Why The Free Market And Not The Fair Market
Excerpt from a 1992 Milton Friedman column:
The modern tendency to substitute "fair" for "free" reveals how far we have moved from the initial conception of the Founding Fathers. They viewed government as policeman and umpire. They sought to establish a framework within which individuals could pursue their own objectives in their own way, separately or through voluntary cooperation, provided only that they did not interfere with the freedom of others to do likewise.The modern conception is very different. Government has become Big Brother. Its function has become to protect the citizen, not merely from his fellows, but from himself, whether he wants to be protected or not. Government is not simply an umpire but an active participant, entering into every nook and cranny of social and economic activity. All this, in order to promote the high-minded goals of "fairness," "justice," "equality."
Does this not constitute progress? A move toward a more humane society? Quite the contrary. When "fairness" replaces "freedom," all our liberties are in danger. In Walden, Thoreau says: "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." That is the way I feel when I hear my "servants" in Washington assuring me of the "fairness" of their edicts.
There is no objective standard of "fairness." "Fairness" is strictly in the eye of the beholder. If speech must be fair, then it cannot also be free; someone must decide what is fair. A radio station is not free to transmit unfair speech -- as judged by the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission. If the printed press were subject to a comparable "fairness doctrine," it would have to be controlled by a government bureau and our vaunted free press would soon become a historical curiosity.
...Is then the search for "fairness" all a mistake? Not at all. There is a real role for fairness, but that role is in constructing general rules and adjudicating disputes about the rules, not in determining the outcome of our separate activities. That is the sense in which we speak of a "fair" game and "fair" umpire. If we applied the present doctrine of "fairness" to a football game, the referee would be required after each play to move the ball backward or forward enough to make sure that the game ended in a draw!
See my blog post from a few years ago on what the NFL would look like if outcome-based "fairness" were the rule.
Michael P (@PizSez) at August 1, 2011 9:12 AM
This kind of idiocy is especially ugly in discussions of military action. I don't ever want to see our soldiers involved in a fair fight.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 9:49 AM
USMC Rules for Gunfighting #11: Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
Conan the Grammarian at August 1, 2011 9:57 AM
USMC Rules for Gunfighting #11: Always cheat; always win.
Huh. That must be the rule our "representatives" are using in Congress!
Flynne at August 1, 2011 10:09 AM
There has been a movement of late toward "fair" outcomes ... meaning equal outcomes.
And the government is seen as the arbitrator and adjudicator of these fair outcomes.
That means it's unfair that the rich are rich, the smart are smart, the artistic are artistic, and the talented are talented.
So, we get an outcome based fairness doctrine. From this we get watered down educational systems that produce illiterate graduates, art movements that feature third-grade art projects as avante garde art, and the screechings of a cat being slowly tortured being called cutting edge music.
I can't play basketball like Michael Jordan (or even John Paxson), golf like Tiger Woods, or the cello like Yo Yo Ma. I can't grasp physics the way Stephen Hawkings does. Is that fair? No. But who cares.
I'd rather live in a world that features the athletic grace of a Jordan, the music of a Ma, and the brilliant insights of a Hawkings than one that calls "Piss Christ" high art and doesn't keep score at baseball games.
Give me variety! Give me artistry! Give me inequality!
Conan the Grammarian at August 1, 2011 10:09 AM
Unfortunately, Congress is not a gunfight.
Although, the lawmaking process might be more interesting if it were.
Conan the Grammarian at August 1, 2011 10:12 AM
Offtoptic to our hostess, whose immortal soul has been so much fun to bitterly critique over the years: You know these assholes also let Pierce go last week, right?
I have no idea what the future holds for you in independent media: My own career in mainstream outlets is kinda dicey.
But when this settles down, you may well be doing better than whatever shell-enterprise still uses the name "Los Angeles Times".
For the last few years, reading that newspaper in my favorite diner has been like fondling an Alzheimer's patient.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 10:12 AM
In keeping with the nearby discussion:
> That means it's unfair that
You forgot "that the beautiful are beautiful".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 10:18 AM
So I did. Well, that too is unfair.
But it's an unfairness with which I am willing up with to put.
Conan the Grammarian at August 1, 2011 10:34 AM
Friends, Obama won.
Again:
Congratulations, Radwaste!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 11:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/01/why_the_free_ma.html#comment-2390542">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]You know these assholes also let Pierce go last week, right?
Welch and I were lamenting that this weekend.
He points out (as he has in the past) how dipshitted it is for papers to offer buyouts. The people who take them are the best people -- who can easily get another job.
Amy Alkon at August 1, 2011 11:14 AM
Almost all advertising about fairness shows pictures of smiling people receiving checks from the government. Actually, some are frowning because they figure the check should have been bigger.
Fairness also means an army of men, some armed and in SWAT teams, forcing productive people to hand over 15-40% of what they produce to provide the substance of those checks. Amazingly, that is only about half of what the government has promised.
The altruistic core of the politician's actions is to buy votes. Anyone receiving a government check should cringe at what they are asking the government to do.
We can partially forgive recipients of Social Security support. They have paid into the "system", and actually deserve about 65% of what they get [1]. The rest is coerced as a political bonus, just like every other recipient.
[1] - bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/
Andrew_M_Garland at August 1, 2011 11:34 AM
My old grand paw told me there is nothing so dang-
erous as a cold blooded do gooder. I didn't know
until now he was paraphrasing Thoreau.
fatfred at August 1, 2011 12:53 PM
Some years ago a co-worker was talking about his son's t-ball league, he said "It's great. Everyone plays every inning, everyone bats every inning, and every game ends in a tie."
What the (expletive deleted)? What's the sense in playing a game if you know that, by design, it will end in a tie? Are you just making the kids run around for exercise? Then just put then in a field and let them PLAY (and I'd be willing to bet they'll make up their own game that will end with a winner and a loser).
I'm too young to be a curmudgeon.
Mark HD at August 1, 2011 1:19 PM
> I'm too young to be a curmudgeon.
Never, son... Never.
__________
Besides, you make "(expletive deleted)" jokes. I know your cohort like the back of my hand.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2011 1:27 PM
A Facebook friend of mine, a total Harry Potter geek, just posted this: "Yo mama's so fat, her Patronus is cake!"
Patrick at August 1, 2011 3:48 PM
The word "fair" is nearly always a mask for an ulterior motive.
Cousin Dave at August 1, 2011 6:11 PM
I do agree on some of the antitrust actions that have occurred over the years, such as the case against AT&T">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture">AT&T and the break up of Ma Bell was good in the long term.
There are other antitrust actions that were more about who could buy the most politicians than about the actual merits. The numerous cases against, and for, Microsoft come to mind. Most of them were technically moot by the time the various courts ruled on them.
But a more recent regulation for fairness was the CPSC regulation about testing for lead. Take a guess who made out in it? It is all about following the money.
Jim P. at August 1, 2011 7:18 PM
Crid:
You've hit on the key to most media static about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The leftie demand for "fairness" is consistently used to hamstring Israel's defense. Any Israeli response is "disproportionate".
As an obvious target for pro-Pali lefties, I have found it very easy to stop them in their tracks by asking them what a "fair" military outcome would really look like - how many innocent civilians should a terrorist be "allowed" to kill?
Then they loop back to "the Occupation" and I remind them that the Palis have been administering their own affairs for almost a decade now.
A few rounds of this and they leave me alone.
Ben David at August 2, 2011 12:16 AM
Your defense of Israel is your own.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 5:32 AM
(Except, y'know, that the United States pays for so much of it.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 5:33 AM
No, Crid. We're paying Israel to not pave the middle east.
brian at August 2, 2011 6:14 AM
The blog-comment undermining... Why?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 7:32 AM
Crid:
Isn't the claim of "disproportionate force" used against Israel exactly the kind of "fairness" dodge you had in mind when you wrote:
... or are only American soldiers allowed to vaporize civilian populations to eliminate the terrorists among them?
Ben David at August 2, 2011 10:18 AM
> Isn't the claim of "disproportionate
> force" used against Israel exactly the
> kind of "fairness" dodge you had in mind
No.
Also, your quotation mark weirdness is borderline autoerotic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 11:22 AM
I mean, you're the one who said disproportionate, not me. Putting your own words in quotation marks like that and spitting them back at me is a goofy way to imply agreement.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 12:01 PM
It gets tiresome, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2011 12:12 PM
"disproportionate" = "not fair"
It's just a fancier, more serious-sounding way of making the same wheedling accusation.
Ben David at August 2, 2011 3:11 PM
The blog-comment undermining... Why?
Posted by: Crid
Because you are leaving yourself open to it, you've been gone long enough for your sparring skills to slip man.
lujlp at August 2, 2011 6:58 PM
I love it when people take excerpts of other people's work to further their own agenda.
Here's some radical thinking. Things have to be made fair, otherwise, things will go to hell in a handbasket.
Let's see, we deregulated the banks because free market is good, right? Wrong, they nearly destroy the nation's economy. Allowing the accountants to audit their own firm's work is free market thinking right? (none of those pesky "conflict of interest" claims to get in the way...) Wrong, Enron. Every time we allow people to do what's right, they let us down, why? Well, mainly, because they're human, and usually greedy ones at that. (It's not that their rich... money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is...)
You want free market, then the import fees on foreign cars should be lifted. I bet the automobile industry could handle that... Corn and other agricultural products shouldn't get subsidized. American farmers should be fine with charging what the market can bear. There should be a voucher program that allows inter-city kids to attend suburban schools... if a school's good, then hey, they'll get the students. No problem with that is there?
Lastly, if you want a free market, then you shouldn't have a problem with gay marriage. In a laissez-faire system, it shouldn't matter if they are the same sex, just whether or not they can afford the marriage license. Free market at its finest.
See, when people SAY that they want hand's off, they don't mean they want nobody at the controls... they want THEIR guy at the controls.
David at August 4, 2011 11:19 PM
David, to whom are you speaking?
I have to go to bed, but I'll hit on a couple of these: I thought GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt, I'm against corn subsidies and all subsidies. Can't stay in business? Go out of business. I'm for school choice (see my blog item on reason's school choice night) and gay marriage.
Furthermore, we don't have a deregulated, laissez-faire system but a heavily regulated, overlegislated one.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2011 1:06 AM
And here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4-1.pdf
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2011 1:08 AM
Huh?
Banks weren't deregulated. Banking remained one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country.
In fact, the regulations on mortgage banking required banks to make loans to "under-served" segments of the population reqardless of actual crediworthiness, loans with no paperwork or verification of an applicant's assertions of income, and loans with little-to-no downpayment required. This was a government-directed, activist-led effort to expand home ownership to the poor and downtrodden.
Banks were threatened with lawsuits and government censure if they strayed from the "easy homeownership for all" mantra or did something silly like try to verify an applicant's stated income or creditworthiness.
People learned they could refinance their house or buy a house they could ordinarily not afford with just a few white lies on their credit application. The feeding frenzy began.
Seasonal lawn care workers with no checking account and no assets beyond a 1978 Toyota Cressida were claiming to have a $150,000 income and getting mortgage loans on $500.000 properties.
Housing prices started going up as sellers got mulitple offers. With increasing housing value came increased demand for refinancing and cash outs. People were "movin' on up" and treating their houses like ATMs.
Fannie and Freddie aided and abetted this crime against reason by buying as many paperless (no verfication "liar loans") and no downpayment loans as possible. But even they government couldn't keep up.
So, Wall Street got involved. Traders bundled mortgages and sold them as financial instruments on the open market. AIG insured the instruments because the historic default rate on housing loans was less than 1% and the traders were paying 2% for the insurance.
But AIG and the investors failed to consider that, just like in 1929, so much of the boom was built on speculation, valueless financial instruments, and an expectation that market values would always be going up. Then, one day, they no longer were.
Crash.
It wasn't bank deregulation that caused this.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2011 12:12 PM
> It wasn't bank deregulation that
> caused this.
'Was too, partly. We'll fight about this later.
Crid at August 6, 2011 11:03 AM
Leave a comment