3 ms·

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 f

by 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.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    This conversation is never going to get anywhere, because we have fundamentally irreconcilable views of the world. In my view what lifted people from abject poverty was a measure of technological progress and industrialization. The places where people were mostly lifted out of poverty do not embrace the completely unregulated free market fantasy of Friedman. I believe in government as a strong regulator to rein in corporations, because corporations are optimized to generate profits even when they cause harm to society in their profit-seeking mandate. Obviously you will disagree with this, because government icky, and you seem to embrace the fantasy that once free of the shackles of icky government, the benevolent capital holders will benefit the world somehow. You advocate for something very extreme, and it is clear we won't find middle ground at this point. Have a great evening, and feel free to have the last word.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      It’s pretty clear that when governments open markets and relax market controls the population grows in wealth. Certainly, technology drives efficiency and grows the pie I wouldn’t argue otherwise. However the closed economies with price controls and lots of government intervention can’t easily make use of technological innovations. China started growing when private businesses were first allowed, for example. The Nordics took off after liberalizing their economies. You can look across South America and see that the most open economies have the highest standards of living. I don’t disagree that governments have a role in regulating harms, and neither did Friedman. He did believe that taxing pollution was more effective than setting particular targets, but that’s a difference of approach not of aims. I think we probably have more overlap than you imagine.
  - evil-olive 1y ago
    > 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. you are choosing to define segregation very narrowly - as in a government law requiring individuals to be segregated (attend separate schools, or use separate bathrooms, etc) that is an absurd definition to use in this context, because the original example from Friedman's quote is a different type of segregation - a business owner hanging out a sign that says "we're hiring, but only white people". redlining [0] created segregated neighborhoods, but not via government mandate, just from banks and mortgage lenders "voluntarily" deciding that certain neighborhoods should be whites-only. there were also housing covenants [1, 2] that enforced segregation via contract law. if your definition of segregation does not include those practices, your definition is worthless. 0: https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/10/history_of_redlining https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/10/history_of_red... 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/racism-home-deeds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/racism-home-de... 2: https://archive.is/T4eHk https://archive.is/T4eHk
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      The original quote as I’ve said is taken out of context, the chapter is about freedom of contracts and does talk about legally mandated segregation. Friedman just says that further interference in contracts is in his opinion not the remedy. The Federal Housing Authority created in 1933 and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation created in 1934 created the zones and directed the banks where to make loans. I’d suggest you read a bit either. I’d suggest The Color of Law.
      - evil-olive 1y ago
        > The Federal Housing Authority created in 1933 and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation created in 1934 created the zones and directed the banks where to make loans. from the NYT article I linked to: > In 1927, the National Association of Real Estate Boards — now the National Association of Realtors — championed racial covenants, creating a model clause that was inserted into countless deeds. It read, in part: “No part of said premises shall be sold, given, conveyed or leased to any negro or negroes.” > The Federal Housing Administration, which was created in the 1930s to insure home mortgages, also all but required racial covenants to guarantee loans, including those for developments like Levittown, a community of mass-produced tract homes on Long Island that opened in the late 1940s and where only “members of the Caucasian race” were allowed to live. there was legally-mandated segregation, but it was not exclusively done through legal mandates. some of it was "voluntary" contracts of the sort Friedman is defending. your previous comment was that people in NY in 1950 didn't have legally mandated segregation. but apparently you are aware that there was segregation in NY in that time period? maybe you're splitting microscopic hairs, and letting "in 1950" do some heavy lifting? because those covenants were enforceable in NY and elsewhere, but only up until Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. and of course, lots of other discrimination was legally allowed after that, up until the Fair Housing Act - for example, advertising apartment rentals in NYC as "whites-only" would have been perfectly legal until 1968 [0]. that's also a "voluntary" contract of the sort Friedman thinks the state shouldn't interfere with? > I’d suggest you read a bit either. I’d suggest The Color of Law. are you unaware of how condescending you come across with comments like this? or are you aware, and are OK with it? (especially when "go read such-and-such" has been repeated in many of your comments throughout this thread) it's quite possible for people to have read all the same books as you have, but come away with different opinions. responding to someone who disagrees with you with "go read this book" is kind of an asshole move. it carries a baked-in assumption that the person who disagrees with you isn't as well-informed as you are. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types_of_banned_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types...

by ch4s3 1y ago

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.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  This conversation is never going to get anywhere, because we have fundamentally irreconcilable views of the world. In my view what lifted people from abject poverty was a measure of technological progress and industrialization. The places where people were mostly lifted out of poverty do not embrace the completely unregulated free market fantasy of Friedman. I believe in government as a strong regulator to rein in corporations, because corporations are optimized to generate profits even when they cause harm to society in their profit-seeking mandate. Obviously you will disagree with this, because government icky, and you seem to embrace the fantasy that once free of the shackles of icky government, the benevolent capital holders will benefit the world somehow. You advocate for something very extreme, and it is clear we won't find middle ground at this point. Have a great evening, and feel free to have the last word.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    It’s pretty clear that when governments open markets and relax market controls the population grows in wealth. Certainly, technology drives efficiency and grows the pie I wouldn’t argue otherwise. However the closed economies with price controls and lots of government intervention can’t easily make use of technological innovations. China started growing when private businesses were first allowed, for example. The Nordics took off after liberalizing their economies. You can look across South America and see that the most open economies have the highest standards of living. I don’t disagree that governments have a role in regulating harms, and neither did Friedman. He did believe that taxing pollution was more effective than setting particular targets, but that’s a difference of approach not of aims. I think we probably have more overlap than you imagine.
- evil-olive 1y ago
  > 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. you are choosing to define segregation very narrowly - as in a government law requiring individuals to be segregated (attend separate schools, or use separate bathrooms, etc) that is an absurd definition to use in this context, because the original example from Friedman's quote is a different type of segregation - a business owner hanging out a sign that says "we're hiring, but only white people". redlining [0] created segregated neighborhoods, but not via government mandate, just from banks and mortgage lenders "voluntarily" deciding that certain neighborhoods should be whites-only. there were also housing covenants [1, 2] that enforced segregation via contract law. if your definition of segregation does not include those practices, your definition is worthless. 0: https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/10/history_of_redlining https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/10/history_of_red... 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/racism-home-deeds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/realestate/racism-home-de... 2: https://archive.is/T4eHk https://archive.is/T4eHk
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    The original quote as I’ve said is taken out of context, the chapter is about freedom of contracts and does talk about legally mandated segregation. Friedman just says that further interference in contracts is in his opinion not the remedy. The Federal Housing Authority created in 1933 and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation created in 1934 created the zones and directed the banks where to make loans. I’d suggest you read a bit either. I’d suggest The Color of Law.
    - evil-olive 1y ago
      > The Federal Housing Authority created in 1933 and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation created in 1934 created the zones and directed the banks where to make loans. from the NYT article I linked to: > In 1927, the National Association of Real Estate Boards — now the National Association of Realtors — championed racial covenants, creating a model clause that was inserted into countless deeds. It read, in part: “No part of said premises shall be sold, given, conveyed or leased to any negro or negroes.” > The Federal Housing Administration, which was created in the 1930s to insure home mortgages, also all but required racial covenants to guarantee loans, including those for developments like Levittown, a community of mass-produced tract homes on Long Island that opened in the late 1940s and where only “members of the Caucasian race” were allowed to live. there was legally-mandated segregation, but it was not exclusively done through legal mandates. some of it was "voluntary" contracts of the sort Friedman is defending. your previous comment was that people in NY in 1950 didn't have legally mandated segregation. but apparently you are aware that there was segregation in NY in that time period? maybe you're splitting microscopic hairs, and letting "in 1950" do some heavy lifting? because those covenants were enforceable in NY and elsewhere, but only up until Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. and of course, lots of other discrimination was legally allowed after that, up until the Fair Housing Act - for example, advertising apartment rentals in NYC as "whites-only" would have been perfectly legal until 1968 [0]. that's also a "voluntary" contract of the sort Friedman thinks the state shouldn't interfere with? > I’d suggest you read a bit either. I’d suggest The Color of Law. are you unaware of how condescending you come across with comments like this? or are you aware, and are OK with it? (especially when "go read such-and-such" has been repeated in many of your comments throughout this thread) it's quite possible for people to have read all the same books as you have, but come away with different opinions. responding to someone who disagrees with you with "go read this book" is kind of an asshole move. it carries a baked-in assumption that the person who disagrees with you isn't as well-informed as you are. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types_of_banned_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types...