friedman, fragility of freedom.pdf

8/14/2019 friedman, fragility of freedom.pdf

1/14


2/14

society it was asocietythat was free for thecitizensofathens butnotfor the slaves who also inhabited the city there was a briefspurt offreedomduring the renaissance inthe middlemiddieM iddleiddieages the most extendedperiodoffreedomfreedomhasbeentheperiodinthe eighteenthand nineteenth

andearlytwentiethcenturies in western europe and thetheunitedstatesunited statesyet look at how fragile that freedom has been the countries in theworld that have been able to maintain during that period somethingroughly approaching a free society are few in number they consistalmostentirely oftheenglish speakingcountriesand thescandinavianScandinavianthecountries

thisfragilityofffreedomreedomwas broughthometome dramaticallylastapril when I1 spent a week in the small country ofchile in south

america I1

was in chilefor a weekaspartofagroupagroutagroupthatwasthatwasexaminingandconsidering theeconomic problemswhich chilewas thenfacingproblems which you and I1 have in ourfuture 1 I hope in a very distantfuture problems which were epitomized by the fact that they hadmanaged afaftertergreat effortto bringtherateof inflation down from900percent ayearto400percent a year but I1 don t wantto talkaboutaboutchilechile seconomic problems I1 want to talk about theproblems offreedom

chile ofcourse is averydifdlfdifferentferentcountrythantheUunitedstatesand averymuch poorercountrythanthe unitedstates yetthe historyof chile is highly relevant to our present situation and our futureproblems of all the south american countries chile had about thelongest history of a reasonabledegreeofdemocraticgovernment and areasonably free society that history dates back to the nineteenthcentury

the origin of the present problems in chile which has lostfreedom andwhich today isgovernedby an authoritarian regime inmyopinion goesbacksomeffiftyifty orsixty years chile wasnot only oneofoneffone ofthe

countriesin south america thathadthe longesthistoryoffreedom andpolitical democracy butit was alsooneofthe earliestearliestcountriescountriesinsouthinsoothamerica to institute a welfare state andwelfare state measures I1 wassurprised tofindin readingaboutchileaboutchilethatthatlikegreatbritaintheclasslikeilke great britain the classof measures that we today associate with welfare statism thenewdeal and the fairfairdealgotdealdeai gottheir startininchileaboutchile about 19061907or19061907or1908at about the same time that these processes started ingreatbritain

the present state ofchile in my opinion is theendresult ofan

expansion in the role ofgovernment over the lives ofpeople theimportant thingaboutthat developmentanddevelopmentand the mainlesson I1 arngoingarnam goingto trytty to elaborate on in this talk isthat themeasures that led to thatresultweredone bygoodpeopleforgood objectives themeasuresthat

562


3/14

led tochile sproblemswere notbadmeasures thatweretaken bybadpeople with the aim ofgrinding the poor under their heels on thecontrary theproblemsofthe problems ofchilederivedchile derived from theattempttousethe attempttouseth eStateand the political mechanism to achieve good objectives thatdevelopmentled toanto an increasingincreasincreaseing expansionin theroleoftherothe roleroieleofofththe stateeStateinthesociety it ledtoan increasing accumulation oflegislation inwhichthegovernment controlled what people could do the obvious numericalcounterpartofthiswasthis wasanincreasein government spending until by thetime mr allende came to power in chile government spending hadreached something like 40percent of the national income

sincechile was apoor country itwasdifficult toimposeexplicittaxes to generate revenues of 40 percent of national income As a

result taxeswereimposed indirectly inthe formof inflation there isagreat misconception about what happened mr allende whoproducedthegreatconfrontation and was clearlyseeking toturnchileinto acommunistdictatorship wasonlycarryingoutthelaws thathadalready beenenacted byhis predecessors heintroduced verylittlethatwas different he justcontinued inthesamedirection that policy hadbeen proceeding ever more rapidly during the past thirty or fortyyears however the end result was the tippingpoint at which thewillingness of the public to put up with increasing involvement in

theirown liveswas exceeded there was first theallenderegimewithits threat of a left wing dictatorship and then a counterrevolutionwith the military taking over and a military junta being establishedwhich also is very far indeed from a free society it too is anauthoritarian society which denies the liberties and freedoms of thepeople in the sense in which you and I1 conceive of them

lest you think that this tale of the history of chile need notconcernus letme askyou to consideracasemuchcloser cast youreyes

across theatlantic to the homeofmostofthe ideas offreedom thatwecherish to the united kingdom the united kingdom is a muchrichercountry than chile it has a far stronger tradition ofa belief infreedom and in democratic rights yet theunited kingdom isgoingdown the same path aschile and I1 fear isheadedfor the sameend it isalmost impossible for any oneof us who was brought up in thegreattraditions emanating from great britain the great tradition offreedom andofdemocratic rights starting with themagna carta andcomingdown throughthe whole list of famous englishmen whohavewritten and taught us about freeinstitutions it is almost impossibleforanyone brought upin that tradition toutter the words thatbritainis indangeroflosingfreedom and democracy andyetit is a fact I1 was

563


4/14

inbritain a little over a year ago it was precisely because I1 had spentsome time in britain and had seen what was happening there that I1

was so much reminded inchile this spring that I1 was seeing thesamescene over again it was like a continuous movieandthis was where I1

came in or maybe I1 should say this was where I1 went out what hasbeen happening in great britain

about the sametimeaschile greatbritain startedon the welfarestate line in 1913 a great english constitutional lawyer A V diceyrevised and published a series of lectures he hadgiven in thiscountryunder the title relation betweenbet ween law and public opinion in thenineteenth century in its preface referring to the measures thatbritain had already taken by 1913 particularly in the area of old age

benefitsandofthe treatmentofpeople ininstitutions hesaid this isa road on which no reasonable man can refuse to enter but onceentered nobody can tell where it is going to lead that was anextraordinarily prescient prediction of what was in store for great

britainbecausethe roleofthe governmenthas from thatpointto thisexpanded until today again by that simple numerical measure that I1

used total government spending in great britain central and localamounts to 60 percent of the national income and yet there isenormous pressure for still more government spending nobody is

satisfied everybody is dissatisfied society is being polarized it ishardto see how britain can avoid the fate that chile experienced lest I1seem alarmist I1 can quote 1I was amazed to hear it I1 must confessfrom one ofour modern oracles ericsevareid who in oneofhis littlepieces ofwisdomoverthe networkafter avisittobritain madeexactlythis analogy and said britain is on the verge of the allende periodofchile and so it is I1 fearvery much thatwithinthe next five years theodds areat least 505050 50 that british freedom anddemocracy as wehave

seen it will be destroyedbut again I11 need not go that far away let me come closer to

home consider at the moment new york city new york citydisplays precisely the same trends as chile and theunited kingdomnewyorkcity has thedubious distinction ofhavingthemostwelfarestate oriented electorate in the country new york city has beenfollowing thesamepolicyofever growinggovernmental involvementin the affairs of its citizens and the result has been exactly the same

wherever this

path has been followed whether in

chile or in

theunited kingdom or innewyork ithastwoconsequences thefirst isfinancial crisis certainly that characterized the situation in chilecertainly that characterizes the situation in the united kingdom

564


5/14

where the rate of inflation has reached something over 25 percentwhere the government budget is enormously indeficit wherebritainis able to survive primarily by borrowing from overseas similarly innew york the first effect financial crisis is obvious

the second effect is less obvious this path leads not only tofinancialcrisis but also to a lossoflibertyandfreedom andnewyorkcity has lost its liberty andfreedom newyorkcity isnolongerbeinggoverned by thecitizens ofnewyorkcityor bypeople elected by thecitizens ofnewyorkcity it is now being governed by acommittee ofoverseers appointed by thestate ofnew yorkwith power tooverrulethe elected officials of the city of new york this loss of selfgovernment and freedom has been concealed by the shift ofpower

from one democratic institution the city ofnew york to anotherdemocratic institution thestate ofnew york buttheprinciple isthesame financial crisis leads to a loss ofselfgovernment there is onlyoneimportant difference betweennewyorkcityon the onehandandchile or theunitedkingdom on theother and that is thatnewyorkcity does not have oneofthoseprinting presses onwhich youcan turn

out green pieces ofpaper that people call money it cannot issue itsown money chile and britain could issue their own money and

therefore the financial crisis took the form of inflation whereas innew york it degenerated more promptly to bankruptcy

let me come still closer to home consider the united states ingeneral and brigham young university in particular the unitedstates has been followingthe same path again touse asimple indexwhich I1 have been using for the period from the founding of this

country to 1929 leaving aside periods ofmajor wars such as thecivilwar and the firstworldwar and the revolution total government

spending in theunitedstates federal stateand local never exceeded10 percent of the income of the people state and local expendituremore immediately subject to the control of the citizenry was twice as

large during that period as federal government expenditures totalfederal governmentexpenditure in 1929 was 3 percentofthenational

income inthe forty five yearssince total governmental expenditureshave risen to 40percent of the national income in theunited statesand federal government spending is twice as much as state and local

spending federal spending today is something like 25percent

ofthenational income or roughly 10 times as large as it was in 1929 wehave been moving in thesamedirection aschile and britain andnewyork and we have been experiencing signs of financial crisis the

565


6/14

emergence of inflation at ahigher andhigherrate wehave alsobeenexperiencing the second effect the loss of freedom

people always talk as if the problem is in the future as if theproblem is that individual freedom is threatened by theencroaching

control of our lives by the state it is

not merely the future it is thepresent freedom has been greatly reduced inmanydimensions afterall thespendingof40percent ofour income forusby government isarestriction on our freedom we have nothing to say about that 40percent except throughthepoliticalprocesswhich iswhat I1 am going

tocome to in a moment but put aside thequestion of income gotothose more fundamental freedoms of speech of belief ofpersonalbehavior they too have been severely restricted consider for amomentthe simplequestionoffreedom ofspeech letmeaskyouhowoften youread in thepapers anystatement onpublic issues by amajorbusinessman or industrialist except where itimmediatelyconcernshisown enterprise

A little over a year ago president ford constructed aprogramhastily buried shortly thereafter called the WIN program forwhipinflation now now it wasaprogram thathad somegoodthings andsomebadthings but taken asawholeitwas apretty sillyprogram you

will search every newspaper in this country without finding a single

major businessmanwho madea publicstatement against that programwhy was it becausetheyagreedwith it it isinconceivable at least itis inconceivable that theyunanimouslyagreedwith it surely therewassome businessman who didndian t

however if you were a businessman at the head of a greatcorporation you would think three times before you spoke out on amajor public issue youwouldlookoveryour left shoulder and seetheIRSgetting ready to come and audityouraccounts andyou wouldlookover your right shoulder and see the

departmentofjustice standing

only too readytolaunch anantitrust suitagainst you and then ifyouhadmore shoulders than two youwould askwhat is theFTC going todo about my advertising and what is the FDA going todo about theproducts I1 produce and what is thesafetycouncil going to do aboutthis that and the other thing you are not free to speak ifyou are inthatchat position

let meget closer to home let meget to my own area and yourarea the academy Is the scholar free to speak I1 askmyselfwhether

the professors who teach medicine at any medical school in thiscountry most of whose research is being financed by the nationalinstitutes ofhealth whether they really feel freetospeakoutagainst

566366


7/14

socialized medicine and against further involvement of the govern-ment in medicine some of them obviously will but is there theslightest doubt touse those famous wordsofthe supremecourt thattheir dependenceforthemajorsourceoftheirfinancingfinancingononthethefederalfederal

government has a chilling effect on the freedom ofspeech abouttheonlypeople who nowhavefullfreedomofspeech arepeople inthefortunate position that I1 am in a tenured professor at a majorinstitution on the verge of retirement

letlee me come down to brigham young university thebureaucratic lash which has extended from washington has evenreached herewith a proposal to impose on brigham young variousvariousrequirements ofhealth education and welfare requirements that

in my opinion would interfere severely and seriously with yourperformance of your selected mission every academic institution inthe united states is threatened inexactly thesame way ifit were notso serious it would be humorous because there is no group in thiscountry that has done more to bring this upon themselves than theacademiccommunity we have been intheforefront inpersuadingthepublic at large that the doctrine of individual responsibility is a falsedoctrine that the source of all good things is big brother inwashington we only complain when it comes home and hits us

let mego from adescription ofthe situation toananalysis whywhat is the explanation of the tendency for the attempt to use thepolitical market to achieve noble objectives togoawryand destroy our

freedom why does it happen inthesimplest form thefundamentalfallacy of the welfare state which leads to both financial crisis and thedestruction offreedom is the attempt to dogood at somebodyelse s

expense that s the fundamental fallacy first nobody spendssomebody else s money as carefully as hespends his own that s whytrying to dogood at someone else s expense leads to financial crisis

second if you are going to dogood at somebody else s expenseyou have to take the money away from them so force coerciondestruction offreedom is at the very bottom at theverysource ofthe

attempts todo goodatsomebody else s expense about seven oreightyears ago in an article published in the new yorktimes magazinesection john kenneth galbraith said that there was no problem innew york city which would not be solved if the city government sbudgetwere doubled inthe interim the citygovernment s budget hasbeen quadrupled and so have the problems and the reason isstraightforward while the city government had more to spend the

567


8/14

citizens had less to spend because the government can only get themoney by taking itit away from somebody else

more fundamentally toget beneaththissimpledescription whatis at bottom ofour problem isis the failure torecognize the distinction

between thepolitical marketontheonehand andthe economic marketon the other thisdistinction which I1 would liketodevelop isone thatcan be expressed in various terms you will pardon me if myprofessional background leads me to put it in economic terms thepolitical system is a marketplace the economic system is amarketplace these aretwodifferentkinds ofmarketmarkermechanisms andthey have very different consequences though itmay seem aparadoxthe economiceconomic market is a freer more democratic market than the

political marketplacelet meat theoutset put toone side afalsedistinction betweenthetwo markets we tend to be misled by words because we speakof aperson in the economiceconomic market as having a private enterprise wethink of him as serving his private interest because we speak of agovernment bureaucrat as being a public servant we speakofhim asserving the public interest but that is an utterly false distinctionalmost every individual serves his own privateinterest thatinterestneed not be pecuniary itit need not be monetary or physical or

material thegreatsaints ofhistory have served theirprivateinterestjust as the most moneygrubbingmoney grubbingmisermiser hasservedhis privateinterestthe private interestinterest is whatever it is that drives an individual Agovernment bureaucrat is seeking to serve his privateinterest just asmuch as you or I1 or the ordinary businessman is serving his privateinterestinterest to make this point in themost extreme form ifyoucomparethe manager of a russian factory who is a public servant and themanager of an american factory who is supposedly a private

employee they both are serving their self interests the onlydifference isis that the actions that will serve their self interest aredifferent the american managerhas rotoworryaboutgetting fired thesoviet manager has to worry about getting firedat and that makes abig difference in what s in their self interest

in exactly the same way the bureaucrats atHEW in washingtonwho are trying to extend their control and impose regulations onbrigham young on chicago onhillsdale onallthe othercolleges are

serving their private interest they may believe thoroughly in whatthey are doing but theyare nonetheless serving theirprivateinterestinin seeking to extend the scope oftheir power their importance andtheir influence it is a myth that there is a difference between the

568368


9/14

motives of the people who are employed in government and thepeople who are employed in theprivate sector that is equally trueofthosewho arecompeting for votes the legislators arecompetingonewith another they are competing for votesvotes and it is in their private

interest to do those things which will get them enough votes to getelected

A second myth about thepolitical market isthatasopposedto the

economiceconomicmarket inwhich individuals votewith dollars inthepoliticalmarket there is oneperson onevote that istrueon a formal level butit is obviously false on a realistic level it is a system in which there ishighly weighted voting in which some people have an enormouslygreater influence on thepolitical outcome thanothers this isobviousin all

sorts of

ways you

need only look

at the kindof

thing that we

have been talking about take the most dramatic example at themoment we have agreat dispute in thiscountry about forced busingwhatever may be saidforor against it there is nottheslightestdoubtthat 809080 90 percent of both whites and blacks in this country areopposed toforced busing yet we have it andwe aregoing tocontinueto have itit how can you explain that on the basis ofone person onevote

there isis a highly weighted voting system and an analysis of thepolitical marketmarker must investigate why there is such aweighted votingsystem Is theproblem with the political market that youhave wickedpeople no thepeoplewhooperate in thepolitical market arejustaswicked or just as noble as the people who operate inin the economicmarket they are the same people the difference is thestructure ofthe market the difference is that the political market is a systemunder which all decisions have to be yes or no

the fundamental difference between thepoliticalmarket and the

economic market is that in the political market there is very littlerelation betweenwhat you voteforand what youget in theeconomicmarket you get what you vote for let me give you a very trivialexample of the kind of thing that I1 have in mind let s suppose thequestion at issueissue isis whether neckties should be redorgreen ifthat is

going to be decided by a political mechanism everybody votes if51

percent of the people vote that tiesties shall be red 100 percent of thepeopleget red neckties in theeconomiceconomic market each oneofusgoesusgoestothe store separately if 51 percent ofthepeople votethat ties shallbered 51 percent get red neckties and 49 percent get green neckties

everybody gets what he votes for now this isis a fundamentaldifference between the two markets

569


10/14

there are some things for which the vote has to be yes or nothose are the things which are the appropriate function and role ofgovernment there is noway in which 51 percent of thepeople intheunited states can be at war invietnam and49percent ofthe peoplecan be not inwar that is precisely the kind ofadecision thathas tobedecided through a mechanism which permits a yesnobesno vote theproblem isthat wehaveextendedthepolitical marketbeyond thingsofthatkindand tothe kind ofthingswhere it is possible foreachpersonto get what he votes for where we do not have to have a yes or nodecision ifyou have a yes or nodecision then there isalmost always avery loose or no relation between your vote and the result As aconsequence you do not in general have any incentive to examine the

issue you vote on thoroughly ie tovote intelligently in thepoliticalmarket this phenomenon leads to weightedvoting in favorofspecialinterests and opposed to the general interest if I1 have some piece oflegislation that is going to benefit a small group a great deal themembers of that small group have a real incentive to learn about theissue to bring pressure on their legislators to lobby for it inwashington the restofus here isissomething which isgoing tomeanmillions ofdollarsseparately to each ofa small number ofpeople but

toyou andme it means fiftyfiftycents extra onour tax bill what incentivedo we have to find out about it or to spend any time votingintelligently or to bring pressure on our legislators

let megive you a fewvery simpleexamples about threeor fouryears ago president nixon tried to eliminate a program under whichthe federal government had for many years been subsidizingpeoplewhotasted tea this is literally true this is aprogram under which thegovernmentgraded tea for the benefit ofimporters and youand I1 paidtaxes to hire people totastethe teaanddecidewhatgrade itshouldget

it is very hard toseeanygeneral public interestinterest inthat after all theteaindustry can provide those people mr nixon made the simpleobvious proposal that we should eliminate it we still have thatprogram because thepeople in the teaindustrygotup inarms about itthey didndian t want to have that little thing taken away from them Isthere anybody in this audience who would take his vote away from arepresentative because that representative voted to keep the teatasting arrangement

let me give you a more important case we have a post office

which I1 would hardly suppose isis distinguished for its efficiency formany years I1 have been trying to propagandize for eliminating themonopoly privileges of the post office for opening it up to

570


11/14

competition about a dozen years ago I1 talkedto a goodfriendofminewho was then incongress to urge him tointroduce aonesentencebilleliminatingthemonopolyprivilegesofthepost office he said tomeyou know I1 agree with you completely but can you name me an

organizedgroupthat willcome and testify in favor ofthat bill I1 knowaboutthe organizedgroups thatwillbe there totestify againstit therewill be thepostal employees union there will be the organization ofnewspapers andofmagazineswhowilltestify againstthatbill and hewentdown the I1listist allofthoseorganizedgroupswouldtestifyagainstit thepeoplewho are benefited donteven know that they would bebenefited if you eliminated the monopoly on the post office therewould develop a viable active private industry carryingmail some of

youpeoplein the audience might at sometimebeemployed insuchanindustry but doyou know it are yougoing togodowntowashingtonto campaign in favor of that bill not a chance of it so he said1

there isnot achance intheworldofgettingthat billthrough it sjustawaste of my energy and time to move in that direction

wemustnt suppose that this favoring ofspecial interests onlyapplies to others brigham young university may bean exception inthat it relies to a very limitedextentupon governmental subsidies but

most institutions ofhigher education in this country are very muchsubsidized by thegovernmentsome ofyou may remember that years ago aformerpresident of

general motors testified before congress and was so injudicious as tomake thestatement what s good forgeneral motors isgoodforthecountry my colleagues at the university hooted and scorned him for

such a self servingstatement but then thenextday they were takingairplanes towashington totestifybeforecongressthatwhatwas goodfor higher education was good for the

country and notone ofthem

saw the irony and the inconsistency

each ofus separately willtry touse this government mechanismto get special benefits for ourselves again going back to thatepisodelast september before the WIN program was instituted president

ford had a summitmeeting atwhich people fromaround thecountrycame together on thesubject ofinflation I1 heardonerepresentativeofspecial interests after another get on theplatform andsay what thiscountry needs to stop inflation is to cut down government spendingand the way to cut down government spending is to spend more on

me that was a universal refrain from the farmers the trade unionsthe business representatives the representatives of theuniversities

571


12/14

that isis the fundamental defect ofthepoliticalmechanism itit isis asystem of highly weighted voting under which the special interestshave great incentive to promotetheir own interests at theexpense ofthe general public the benefits are concentrated the costs are

diffused and thereforeyou have a bias inin themarketplace which leadstoevergreaterexpansion ininthe scopeofgovernmentandultimately tocontrol overthe individual the way togetelectedto congressor to thepresidency is not really to appeal to thegeneral interest A majoritydecides but itit isis a special kind ofmajority the way toget elected is byputtingtogether a coalition ofspecial interestsinterests you goto agroupthathas 35 percent ofthe voteand say I1 will vote for what you wantwane ifyoudon t care what else I1 do and they say oh I1 don tcarewhat elseyoudo you go to another 5 percent and in this way you assemble 51percent

the characteristics of the economiceconomic market are very differentthefundamentalpoint is theone I1 mentionedbefore in the economiceconomicmarket the market in which individuals buy and sell from oneanother each persongetswhat hepays for there isadollar fordollarrelationship therefore you have an incentiveincentive proportionate to thecost to examineexaminewhat you aregetting ifyouarepayingoutofyourownpocket for something and not outofsomebody else spocket then you

have a very strong incentiveincentive to see whether you are getting yourmoney s worth in addition nobody can get money from you inin theeconomiceconomic market unless you agree there is nobody who can put hishand in your pocket without your permission in thepolitical marketthat isis the standard way offinancingeverything As aconsequence youhave in the economic market true individual freedom and a trueindividual incentive to get what you vote for and more importantlythe incentive to find out whether what you are getting isis what you

voted for and is proportional to the cost to youthe fundamental problem ofa majorsociety ofasocietylikeoursisis that millions and millions of people must cooperate with oneanother for their daily bread fundamentally thereareonly two waysinin which large groups ofpeople can be induced to cooperate withoneanother one way is the method of the army through force andcoercioncoercionanddirectorder the general tells thecolonel thecolonel tellsthe major who tells thelieutenant and soondown totheprivate theother way is through voluntary cooperation among people each ofwhom isis separately pursuing his owninterestinterest in fact thefirst methodcannot work the world issimply toocomplicated thereare too manyfacts of special time and place for itit to be possible to run any

572


13/14

complicated system on the basis of direct order so that in fact all

systems of cooperation among large groups of people involve a

mixture of these two but it makes an enormous differencewhat themixture is you know it is like the joke about hasenpfeffer halfhorse half rabbit onehorse onerabbit

thecharacter ofour society

is fundamentally determined by whether the horse is the politicalmarket and the rabbit the economic market or theother way aroundparadoxically therefore the situation is thatchat the economic market is a

more effective means for achieving political democracy than is apolitical market

let me add one more word on that when you think of theeconomic market and the political market youtend to think in narrow

terms youtendtothinkoftheeconomiceconomicthe marketasconcernedwiththemundane material things such as producing bread or cheese orautomobiles or houses but theprinciples I1 havedescribed apply muchmore broadly the private market the economic market is also themost effective means fordoinggood ifyougo backtotheperiod in theunitedstates when we hadthemostunrestrictedoperation ofthe freeprivate market the nineteenth century it was also the period ofthe

greatest burst ofeleemosynaryand charitable activity in thehistory ofour country brigham young university my own university of

chicago many of the other colleges and universities of this countrywere established during the period of the nineteenth century theywere established by the private market arrangement namely by

voluntary cooperation among people spending their ownmoney forsomething they themselves believed in to establish auniversity or acollege the great system of public libraries the carnegie librarieswas established during that period that was a period that saw thebirth of theprivate eleemosynary hospital ofthe foreign missions ofthe society for the prevention of cruelty to animals you name thecharitable activityand you willfindthatinalmost everycase itsoriginsgo back to that time so the private market what I1 described as theeconomic market ofvoluntary cooperation is inmyopinion themostefficient and effective way ofdoing good as well as themosteffective

way oforganizing economiceconomic activity

the U S is comingto acrossroads we cannotcontinuealong theroad we have been going in going from 10 percent of the nationalincome being spent by government to 40 percent it was possible to

maintain a large element of freedom and individual liberty because itwas possible togivelargebenefitstosmallgroups atsmallcostsspreadover many people but one thing you can be sure of in the next forty

573


14/14

years wecannot go from 40percent to 160percent so we are comingtothe crossroads weare coming totheproblemthatfaceschilewhichas a poor country tipped over at 40 percent britain is wealthier butappears on the verge oftippingover at 60percent we still havesome

ruin lefleftt in us butprettysoonwearegoing tobeforcedto faceup to theissue where wego fromheredepends on you on thegeneration thatis going coto determine our future on this generation on whether intime to come you recognize that this is a false road which leads totyrannyandmisery and not to freedom let mepropose toyouthat asyou contemplate that future you take as your major motto what I1

wouldlike cotosee asaneleventhcommandment that everyoneshallbefree coto dogood at his own expense thankyou

574

friedman, fragility of freedom.pdf

Documents

Transcript of friedman, fragility of freedom.pdf