"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself"
About this Quote
Friedman swings a rhetorical crowbar here: he’s not defending markets on efficiency grounds so much as accusing his critics of a deeper, almost psychological discomfort with letting other people choose. The first sentence is a deliberately needling claim about motive. Opposition to a “free economy,” he suggests, often isn’t driven by evidence of market failure but by a paternalistic impulse: the conviction that someone else’s preferences are suspect, misinformed, or morally wrong. The target isn’t just regulation; it’s the cultural posture of the planner, the expert, the reformer who can’t resist upgrading the public’s desires.
The subtext is classic Friedman: economic arguments are rarely only economic. He’s reframing policy debate as a referendum on autonomy. If you distrust what people “ought to want,” you’ll end up building institutions that substitute elite judgment for individual choice, even when those institutions wear benevolent labels like safety, fairness, or consumer protection. That framing is strategic. It collapses a wide range of critiques - monopoly power, labor exploitation, environmental externalities - into a single moral suspicion: you don’t really believe in freedom.
Context matters. Friedman built his public case in the Cold War era, when “planning” carried Soviet shadows and “freedom” was the master American brand. In that climate, tying market skepticism to skepticism of liberty is not just argument; it’s political jiu-jitsu. The line works because it forces opponents onto the defensive: before they can talk about outcomes, they must prove their commitment to the very ideal Friedman claims they’re betraying.
The subtext is classic Friedman: economic arguments are rarely only economic. He’s reframing policy debate as a referendum on autonomy. If you distrust what people “ought to want,” you’ll end up building institutions that substitute elite judgment for individual choice, even when those institutions wear benevolent labels like safety, fairness, or consumer protection. That framing is strategic. It collapses a wide range of critiques - monopoly power, labor exploitation, environmental externalities - into a single moral suspicion: you don’t really believe in freedom.
Context matters. Friedman built his public case in the Cold War era, when “planning” carried Soviet shadows and “freedom” was the master American brand. In that climate, tying market skepticism to skepticism of liberty is not just argument; it’s political jiu-jitsu. The line works because it forces opponents onto the defensive: before they can talk about outcomes, they must prove their commitment to the very ideal Friedman claims they’re betraying.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Milton
Add to List
