Milton Friedman vs Ayn Rand: How To Change the World
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- In this episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate and Nikos Sotirakopoulos discuss Milton Friedman’s impact as a public intellectual and how his advocacy of the free market differed from Ayn Rand’s radical philosophical case for capitalism.
Among the topics covered:
● Why Milton Friedman is an essentially positive influence on free market thought;
● How Friedman’s moral conventionality reinforced the ideas he tried to oppose;
● The importance of stating the ideal when advocating for gradual reform;
● Why questions of morality are at the root of economic issues;
● How Friedman’s amoralism and pragmatism blinded him to the statists’ motivation;
● Ayn Rand’s critical evaluation of Friedman;
● Why the abolitionist movement is a model for moving the world toward freedom.
Mentioned in this podcast is Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook’s course “Cultural Movements: Creating Change” (estore.aynrand.org/products/c...) and Ayn Rand’s essay “Tax Credits for Education.” (aynrand.org/novels/the-ayn-ra...)
The podcast was recorded on May 2, 2024.
0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:25 Friedman’s positive influence
0:06:32 Consequences of moral conventionality
0:17:30 Stating the ideal
0:29:58 Morality at the root of economic issues
0:37:49 Friedman’s amoralism and pragmatism
0:45:12 Rand’s critical evaluation of Friedman
0:51:22 The model of the abolitionist movement
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
I think Friedman needed to read and comprehend Nathaniel Branden’s essay in The Virtue of Selfishness titled Isn’t Everyone Selfish. What people want is based on how they think or avoid thinking and the ideas they hold. I guarantee you that I don’t have the same motivations as Vladimir Putin.
Excellent discussion.
My pragmatic point's irony is not lost on me:
Friedman is what brought me to Rand. Despite his failure to defend capitalism from a moral perspective, he did a tremendous amount of good to start to move people to Objectivism, albeit, unintentionally. When you realize you have a moral gap between Friedman's teaching, and capitalism, it is likely that you'll find Rand. Without Friedman, I speculate that Rand's reach would have been far less effective.
Ditto...I first read Friedman, and then I came to Rand. I hope the episode didn't come off like me dunking on Friedman, cause I have a lot of respect for him.
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876it didn’t . The respect for his contributions was clear and the points of disagreement very interesting!
Cheers for the talk guys! Interesting and enjoyable. Liked the reminder about how people see Deontology vs Consequentialism as two superficial opposites and Rand's response to it, outside of the main theme of talk (reform contra radical change).
I will enjoy this.
Ditto!
Thanks for the incisive discussion, Onkar and Nikos!
Very interesting! Thank you.
Thank you!
Go deeper.
Who is John Galt !?
Who is he though? I'm on about page 450 right now, LOL.
Ooo crazy countdown music I like it!
I haven't watched ARI's podcasts in a while. It was awesome. You were amazing, Nikos!
I will watch Free To Choose somedaoy. Thank you for the recommendation!
Great show, really enlightening. I have been a fan of Friedman's economics for a long time but questions some of his underpinnings. He never did a good job at articulating his premises. You did it here very clearly. GREAT show!!
Thank you!
Milton was extraordinarily gifted as well as having a unique ability to communicate economic ideology in a way that the majority could understand. The broadcasts Free to choose are a good example of this.
Ayn Rand, Carl Snyder, John Stossel, Daniel Yergin, David Koch, etc.
Great names.
The 1943 tax withholding system was developed in part by the famous economist Milton Friedman, who then worked for the Tax Research Division of the Treasury.
Friedman in the days around the war was a proper central planner. To his credit, he later changed his ways.
Great show topic
Thank you!
Amazing!
awesome!
Very Interesting 🙏
Great !
So had Friedman discovered that the Draft was more economically viable than a volunteer army, he would have not opposed it? That individual freedom serves a society’s economics is an authoritarian position and completely opposite Rand’s conception of the relationship of individuals to society.
Isn't that falling into the analytic/synthetic or necessary/contingent truths dichotomy? You can be absolutely confident that coercion will not be more productive than voluntary association.
Thing is, Friedman, when asked, seemed to have a good grasp on individual rights. Why he rarely used the moral case for them in his work even as an educator (as opposed to solely as an economist) is a mystery to me.
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876 I think I understand that. With many people, making a case for individual rights isn't as useful a starting point when you're trying to change minds vs when you're building a philosophic system.
I have noticed through several examples, enough to draw a generalization, that many people don't care about how coercion harms the victim. They know it. They just don't care. They care more if you show how it harms others. And they care even more if you show how it harms themselves in the long run (or even in the short run, but for that you'd have to go beyond economics and understand what using force/fraud does to one's self-worth).
So the way I look at it, first you need to descriptively show in like 20 cases how plunder backfires and breeds more plunder.
Then people are more primed to understand and respect individual rights.
As long as plunder appears zero-sum, there's a temptation to be the winner. When it's clarified that zero-sum interactions decay into negative-sum interactions, the temptation tends to attenuate and vanish. Minus the hopefully rare people who want destruction for the sake of destruction.
For example
Higher minimum wage harms the employers - don't care
Higher minimum wage raises prices - hmm care a little bit but still not convinced
Higher minimum wage means I'm going to lose my job - okay that's not what I wanted.
After that you can say how this is a violation of individual rights and make it into a general principle (like Bastiat in The Law)
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876 Maybe he knew that most people don't give a flip about individual rights?
Milton a greater communicator of slightly good but horribly flawed ideas.
Great communicator indeed. A bit harsh picturing him as horribly flawed. He developed a lot throughout his life and ended up better than where he started.
@@nikossotirakopoulos6876 absolutely agree. I meant the ideas are horribly flawed in that he let pragmatism etc in ,making his impact way less potent.
The worst part is that clip where he talks about Ayn Rand.
The evaluation of Friedman must include that he has not successfully had any cultural impact that lasted
If you look at issues such as "woke" culture, that is probably true.
@@tomburroughes9834 ? No clue what you mean. My point is the impact has been largely insignificant. There hasnt been anyone free market with any significance since. Talking about free markets positively is completely unheard of in the mainstream conversation. The man failed. The “Liberty” movement failed .
🎉😊
Encuentro el argumento de envidia bastante vacío y hasta infantil.
Which one is more doable in a 350-million-person nation? How fast can you turn that enormous ocean liner? Did Ayn Rand have a smidgeon of practicality?
What history has shown is that the one that looks more practical tends to have way less impact than we might think. This doesn't mean we wouldn't be vastly better off if we had more Friedmans.
I think you missed the part where they mention this false dichotomy.
35:00 This is a key point that drives me crazy about conservatives. Granting benevolent intentions to evil power lusters.
Best I can think as an excuse for Friedman is that he judged based on himself. At some point he was literally a central planner, but definitely not a power luster,
You guys both got Friedmen wrong on so many levels. He had explained how a negative income tax was temporary messure to remove the welfare state. His point about welfare workers being honest well meaning people is just to point out that bad means triumph over good intentions. Finally, big business is an enemy of capatilism because they are the original creaters of big government.
Friedman indeed mentions that he sees NIT as transitional measure. Yet, he never says what he wants to transition to, unless I'm missing something big. Regarding the other two points, you seem to indicate that a nanny-statist has good intentions, but you don't recognize such intentions to 'big business' who supposedly are the reason we have big government. This is a strong point without much historical evidence to back it up. Big business cosying up to government always follows an expansionist government. In an actual free market, there's nothing to cosy to government about.
Good video, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of the Rand Inst. stance when it comes to size and corporate power. Do you have a breakdown that is a rebuttal of concepts made in a book like The Coming of Neo-Feudalism? I think points about tech oligarchs monopolizing control over various industries and siphoning wealth from the bottom half of the population upwards can be clearly seen today, and the result is eroding trust in capitalism or liberalism as an experiment
porque tus premisas son incorrectas
22:30 reinforcing the welfare state through Friedman’s consequentialist approach.
holy fck
i did not click on this
to watch these 2 guys !!!!
fan of milton
not fan of rand,
but i agree with some of her stuff.
click bait here !