Take responsibility for your theology in practice. Friedman is as stained by Pinochet as Marx was by Lenin. "Out out damn spot!"

Oh please. Milton Friedman gave Pinochet a very brief bit of advice on economics, not an endorsement of his tyranny. Helping Stalin control polio epidemics would not have been a pro-Stalin crime.

I oppose the embargo we have on Cuba, as well as the travel restrictions, but NOT because I love or approve of Fidel Castro.

I'll be interested to see how Kurtz responds to you (if he does).

I emailed Kurtz about the Politico ownership in light of his response in that chat and this is what he replied:

That's an important point, and good for you for getting on it. I took the question to be about the Politico's journalists.

He took the question to be "about the Politico's journalists" even though the questioner started off expressly talking about funding and asked about who owns and runs the Politico. That's believable.

Then when I replied to say that he should explore the interesting issues raised by the right-wing ownership of The Politico, this is what he said:

Of course, big corporations that own media outlets have their own interests, so a key question is whether a newsroom

is truly independent.

I'm sure we'll be seeing that big Politico expose from him any day now - like right around never.

The question is, What kind of advice did the adviser give? Friedman advised the Chileans to liberalize their economy, allow free exchange of currency, &c. Good advice. It would be good advice if he had given it to Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits. It's not like Friedman advised Pinochet to torture people and loot the treasury. (That seems to come naturally to generalissimos.)

Well, Pinochet didn't loot the treasury - it appears he only stole a few tens of million, pocket change compared to the thievery that occurs in our own government.

But I disagree that you can only evaluate ideas "on their own merits". The fact is that Friedman thought that his advise could be successful in Chile - which as a matter of fact they weren't. But he actually did believe, by his willingness to work in Pinochet's Chile, that his vision of free-markets could work in the absence of political freedom. Obviously, some bits can. But in general, I have to wonder what kind of free-market works under the most abject forms of deformation by political hegemony. Is that a free-market at all, but simply lipstick on the pig?

1. Timberman: Circle of hell? That's uncharacteristically uncharitable from you. Do you really think that?

2. Mona: All sorts of rights can be held collectively. Corporations collectively own property. Plaintiffs hold collective rights in class-action lawsuits. Fishery cooperatives hold collective harvest rights. Union members hold collective bargaining rights. Ranchers in open-range settings hold collective grazing rights. There are all sorts of meaningful rights that are not held on an individual basis, and this does not present a problem for capitalism/libertarianism.

L.W.M:

Did you catch this, Paul?

Collapse of center makes for a different political animal

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller02may02,0,7506945.column

No, I didn't see it, so thanks.

But I've got Whistling Past Dixie on the top of a stack of books right next to me. His brilliant insight: ride the horse in the direction it's going. But he has the patience, persistence and diligence to work it out in detail.

including the interview, and I absolutely agree with Glenn. Avarosis was (understandably) flattering the host by calling him fair. It was neither phrased as a question nor was the inflection in his voice anything but a statement. By the way, I was so outraged by Kurtz' defense of Hume I considered boycotting the show from now on. That takes a lot.

There is never a perfect implementation of theory. A theory which is highly amenable to being used as a basis for tyranny is suspect.

There is of course value in Marxist analysis, just as there is in Libertarian analysis. But, if as analytical tools, they have a tendency to be turned into dogma, some of the blame lays with the originals. If that dogma tends toward tyranny, once again one must doubt the theory upon which it is built.

So, yes, I blame "Jesus" for the Inquisition. I also blame "Jesus" for Quakerism - both lie in Biblical principles. If you want credit for your successes, you've got to take blame for your failures.

Not insanity. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite.

...recall, the Chicago boys ran out of Chile with their tales between their legs -- jojo++

Another inspired typo. Friedman was a happy guy, cause he only saw the grand design. In his estimation, pissing on the collateral damage was the only true way to water the tree of liberty.

He belongs in the same circle of hell as Reagan, as far as I'm concerned.

"Take responsibility for your theology in practice. Friedman is as stained by Pinochet as Marx was by Lenin."

Not to argue for Liberatarians, but that is silly. The commonly perceived stain worn by Marx in relation to Lenin is a fallacy for the shallow. Marxism/communism has never existed and its historical implementations have been in absolute opposition to the theory. Marx is only stained because people are ignorant.

This is true for any such relative staining...like blaming Jesus for Christianity...only true if you know very little about both.

When I think of the implications of your particular "call to responsibility", it makes me cringe. Think of the unintended effect if your call was actually attended to. So we should format the world, even more dramatically, to pre-screen for the shallow understanding and poor implementation of theory?

Insane.

Hey, Paul:

Friedman wrote a pretty good book dealing in part with the causes of the Great Depression, "Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960." It's worth a read.

Dear JoJo:

The question is, What kind of advice did the adviser give? Friedman advised the Chileans to liberalize their economy, allow free exchange of currency, &c. Good advice. It would be good advice if he had given it to Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits. It's not like Friedman advised Pinochet to torture people and loot the treasury. (That seems to come naturally to generalissimos.)