C. B. Macpherson - On Milton Friedman

On Milton Friedman

Essay VII of the Essays in Retrieval was titled "Elegant Tombstones: A Note on Friedman's Freedom," and was a direct challenge to certain assumptions of "freedom" made by Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom. For Macpherson, capitalism was discordant with freedom. Part of the disagreement can be found in the differing interpretations of 'freedom.' For self-described 'classical liberals' like Friedman, freedom is negative and is seen as an absence of constraints or freedom of choice. Following a tradition that began with G.W.F. Hegel, Macpherson viewed freedom as positive and defined it as the freedom to develop one's fullest human potential.

Friedman shows great disdain for positive freedom, associating it with marxism and communism; he uses the term 'liberal' with derision when referring to socialists, while contesting that he was a true liberal. Macpherson's criticisms of Friedman rest on three claims: (1) an "error" that tarnishes Friedman's attempt to demonstrate that capitalism organizes the economic activities of society without coercion; (2) the "inadequacy" of his assertion that capitalism is a necessary component of freedom, and that socialism is inconsistent with freedom; and (3) the "fallacy" of his evidence that capitalism is an ethically sound principle of distribution.

Macpherson contends that the coercion in capitalism is that one cannot choose not to be a capitalist in a capitalist society. One can, of course, choose to change jobs, but one cannot choose not to work. For the exchange to be truly voluntary "the proviso that is needed is whether to enter into any exchange at all." The workers need money but cannot barter; therefore, they are coerced into the monetary system. Furthermore, the voluntary nature of the exchange is only evident is cases of perfect competition where each product is the same and there are an infinite number of suppliers. Also, Macpherson took issue with corporations as "individuals" in a capitalist society.

For Friedman, economic freedom needed to be protected because it ensured political freedom. Friedman appeals to historical examples that demonstrate where the largest amount of political freedom is found the economic model has been capitalist. In Friedman's words, "history suggests...that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom." Macpherson counters that the 19th-century examples that Friedman uses actually show that political freedom came first and those who gained this freedom, mainly property owning elites, used this new political freedom for their own best interests which meant to open the doors to unrestrained capitalism. It follows then, that capitalism will only be maintained as long as those who have political freedom deem it worthwhile. As the 19th century progressed and suffrage was expanded, there were corresponding restraints placed upon capitalism which indicates that political freedom and capitalism are at odds with one another. "At any rate", Macpherson contends, this "historical correlation scarcely suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom."

Friedman also contended that where socialism links economics with politics, economics cannot act as a check on political power. Macpherson countered that there is little evidence that economics does check political power. In fact, in many cases political power becomes subservient to economic power in the capitalist system. In this regard, socialism allows a better check on economic power toward political power than the converse under capitalism. Macpherson accuses Friedman of supplanting a Communist society for a Socialist one; at the very least Friedman does not differentiate between the two.

Milton Friedman believed that, if most of the regulatory and welfare activities of Western states were discontinued, freedom would be advanced. This is true if one follows the negative sense of freedom, but not so if one follows the positive version of Macpherson. Essentially, Friedman, according to Macpherson, does not factor as sort of "ethical claims of equality" into his demand for freedom (that is, market freedom). According to Macpherson, many of the "classical liberals" of previous centuries, which Friedman claims to represent, would have rejected this idea outright.