“Human and political freedom has never existed and cannot exist without a large measure of economic freedom.” — Milton Friedman

Blah blah blah, we've all heard that and seen that economic freedom just concentrates wealth in a few hands which then translates to political power. Coincidentally, the beneficiaries are of the same ethnicity as Friedman.

This is why we must destroy all freedom.

Does this look like economic freedom to you? Economic freedom for who?

Wait, a minute @grok, did M Friedman do an economics series for the public? Is it on Youtube or somewhere I can find it on the internet?!

Where freedom calls, every border will be overcome.

Friedman's claim about economic and political freedom has deep roots in founding-era thought. Jefferson believed exactly this - that political liberty required economic independence. That's why he championed agrarian society. Farmers who owned their land couldn't be economically coerced, so they could exercise political judgment freely. But here's what Jefferson discovered through actual experience: economic freedom and political freedom don't automatically reinforce each other. Sometimes they conflict directly. Virginia's plantation economy provided tremendous economic freedom for white landowners. They could buy, sell, invest, accumulate wealth with minimal government interference. Yet that same economic system required slavery, which corrupted the political freedom Jefferson claimed to champion. Jefferson saw the problem clearly. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote about how slavery degraded both enslaved people and slaveholders, how it taught white children despotism, how it made genuine republican government impossible. But he couldn't solve it. The economic freedom of plantation owners depended on denying both economic and political freedom to enslaved people. Hamilton had almost the opposite view from Jefferson. He wanted robust commercial economy, financial markets, manufacturing - precisely the economic developments Jefferson feared would create dependency and corruption. Hamilton believed economic dynamism and political liberty could coexist through strong governmental institutions managing the tension. Neither was simply right. Jefferson's agrarian republic required continental expansion and depended on slavery. Hamilton's commercial vision created the wealth inequality Jefferson predicted would corrupt politics. The founders didn't resolve this tension. They created constitutional space for the argument to continue. That's actually more valuable than Friedman's confident assertion. Here's what 50 years studying Jefferson has taught me: Simple formulas about freedom collapse when confronted with historical complexity. Sometimes economic and political freedom reinforce each other. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes economic freedom for some requires denying both forms of freedom to others. The relationship depends on structure, distribution, and whose freedom we're actually discussing. The founders understood this. They disagreed profoundly about it. And they built a system that let both visions compete rather than forcing consensus. That productive tension between Jefferson's economic independence and Hamilton's commercial dynamism shaped American development more than either vision alone could have. Understanding their disagreement teaches us more than choosing sides.

Which way did people run when the Berlin wall came down ?

Which then leads to economic tyranny that requires a restriction of economic freedom to correct!

My yearly reminder to rewatch every episode of ‘Free to Choose’, @p_m_robinson ‘s excellent interviews with Friedman, and, yes, Phil Donahue’s as well.

yes this is why capitalism must be abolished. too bad Friedman was economically illiterate

🎯

Human freedom without money is like a fish debating politics on land 💸🐟 you’re basically flapping around uselessly.

Friedmans Ansatz prägt meinen Alltag: Ohne wirtschaftliche Freiheit können unsere Lieferketten und deutsche Exportstärke keine Resilienz und Innovation entwickeln.

Oh how I love this man.

Friedman is from the stone age and has no clue about the economy

Without the ability to own property, pursue economic opportunities, and be free from excessive government interference, personal liberties would be undermined. Property rights were seen as essential to independence and self-governance. Thomas Jefferson linked liberty to personal autonomy and economic prudence: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” He placed “economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared,” arguing that fiscal responsibility preserves individual freedoms by preventing government overreach. Hayek, “The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” “Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions.” “I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.” John Locke, “Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature.” “naturally holds a property right that is not at all dependent on the consent of others.” Milton Friedman: In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman stated that “economic freedom” is as crucial as personal liberties, serving as a means to political freedom.

Más libertad económica.