41. “Milton Friedman on Intolerance: A Critique”
Abstract: Milton Friedman had long declared himself a small “l” libertarian (to distinguish himself from members of the Libertarian Party). But, libertarianism is based on the twin pillars of the non aggression axiom and private property predicated on homesteading and peaceful exchange. Friedman adopts none of this. Instead, he undergirds his philosophy on “tolerance,” which is no part of libertarianism. Thus, his claim to the mantle of libertarianism, big or small “L” it matters not which, is called into question.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
It seems that appeals to tolerance as the ultimate in values suffer from obvious problems – namely, if I am uncertain that I am right, what on earth has this to do with your certainty that you are right? How do I universalize my specific claim about tolerance?
However, I’m wondering something else. Why is welfare taken to be some unique evil in so much libertarian writing? Is it because of the Randian influence? Here is a problem – there has never been a successful politician, with the exception of some revolutions, who actually cared about the poor. Certainty in the US, there was never a concerted interest in transferring wealth from the upper to the lower – how could there be when, as Kolko so aptly described (in contrast to so many things he did inaptly) the government is intertwined with big business? So, why does welfare exist at all? Simple – government policy can be described, overall, as a concerted attempt to bypass market means in order to make the rich richer without them having to work for it. This would have led to revolutions, torches, pitchforks, and the like, so politicians, while doing exactly what they wanted, threw some scraps to the poor. More precisely, the riots would have been more costly to the rich than the welfare is. The poor, having been robbed and fleeced at every turn, are given handouts to prevent uprisings – and they are thereby made dependent. Rather than rising up at the corporate welfare, they came to imagine that they could not survive without the handout. This is true – so long as the massive reverse redistribution is going on. So, why not see welfare as a poorly directed, horribly mismanaged, cruelly inept – step towards reversal of the corporate welfare? Why should a libertarian focus his energy on opposing welfare, when he ought to focus on a fundamental critique of the state?
You make some excellent points. In light of these, I would have to agree that libertarians should focus their attention on the problem of corporate welfare.
[...] Block, Walter E. 2010A. “Milton Friedman on Intolerance: A Critique.” Libertarian Papers; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/41-block-milton-friedman-on-intolerance-a-critique/ [...]
[...] article originally appeared in Libertarian Papers 2, 41 [...]