__________________________________________________________________ Walter Block Is Milton Friedman a Libertarian ? I . Introduction . Milton Friedman calls himself a small “ l ” libertarian . 1 Just because he does so , however , does not mean we have to concur with this self-styled description . 2 As with all empirical matters , we must check the evidence if we are to properly evaluate such a claim . Why is it even more important to do so in this case than in many others ? There are several reasons . First and foremost , Friedman is widely and heavily associated in the public mind with libertarianism . If his claim in this regard is given credence , then critics of more extreme versions of libertarianism will continue to be confronted with the “ Even Milton says 1 Small “ l ” as opposed to large “ L .” This refers to the Libertarian Party . Friedman is thus maintaining that while he does not vote for the latter , perhaps for strategic reasons , its philosophy on political economic issues is closest to his own , of all political parties . 2 See , for instance , the following websites : www . pbs . org / wgbh / commandingheights / pres s_site / people / pdf / friedman_intv . pdf # search = ' milton % 20friedman % 20libertarian ; www . rea son . com / 9506 / FRIEDMAN . jun . shtml ; sfgate . com / cgibin / article . cgi ? file =/ c / a / 2005 / 06 / 05 / I NG9QD1E5Q1 . DTL . Walter Block is Harold E . Wirth Eminent Scholar and Professor of Economics at the College of Business Administration , Loyola University , New Orleans . … ” argument , implying that anyone with a purer vision of economic freedom and free enterprise is for that reason alone too extreme . Second , categorization is a very important aspect of political economic analysis ( Block and Cwik , 2007 ). If we cannot make reasonable distinctions , such as the one the present paper is attempting to establish , then our efforts are to that extent less scientific . It is an exaggeration , to be sure , to say that chemistry and biology consist of nothing more than categorization , but only a slight one . Much depends upon where on the periodical table of elements a given chemical is placed ; similarly , whether a plant or animal is to be associated with this or that family , species , phylum , etc ., is a crucially important question in biology . If political economists wish to have their efforts considered systematic , we , too , must be more than merely acquainted with the niceties of categorization . We must apply them , without fear or favor . This does not mean , of course , that libertarianism , or any other political philosophy , is an all or none thing . To be sure , there are continua here , as there are in most phenomena ( Block and Barnett , 2008 ). Murray Rothbard used to say : “ Every dog gets one bite .” 3 By this he 3 Personal communication with the author . However , I doubt whether Rothbard would have allowed so serious a deviation from free Laissez-Faire , No . 32 ( Marzo 2010 ): 9-22

__________________________________________________________________ meant that most libertarians , or , indeed , adherents of any political economic philosophy , deviate in one or even a few points that can otherwise be used to define that perspective . Just so , in libertarianism . But to acknowledge that this field of thought admits of grey areas is not to surrender to the notion that distinctions are impossible , or unimportant . The present paper discusses in some detail Friedman ’ s divergences from libertarianism in just a few cases . Were space to have permitted , these , also , could have been added : withholding tax , tradable emissions rights , neighborhood effects , road socialism , the Fed 3 % rule , flexible exchange rates , eminent domain , democracy . It is thus my contention that this economist ’ s claim to the mantle of libertarianism cannot be sustained . There are simply too many issues upon which he disagrees with its twin axioms of noninitiation of aggression and private property rights . At the outset , Friedman ’ s assertion that he should be considered a small “ l ” libertarian looks like an eminently reasonable one . The name “ Milton Friedman ” has been connected over the years with a whole host of free enterprise initiatives , 4 and this is certainly a large part of enterprise principles as this , even if it were the only one : In a television interview ( video . google . com / videoplay ? docid = 6813529239 937418232 , beginning around 15 : 23 ) Friedman endorses the New Deal WPA and PWA as necessary emergency action . It is difficult to reconcile this with the libertarian philosophy . 4 Even the unrelievedly partisan left wing television series West Wing has acknowledged no less ( http :// www . westwingepguide . com / S5 / Episodes / 96_DR . html ). Who are we libertarianism . 5 For example , he opposes rent control ( Friedman and Stigler , 1981 ), minimum wages ( Friedman , 1962 , 1980 , 1983 ; Brozen and Friedman , 1966 ), socialized medicine ( Friedman , 2001 ), tariffs ( Friedman , 1962 , 1975 , 1977 , 1997 ), 6 and wants to reduce the size of government ( Friedman , 1987 ). He was especially courageous not just merely for opposing occupational licensure , but for actually applying it to the hitherto sacrosanct practice of medicine ( Friedman , 1962 , chapter 9 ). 7 But libertarianism encompasses far more than only free market economics . It also includes the field of personal liberties . And here , as well , Milton Friedman shines . His opposition to the “ War on Drugs ” ( 1992a , 1998 ) is a dramatic case in point . And this is only the tip of the iceberg . There is a whole range of economic and personal liberties on the basis of which this Nobel Prize winning author can be considered well within the mainstream of libertarian thought . 5 Hayek has never claimed the libertarian mantle for himself , but he is as widely considered as such by many of those who consider Friedman in this category . For an alternative view of Hayek , see Block ( 1996 , 1999 ), Block and Garschina ( 1996 ), Friedman vs . Block ( 2006 ), and Rothbard ( 1998 , pp . 219- 29 ). 6 Once , at a gathering of the American Economic Association I attended , he made the following statement that made the assemblage very proud of being economists . He stated ( my paraphrase ): “ Thanks to the efforts of all economists for the last two centuries , tariffs are probably . 01 % lower than they otherwise would have been . And in so doing , we have increased world GDP by a large multiple of all our salaries ” ( he mentioned “ ten thousand fold ”). 7 to disagree ? See also Friedman and Kuznets ( 1945 ). __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 10

__________________________________________________________________ II . Libertarianism . Before discussing the points of divergence between Friedman and this political economic philosophy , let us take a detour and characterize the various topics of concern to libertarianism , the better to be able to compare and contrast his views with that system . At the most extreme 8 point on the libertarian spectrum is located anarchocapitalism . 9 Here , all functions of government would be privatized , and turned over to free enterprise . The entire system would be run on the basis of the twin axioms of libertarian homesteading , and the non-aggression axiom . The former would be used to set up private property initially ( Rothbard , 1998 ; Hoppe , 1993 ), and the latter to determine how property may be legitimately transferred from one person to another . The short answer is that the former requires of each of us that we keep our sticky paws off the persons and property of others , and the latter implies we be limited to voluntary interaction with one another , such as trade , gifts , etc . The next most radical aspect of this philosophy is limited government libertarianism , or minimal government , or , for 10 short , minarchism . Here , the state has but one proper role , to safeguard the persons and property of only its own citizens , and only when they are located in its own territory . To this end there are but 8 I am tempted to say , at the most “ right wing ” part of it , but based on the Nolan Chart analysis ( www . freedomkeys . com / nolancharts . h tm ), this would not be quite correct . 9 Examples include Rothbard ( 1998 ), Hoppe ( 2001 ), and David Friedman ( 1989 ). three legitimate institutions . First , there are armies . These are to keep foreigners from attacking us while located in the domestic country , not while traveling abroad . These are not to be used to be the policeman of the world , engaging in “ regime change ” for countries that violate their own citizens ’ rights . A department of defense is justified , but not a misnamed such department , which really serves as a department of offense . Secondly , there are police . This institution is to protect us from local miscreants : murderers , rapists , arsonists , kidnappers , pickpockets , fraudsters , etc . But not those engaged in victimless “ crimes ” such as drug using or dealing , sexual acts between consenting adults , gambling , etc . And third are courts . The purpose of the judiciary is to distinguish innocence from guilt in criminal matters . ( Civil issues would be privately adjudicated .) All property other than that needed to perform these three functions ( army barracks , planes , tanks and guns , police stations , jails , courthouses ) would be privately owned . The least radical category of libertarianism might be characterized as minarchism plus , or moderately limited government . 11 In this case the state would take on , in addition to the three institutions mentioned above , control of what is characterized by some ( public choice ) as “ pure public goods .” For example , mosquito control , swamp draining , prevention of communicable diseases , ownership of transportation arteries ( roads and highways , but not railroads ), bodies of water ( rivers , lakes , sewers ), fire protection ( since fires spread ), but not the post office ( the U . S . constitution authorizes , but 11 See Murray ( 1997 ), Boaz ( 1997 ), Epstein 10 The most famous instance is Nozick ( 1974 ). ( 1995 ), and Machan ( 1990 ). __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 11

__________________________________________________________________ does not require , that such amenities be under government control ). But that would be just about it . If any additional functions are added to this , 12 then we move out of the realm of libertarianism and into its first cousin , classical liberalism . 13 In this case , government takes on the additional roles , for example , of providing welfare for the poor , but only of a last ( not a first ) resort . However , there is no income redistribution from the very to the moderately rich ; there is only a safety net placed under the very , very poor , so that they do not die from starvation , from the elements , etc ., in case private charity does not first meet this need . Too , government is assigned the task of supplying a monetary medium , and taking on some limited 14 responsibility regarding health , education and welfare . 15 12 The text makes it sound as if there are clear and fast lines between categories of political economy , and number and type of functions of government . In actual point of fact , the demarcation between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism and between minarchism and looser libertarianism or minarchism plus is reasonably sharp . But there is something of a gray area between the latter and classical liberalism . 13 For instance , Hayek ( 1944 ); for a critique see Block ( 1996 ). 14 Very limited . 15 The place of immigration law is a very contentious issue amongst libertarians , so we abstract from such questions at present . For this debate , see pro open immigration : Block ( 1998 , 2004 ), Block and Callahan ( 2003 ), Gregory and Block ( 2007 ) Huerta de Soto ( 1998 ); anti open immigration : Brimelow ( 1995 ), Taylor ( 1998 ), Hoppe ( 1998 , 2001 ), III . Categorizing Friedman . With this overview , which hopefully will enable us to identify the players without a scorecard , we can now attempt to categorize Milton Friedman . Is he an anarcho-capitalist ? To ask this question is to answer it : he is not . 16 Can he be found amongst the minarchists ? No , he defends a far more intrusive government . The horse race here is between loose libertarianism or minarchism plus , on the one hand , and classical liberalism , on the other . Certainly , Friedman ’ s opposition to rent control , minimum wage , tariffs , the drug war , etc ., tend to drag him in the former direction . But there are several stands of which propel him the other way entirely . 1 . Money . Friedman ( 1960 , 1992b ; Friedman and Schwartz , 1963 ) is a monetary statist . That he favors “ rules not authorities ” cuts little ice in this regard . For him , the free enterprise system is simply incapable of providing this lifeblood of the economy , e . g ., the gold standard . He has been vociferous on this matter , railing against this market alternative , dismissing its advocates as “ gold bugs .” It cannot possibly be overstated how important money is for a free society . Again , it is the very lifeblood of the economy . Apart from the miniscule number of trades financed through barter , money is one half of every transaction undertaken . Lenin knew well that the surest way to undermine a society is to 17 debauch its currency . A large part of the 16 His son is ( David Friedman , 1989 ), but Milton Friedman deserves no such honorific . 17 Kinsella ( 2005 ). Keynes attributes this statement to Lenin : __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 12