4 ms·

Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. In the very same chapter Friedman argues that discrimination base

by ch4s3 1y ago

Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. In the very same chapter Friedman argues that discrimination based on skin color is irrational and wrong. Edward Zitron is lying in his framing. In the same chapter Friedman literally says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
> https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 > Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. He doesn't say that Friedman was racist, you made that up. He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  I'm saying he clipped the quote to give that impression. > He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point. No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-book-playlist/Capitalism%20and%20Freedom%20-%20Milton%20Freidman.pdf https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-boo... Page 93 (as numbered on the pages, IDK which PDF "page" [edit: nb the table of contents gets it wrong, one supposes the pages were re-numbered in the digitization process, or something]) or just search "Capitalism and Discrimination" and it'll get you there fast, for anyone who's interested. The chapter is... well, I found a real howler, but then I have odd taste in entertainment, sometimes, and my enjoyment was almost certainly not by a route the author intended. I'd recommend it just on that basis, regardless of its role in this thread but, uh, only for my fellow weirdos.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Yeah, I've read it and I suspect most people commenting here have not and that Edward Zitron did not either.
      - alabastervlog 1y ago
        I figured you had, and posted it for others. Should have made that clearer. FWIW I didn't find Zitron's framing of it misleading, having now read it (I'd read excerpts of that book before, and maybe even that chapter, but couldn't recall for sure, so re-read it just now)
        ch4s3 1y ago
        Makes sense, and that’s a better quality pdf than the one I had.
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
    My point is the author did not say Friedman was racist, you invented that the author said that. Address that, instead of talking about what Friedman say.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      I’m saying the author frames it that way, and other people here clearly drew that conclusion. The author also took out some of context the clip from the 1970 article.
      - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
        No, you're framing it that way. The author couldve said he's racist, but didnt. Instead made a factually accurate statement.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead. Instead he advocated that the absence of regulation would somehow, magically make racists who control capital be not racist anymore. There's nothing misleading in that quote.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      No he doesn't make that argument at all. He argues that volunteerism over time is a better basis for mutual acceptance than government fiat. He also wasn't against all regulations, and specifically supports regulating positive harms. You could read the chapter yourself in 15 minutes.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > No he doesn't make that argument at all. He argues that volunteerism over time is a better basis for mutual acceptance than government fiat. I know, I just think it is much like believing that fairies exist. Except that believing in fairies causes no harm to society. His beliefs did. > You could read the chapter yourself in 15 minutes. You just presume others didn't read it, when in fact you dislike their interpretations and conclusions after reading it.
        ch4s3 1y ago
        Anyone claiming that Friedman supported segregation or racism necessarily did not read the chapter. He's quite clear on those points. > Except that believing in fairies causes no harm to society. His beliefs did. I don't agree, and such a banal analogy is not exactly convincing.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Yeah. You may have a point. Perhaps believing in fairies does cause harm to society.
pnutjam 1y ago
The classic, I'm not a "whatever terrible thing", but those terrible people are ok and it's fine for them to be terrible. Guess what that makes you?
- ch4s3 1y ago
  It really isn't that at all, he argues that it's wrong to discriminate but that government interference in the freedom to make contracts isn't the best solution. He goes on to elaborate an make a case for how else it might be better addressed. The article intentionally misleads by clipping the quote out of context.
  - pnutjam 1y ago
    But it is. This the the same argument against minimum wage. It's just wrong. The government should absolutely set a floor on wages and discrimination. There must be a standard to minimize friction. It's just not something that anyone can do by themselves.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Discrimination was the actually historical basis for the US introducing a minimum wage. There’s available testimony from congress that show that the intention was to push women, blacks, and immigrants out of the workforce. I think it is totally within the bounds of reasonable discourse to discuss if minimum wage laws achieve their stated goals.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      There shouldn't be a minimum wage. It's essentially enforced unemployment for the low skilled.
surgical_fire 1y ago
He was making an argument that owners should be allowed to discriminate against black people. Prefacing that with "I am personally against discrimination" is pretty much meaningless. His awful economic doctrine and beliefs will result in discrimination anyway. Let's not pretend Friedman needs to be presented in a bad light to make it clear he was an awfully evil person.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  If you read the whole chapter it’s clear that he’s not saying that. He’s arguing the government shouldn’t legislate against negative harm. He’s using this for framing. I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to call him an evil person, it’s a totally unfair characterization.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > If you read the whole chapter it’s clear that he’s not saying that. He’s arguing the government shouldn’t legislate against negative harm. He’s using this for framing. He is arguing against the only thing that could meaningfully reduce discrimination and increase equality. As I refuse to believe Friedman was an imbecile, the only possibility left is malice. He knows that his free market fundamentalism will result in more discrimination, but he doesn't care because government is icky. > I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to call him an evil person, it’s a totally unfair characterization. He was evil because he advocated for policies and doctrines that meaningfully make the lives of people worse. It's likely impossible to measure the harm he caused to the world.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      I think you’re plainly wrong. Segregation was an invention of the state. In northern states where it was not the law of the land people freely mixed or didn’t in some cases. People in New York in 1950 were no less racist, they just didn’t have legally mandated segregation. Surely we can agree the freer market in New York was superior to the government control of contracts in North Carolina. Free markets have demonstrably lifted billions of people out of abject poverty in the last 50 years.

by ch4s3 1y ago

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago

> https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ch4s3 > Except Friedman wasn't a racist, and the quote is cut specifically to make it appear that way. He doesn't say that Friedman was racist, you made that up. He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point.

ch4s3 1y ago
I'm saying he clipped the quote to give that impression. > He says that Friedman was a fundamentalist and that people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, and the quote illustrates that well and the context doesn't change anything to that point. No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-book-playlist/Capitalism%20and%20Freedom%20-%20Milton%20Freidman.pdf https://ia803400.us.archive.org/18/items/murdoch-murdoch-boo... Page 93 (as numbered on the pages, IDK which PDF "page" [edit: nb the table of contents gets it wrong, one supposes the pages were re-numbered in the digitization process, or something]) or just search "Capitalism and Discrimination" and it'll get you there fast, for anyone who's interested. The chapter is... well, I found a real howler, but then I have odd taste in entertainment, sometimes, and my enjoyment was almost certainly not by a route the author intended. I'd recommend it just on that basis, regardless of its role in this thread but, uh, only for my fellow weirdos.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Yeah, I've read it and I suspect most people commenting here have not and that Edward Zitron did not either.
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      I figured you had, and posted it for others. Should have made that clearer. FWIW I didn't find Zitron's framing of it misleading, having now read it (I'd read excerpts of that book before, and maybe even that chapter, but couldn't recall for sure, so re-read it just now)
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        Makes sense, and that’s a better quality pdf than the one I had.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  My point is the author did not say Friedman was racist, you invented that the author said that. Address that, instead of talking about what Friedman say.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    I’m saying the author frames it that way, and other people here clearly drew that conclusion. The author also took out some of context the clip from the 1970 article.
    - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
      No, you're framing it that way. The author couldve said he's racist, but didnt. Instead made a factually accurate statement.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > No, Firedman says that government force isn't the best way to address discrimination. Again the quote is clipped to mislead. Instead he advocated that the absence of regulation would somehow, magically make racists who control capital be not racist anymore. There's nothing misleading in that quote.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    No he doesn't make that argument at all. He argues that volunteerism over time is a better basis for mutual acceptance than government fiat. He also wasn't against all regulations, and specifically supports regulating positive harms. You could read the chapter yourself in 15 minutes.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > No he doesn't make that argument at all. He argues that volunteerism over time is a better basis for mutual acceptance than government fiat. I know, I just think it is much like believing that fairies exist. Except that believing in fairies causes no harm to society. His beliefs did. > You could read the chapter yourself in 15 minutes. You just presume others didn't read it, when in fact you dislike their interpretations and conclusions after reading it.
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        Anyone claiming that Friedman supported segregation or racism necessarily did not read the chapter. He's quite clear on those points. > Except that believing in fairies causes no harm to society. His beliefs did. I don't agree, and such a banal analogy is not exactly convincing.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Yeah. You may have a point. Perhaps believing in fairies does cause harm to society.

pnutjam 1y ago

The classic, I'm not a "whatever terrible thing", but those terrible people are ok and it's fine for them to be terrible. Guess what that makes you?

ch4s3 1y ago
It really isn't that at all, he argues that it's wrong to discriminate but that government interference in the freedom to make contracts isn't the best solution. He goes on to elaborate an make a case for how else it might be better addressed. The article intentionally misleads by clipping the quote out of context.
- pnutjam 1y ago
  But it is. This the the same argument against minimum wage. It's just wrong. The government should absolutely set a floor on wages and discrimination. There must be a standard to minimize friction. It's just not something that anyone can do by themselves.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Discrimination was the actually historical basis for the US introducing a minimum wage. There’s available testimony from congress that show that the intention was to push women, blacks, and immigrants out of the workforce. I think it is totally within the bounds of reasonable discourse to discuss if minimum wage laws achieve their stated goals.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    There shouldn't be a minimum wage. It's essentially enforced unemployment for the low skilled.

surgical_fire 1y ago

He was making an argument that owners should be allowed to discriminate against black people. Prefacing that with "I am personally against discrimination" is pretty much meaningless. His awful economic doctrine and beliefs will result in discrimination anyway. Let's not pretend Friedman needs to be presented in a bad light to make it clear he was an awfully evil person.

ch4s3 1y ago
If you read the whole chapter it’s clear that he’s not saying that. He’s arguing the government shouldn’t legislate against negative harm. He’s using this for framing. I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to call him an evil person, it’s a totally unfair characterization.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > If you read the whole chapter it’s clear that he’s not saying that. He’s arguing the government shouldn’t legislate against negative harm. He’s using this for framing. He is arguing against the only thing that could meaningfully reduce discrimination and increase equality. As I refuse to believe Friedman was an imbecile, the only possibility left is malice. He knows that his free market fundamentalism will result in more discrimination, but he doesn't care because government is icky. > I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to call him an evil person, it’s a totally unfair characterization. He was evil because he advocated for policies and doctrines that meaningfully make the lives of people worse. It's likely impossible to measure the harm he caused to the world.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    I think you’re plainly wrong. Segregation was an invention of the state. In northern states where it was not the law of the land people freely mixed or didn’t in some cases. People in New York in 1950 were no less racist, they just didn’t have legally mandated segregation. Surely we can agree the freer market in New York was superior to the government control of contracts in North Carolina. Free markets have demonstrably lifted billions of people out of abject poverty in the last 50 years.