Commentary

A Libertarian utopia

POSTED AT 10:19 PM ON Oct. 8, 2008 | PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (9)

The recent campus debates over both the decision to invite Sen. John Edwards to speak and the appointment of Gen. Peter Pace to a prestigious teaching position have once again exposed the dual role that universities must play. In addition to fostering different viewpoints, educational institutions act as gatekeepers of knowledge, in that they have the power to legitimize certain ideologies.

As we grapple with the failure of laissez-faire economics and deregulation, it seems unfair to celebrate the architect of these disastrous policies. In May 2008, the University of Chicago announced the intention to invest about $200 million in the creation of the Milton Friedman Institute.

According to university’s administrators, the center would “honor the contributions” of Milton Friedman to the field of economics. Not surprisingly, a sizeable group of University of Chicago faculty members and students are upset with the institution’s endorsement of Friedman and his discredited ideas. One-hundred-one tenured professors, representing 8 percent of the teaching staff, delivered a petition to President Robert Zimmer outlining their concerns over the proposed project.

Predictably, the legitimate concerns of these faculty members have been reduced to arguments over professional jealousy. Even worse, the center’s detractors are accused of stifling free speech, a claim that is laughable in its audacity.

To be clear, the Milton Friedman Institute doesn’t intend to foster differing ideologies or question the fallacies of Friedman’s theories.

According to the Center’s mission statement, “the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences.”

Thus, the center purports to promote Friedman’s radical views about free-market principles without the opportunity for dissent. This is especially significant considering the injustices promoted by a libertarian economic agenda.

Sadly, universities are increasingly stifling dissent about Friedman’s radical ideas.

Indeed, the prevalence of Friedman’s writings on college campuses and his blind worship among some professors indicate the reach and accessibility of his writings. It is important to note that Friedman wasn’t just an economist who expounded on statistical concepts or economic abstractions. His world view paved the way for a great deal of economic failure and hardship in South America.

Of particular note is his relationship with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who forcibly instituted free-market principles in the country. These ideas were replicated in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, largely with disastrous consequences. Friedman’s economic policies also prompted many developing countries to prematurely open up their credit markets, thereby exposing them to financial crises.

The disasters of the last eight years have delivered a stunning indictment of the Friedman ideology and libertarianism in general. Specifically, events like the recent market failure have demonstrated the need for more government, not less. In dedicating a center of learning to Friedman, the University of Chicago is seeking to reward an ideology that espouses greed, self-interest and anti-intellectualism.

PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (9)





Name: *
Email: *
E-mail address will not be published.
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text
  *
 
 
All Comments  (9)

Posted by De Brockman again! at 2:1 AM on Oct 29, 2008 | Report this comment

seriously? is it required for republican and right wing arguments to be based upon fear words like Communist and socialist! and maybe it's just me, but I kind of hear inside of Indira, you're a very smart person, Hey, for a person with a brown sounding name, you're intelligent, but we americans know that socialism is the devils work, and the CRA is to blame for everything, not deregulation, not facts, simply the poor. Those goddamn poor! Ruining everything! who are they to want to have a quality of life like they see on tv in commercials shows and movies as well? those socialist lazy wetback bastards! Get a Job! (so what if my dad got me this job, he worked to get there! and being against the capital gains tax is not hypocritical for a group that stresses building yourself up and not relying on others...)

Posted by debrockman at 9:36 PM on Oct 28, 2008 | Report this comment

Indira, It is apparent that you are a very smart person, but you are wearing communist blinders that are leading you to have large gaps in critical thinking. You might want to check out a DVD series called Commanding Heights on some rainy afternoon. Might give you a perspective about the history of free markets and socialist economies you seem unaware of. FYI, Bush was neither a libertarian or a conservative. Bush was a big spending social conservative. Friedman would never have supported either the bailout or the expansion of the federal government into a new prescription drug entitlement.

Posted by Ashley at 1:13 PM on Oct 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Really glad someone got this out into the open. Now that we've identified the problem, we can finally get all the Libertarian politicians out of office and turn this around. We can start with... uh... well... uh... No, give me a second. It doesn't seem possible that there isn't one of these despicable characters behind a single one of the government's decisions of the last... oh, 8-150 years. Well, Indira Dammu will surely identify the Libertarian Congressmen, Presidents, and Judges who got us here in her next article. Can't wait! Got my rope all ready out by the oak.

Posted by Capitalism and Freedom at 4:24 PM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

I think the most interesting comment of this article is the start of the last paragraph, when Ms. Dammu states that "The disasters of the last eight years have delivered a stunning indictment of the Friedman ideology and libertarianism in general." Apparently she is under the false assumption that President Bush and the current Republican party is full of libertarians. This is obviously not true as the Libertarian Party and the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute have been sharply critical of the president and his administration. She also talks about this being a failure of "laissez-faire economics," as if the United States truly has a laissez-faire economy (this can most obviously be seen in the current problem largely caused by Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Reserve, who created the housing bubble in the first place). Finally, it is indeed true that Pinochet violated human rights. However, so did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, and countless others, none of whom had free-market societies, so it is laughable to tie the free-market policies of Pinochet to his human rights record. P.S. Chile has the highest quality of life and lowest poverty rates in South America now. What a failure...

Posted by R. Swanson at 2:33 PM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

To characterize the present mess of in-practice coerced nationalization resulting from a war opposed by Libertarians worldwide, plus the growing use of a right-wing mixed economy whose collapse they opposed and predicted, as being a Libertarian Utopia is morally tantamount to Hitler blaming the Jews for WWII. To characterize Friedman's successful work in diminishing the effects of Pinochet and moving Chile back to democracy as co-operation is Orwellian. Libertarianism is a well defined approach of replacing coercive programs with voluntary ones by persons committed to uphold human rights. It includes intentional free-markets, but also voluntary forms of socialism. Please critique Libertarianism for what it is, not for what it opposes. R. Swanson Chair Advisory Board Libertarian International Organization

Posted by Capitalist at 12:31 PM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

Nevermind the fact that Friedman DID win a Nobel Prize in Economics. Nevermind the fact that the Economics department at University of Chicago is one of the most highly regarded in the nation. Nevermind that every year scores of students choose to attend UC simply because of the so-called Chicago School of Economics. Just as long as we continue to blame free-market capitalists for all of the world's problems.

Posted by Indira Dammu at 11:57 AM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

I'm seriously tired of the people bashing the CRA and attempting to rewrite history. In fact, the CRA actually deterred predatory lending in communities- http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf As for Pinochet, I would posit that there is a connection between his institution of Friedman's free-market policies and the country's awful human right record. The free market cannot thrive without an order that devalues and debases people. If we want to understand the full extent of Friedman's views, look no further than Iraq. He supported the invasion, viewing it as a means to create free-market institutions. I wonder how that turned out...

Posted by AntiNeoFascist at 10:29 AM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

Thank you. Your comments about Chile and the failure of Friedman's views caused me to look into it. After looking at the history of the Pinochet and his free-market pushes in Chile, I found that he got rid of minimum wage, removed govt subsidies to artificially lower food costs, reprivatized many industries, personalized the pension system, lowered income taxes, etc. Unemployment got below 5%, GDP was consistently between 6-8%, income rose faster than inflation, those below poverty line shrank to below 15%. While not everything is perfect and there is still a significant income distribution gap, I would say that the free market reforms there have been a phenomenal success overall (and it's only been less than 30 years).

Posted by AntiNeoFascist at 10:14 AM on Oct 09, 2008 | Report this comment

To blame the current economic mess on free markets is ... to be extremely kind, uninformed or disingenuous; to be more honest, a lie. The 'Community Reinvestment Act' is the fuse which began this a long time ago. When the free market was saying that some people couldn't afford mortgages, it was the GOVT who stepped in and said, 'Give it to them anyway.' When that wasn't happening enough, the Govt stepped in and said, "Give it to even more people even if they can't afford them." Then it created the Govt Sponsored Enterprises Freddie/Fannie to push that concept. Then corruption and record falsification spread those bad mortgages throughout the industry. It was not free markets but Govt intervention in the free markets which caused this mess. To point the finger at free markets is to wantonly ignore the lessons that should be learned from this.


Email

Your Name: *
Your Email: *  
To Email: *  
Subject: IDSnews.com | A Libertarian utopia
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text



*