation or "Conservatism": Milton Friedman is a classic liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), so it's a strange vicarious ad hominem attack. His laissez-faire ideas have been extremely influential and have a stunning track record of success where they have been used.

nihilocrat 18y ago
You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago. Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right. This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.
- antiismist 18y ago
  I'm just saying that his idea here should not be evaluated by a comparison to a group of people that he isn't even a member of. I do like the two axis chart though.
  - nihilocrat 18y ago
    That's a fair assessment, and I also agree that we shouldn't be assigning people to either side of the aisle in discussions where it's not important. Alas, social security is a very political issue that has many people with strong feelings in either direction, so it is very hard to avoid seeming partisan.
tptacek 18y ago
I don't think you can, with any intellectual honesty, call Milton Friedman a "liberal" economist without pointing out that you're using a different definition of the term than the mainstream. If he's a "classic liberal", he's also an "anti-progressive".
- antiismist 18y ago
  Isn't that what I did by busting out with the wikipedia link?
  - tptacek 18y ago
    No.
- gojomo 18y ago
  ...different definition of the term than the mainstream. Mainstream American English, sure. In Europe, 'classical liberals' are still just called 'liberals', or sometimes villified as 'neoliberals' by the Euro-left for their adherence to brutish Friedmanesque economic views. I think that usage also dominates in regions of British English. So more English speakers worldwide might agree that Friedman is a 'liberal economist' than parochial Americans would disagree.

nihilocrat 18y ago

You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago. Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right. This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.

antiismist 18y ago
I'm just saying that his idea here should not be evaluated by a comparison to a group of people that he isn't even a member of. I do like the two axis chart though.
- nihilocrat 18y ago
  That's a fair assessment, and I also agree that we shouldn't be assigning people to either side of the aisle in discussions where it's not important. Alas, social security is a very political issue that has many people with strong feelings in either direction, so it is very hard to avoid seeming partisan.

tptacek 18y ago

I don't think you can, with any intellectual honesty, call Milton Friedman a "liberal" economist without pointing out that you're using a different definition of the term than the mainstream. If he's a "classic liberal", he's also an "anti-progressive".

antiismist 18y ago
Isn't that what I did by busting out with the wikipedia link?
- tptacek 18y ago
  No.
gojomo 18y ago
...different definition of the term than the mainstream. Mainstream American English, sure. In Europe, 'classical liberals' are still just called 'liberals', or sometimes villified as 'neoliberals' by the Euro-left for their adherence to brutish Friedmanesque economic views. I think that usage also dominates in regions of British English. So more English speakers worldwide might agree that Friedman is a 'liberal economist' than parochial Americans would disagree.