I planned to continue discussing the JD Vance saga today. However, an incident yesterday morning shifted my focus.
A friend connected me to someone from the Midwest. I'm unsure what prompted her outreach. She introduced me to Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman and praised the MAGA movement. But she abruptly ended the conversation and cut off connection upon learning that I wasn't thrilled about either, without hearing my perspective. Now that I mentioned Friedman's book, I'm gong to say something about it.
Milton Friedman follows the tradition of laissez-faire economics and minimal government intervention. Similar to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory—where individuals driven by self-interest inadvertently contribute to society's overall welfare through free markets—Friedman believed that voluntary exchanges in a competitive market lead to a better society.
Both Friedman and Smith argued that markets are more efficient at resource allocation than government intervention. They posited that free market prices reflect the true value of goods and services, thus guiding resources to their most productive uses.
Both also advocated for a limited government role in central planning and providing public goods, emphasizing Enlightenment ideals of liberty, individualism, and autonomy.
Regarding charity, Friedman argued that it should be handled by private organizations and local communities rather than relying solely on government assistance. However, this raises the question: what happens when local communities and private help are unavailable?
Modern civilization is also built on the ideals of liberty, equity, and fraternity. Friedman's focus on individual responsibility, free markets, and a limited government role bears some resemblance to social Darwinism, which emphasizes "survival of the fittest."
Despite my reservations, I recommend Capitalism and Freedom. Milton Friedman, though passionate about his ideas, exemplified a true gentleman's approach to debate, ironically so different from the person who recommended his book to me yesterday. In sharp contrast to today's often mean-spirited political discourse, filled with rants and ravings, Friedman engaged with opposing views respectfully, civilly and thoughtfully. He treated those disagreed with him as rational individuals with different perspectives, fostering a spirit of constructive dialogue.
By the way, there's a Chinese saying, “和而不同” (hé ér bù tóng) meaning: "harmony in diversity" or "seeking harmony without uniformity" or we disagree with each other harmoniously. It is the essence of engaging in civic and respectful discourse and understanding differing viewpoints.
In an era where polarized opinions often lead to hostility, Friedman's respectful manner reminds us of the importance of civil discourse. Only through open, earnest and respectful dialogue can we hope to bridge divides and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society. After all, civilization moves on, regardless of which social system or party triumphs.