There is no denying the influence of Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom," which still holds sway with many politicians today. This is by no means a compliment.

From the beginning there were plenty of red flags for a bad argument to come. Within the Preface of the book after thanking his esteemed professors, Friedman boldly states, "I ask their pardon for my failure to acknowledge specifically the many ideas of theirs which they will find expressed in this book. I have learned so much from them and what I have learned has become so much a part of my own thought that I would not know how to select points to footnote" (xvi). Indeed, after this preemptive apology for what seems to be an admission of plagiarism, the person he cites the most in this book is himself. What a guy.

In addition to ambiguous citations, Friedman also fails to provide examples to back up his claims, demoting his proposals to hypotheses, rather than fully fleshed-out theory. Much of what he proposes could work as a hypothetical argument against the extremism of Communism but fails to refute the indisputably positive aftermath of Keynesian economics which saved the American economy following the Great Depression.

His penchant for cutting back on gov’t oversight, also demonstrates that he does not fully understand why certain gov’t programs exist. For example, Friedman is not a fan of National Parks, as they are not financially self-sufficient programs (31). Here, Friedman fails to understand that there are many forms of value beside initial monetary gains. National Parks preserve large tracts of nature from harmful forms of enterprise that could permanently alter their aesthetic value (i.e., logging, fracking, mining, oil drilling, etc.). Every time I hear John Prine's "Paradise," I am reminded of why National Parks are important for preserving American heritage for future generations. Additionally, the tourism produced by National Parks also provides an indirect economic stimulus for towns in remote locations.

Friedman's distaste of regulation is perhaps most extreme with his views toward the American Medical Association. He disagrees with essentially all medical regulations and proposes that in place of holding doctors to exacting standards, people should be able to choose professionals or "technicians" based on their reputation alone (157). This is a dangerous proposition that could leave numerous people vulnerable to charlatans. I will conclude this thought by pointing you in the direction of that quack Dr. Oz. Popularity clearly does not equate medical expertise.

His ideas that free-market capitalism could eliminate discrimination without government interference (i.e., Civil Rights laws), are also perplexing and seem far removed from reality. Friedman purports that the act of discrimination will incur costs on the party performing the discrimination, and over time this will act as a deterrent to such behavior (110). This fails to take into account the fact that ethnic groups who have accumulated wealth and are culturally taught to find other ethnic groups inferior, will still be able to maintain their wealth relatively free of consequence, especially if they are not taxed on that wealth.

In general, I think most people want to live in a meritocracy that rewards hard work. Friedman's ideas could never facilitate such an outcome, especially in that he finds it morally troubling to tax inheritance (172), which would ultimately stifle economic mobility. In 2018, I have found that the lazy sons of rich men still tend to be more successful than the hard-working daughters of a poor women. This is not freedom to me.

Another argument Friedman fails to develop, is the notion that raising the minimum wage would increase poverty. He argues that employers would be less likely to hire more employees given these restrictions (180). Again, common sense would show that the employer who could pay 1 employee $15.00/ hr., or 2 employees $7.50/ hr., will actually hire 1 employee for the same job(s) and pay them $7.50/ hr. Better yet, the employer will call the position an 'internship' and pay the intern in 'experience.' That is free-market capitalism in action.

Overall, I found his argument for radical capitalism to be radically underdeveloped. While Friedman argues that the free market is a powerful entity, he never explains just how it would work to stabilize itself without regulations. The idea that private enterprises seeking to create profit could realistically replace gov’t programs that exist to provide public services, is also never fully explained.

While the concept of freedom of choice is attractive at face-value, Friedman's policies would limit choices for working class folks if anything. Anyway, I made the choice to read this book, and I have to say it was not my best choice. I do feel I have a better understanding of how modern-day Conservatives and Neoliberals make sense of the world but given how unsubstantial this ideology is, I find that more disconcerting than illuminating.

My final verdict is that Milton Friedman's ideas are fried, man.