progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The <strong>Telmarc</strong> <strong>Group</strong><br />
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC<br />
INTELLECTUAL<br />
individual responsibilities to achieve our several goals <strong>and</strong> purposes, <strong>and</strong> above all, to<br />
protect our freedom, but as a result of rum smuggling against <strong>the</strong> Government. There are<br />
multiple ironies in <strong>the</strong> Friedman context.<br />
Friedman in Capitalism continues with his two principles. First <strong>the</strong> scope of government<br />
must be limited. Second, government power must be dispersed. He states 115 :<br />
"The preservation of freedom is <strong>the</strong> protective reason for limiting <strong>and</strong> decentralizing<br />
governmental power."<br />
Unlike Nozick, who we shall discuss shortly, Friedman looked at <strong>the</strong> individual from <strong>the</strong><br />
perspective an economic lens. For him <strong>the</strong> explanation of freedom was economic<br />
freedom. For Freidman, Economic Freedom led to Political Freedom. As he states 116 :<br />
"It is widely believed that politics <strong>and</strong> economics are separate <strong>and</strong> largely unconnected;<br />
that individual freedom is a political problem <strong>and</strong> material welfare an economic<br />
problem; <strong>and</strong> that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of<br />
economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is <strong>the</strong><br />
advocacy of "democratic socialism"…"<br />
Needless to say Friedman <strong>the</strong>n goes on to disabuse <strong>the</strong> reader that such a mix <strong>and</strong> match<br />
is possible. The economic structure <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> political structure are one. Change <strong>the</strong><br />
economic structure <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n you will affect <strong>the</strong> political as well. Change <strong>the</strong> political <strong>and</strong><br />
you change <strong>the</strong> economic. One need merely look at <strong>the</strong> three periods of economic crises<br />
in <strong>the</strong> US. in 1933 we moved from Hoover to FDR <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> economic situation continued<br />
downward. From 1979 to 1980 we went from <strong>the</strong> economic disaster of Carter to <strong>the</strong><br />
beginning of <strong>the</strong> longest term period of prosperity under Reagan. Then in 2008 we went<br />
from Bush to Obama <strong>and</strong> like 1932 we remain mired in economic collapse. Is <strong>the</strong>re a<br />
reason for this? Friedman would argue in <strong>the</strong> affirmative.<br />
5.2 R. H. COASE<br />
I have found Coase is one of my favorite economists, one of very few. He avoids <strong>the</strong><br />
plethora of useless equations <strong>and</strong> deals with simple examples <strong>and</strong> logic. Coase is in many<br />
ways <strong>the</strong> Aristotle of economics. Coase sees <strong>the</strong> world of individuals with individual<br />
property rights <strong>and</strong> a world where <strong>the</strong>re may be costs incurred by individuals resulting<br />
from actions of o<strong>the</strong>r individuals. For example if I dump my sewerage in a stream which<br />
flows to your property. The stream is yours on your property <strong>and</strong> mine on my property.<br />
By dumping <strong>the</strong> sewerage you mess things up, <strong>and</strong> reduce <strong>the</strong> value of my property. I can<br />
seek a remedy.<br />
115 Friedman, Capitalism, p 3.<br />
116 Friedman, Capitalism, p. 7.<br />
Page 108