Introduction
While ‘some’ time has passed since 1962, Milton Friedman’s essay titled “Capitalism and Freedom” remains relevant to this day. According to the philosopher, who ascribed himself to the conservatives, the capitalist system was inherently more effective for facilitating democracy in society because it dispersed resources between individuals. He openly criticized the idea that politics and economics should be considered separately from one another, calling the view a “delusion,” emphasizing the “intimate connection between economics and politics” (Friedman, 2020, p. 54). Thus, both in terms of logic and the history of modern society, political freedom cannot be separated from the economic one. Drawing from Friedman’s logic, corporations, which are the inherent players in the economy, have the social obligation to play within the game’s rules. However, in the article by Wolf, the author suggests that the corporations have abused their power, thus causing a disturbance to democracy, and Donald Trump was one of the culprits of this problem.
Discussion of Friedman’s View
In Friedman’s perspective, the market system can be thought of as a more comprehensive system of checks and balances. In such a system, the economic power be used as a tool for checking political power instead of being an extension to it, and it is hard to argue with such an idea. Even if some may perceive the argument as too simplistic, it is worth analyzing it further to see how it plays out today. In a powerful enough government, a risk arises of it monopolizing all economic power, which could make it essentially impossible for those who disagree with it to publicize their ideas. Friedman’s thought experiment has one flaw, however, and it is that the modern world is far more complex than the dichotomy between the market and the government. There is some irony in the fact that it was possible to witness Friedman’s nightmare coming true under Trump’s presidency.
Reality is Not Perfect
In the perfect world envisioned by Friedman, markets are the place in which companies can engage in open and accessible competition without any fraud and deception. The harsh reality is far from that because markets have increasingly become unethical and immoral, going against the “rules of the game” (Wolf, 2020). During the presidency of Donald Trump, it became possible for the government to threaten business owners, such as Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, which further allowed to assess the financial value of the threat. Specifically, Trump wanted the US Post Office to increase the shipping rates for Amazon, knowing that the company makes billions every year (Chait, 2018). Besides, he even considered canceling the company’s multi-billion contract with the Pentagon and encouraged opening investigations into the business practices of the organization. Sadly, despite Friedman’s expectations, the free market has been ineffective at preventing such problems because, in the modern world, no business can wholeheartedly disregard the power that the government has.
What is important to consider further is that such companies as Amazon are not blameless; they have their faults too. Amazon is viewed as a monopoly, which means that its power in the market stifles competition and gives consumers fewer choices (Mattioli, 2020). That is why antitrust laws are necessary – they will help determine whether a company causes harm to customers. The power that large multi-billion corporations have is exercised in the money they have, which, in turn, allows them to create political game rules. There are pretty significant interests of corporations to concentrate their resources on imposing the restrictions by which they play onto others. This lends nothing to promoting freedom and democracy in society.
The Struggle for Power Between Politics and Democracy
The struggle for power between politics and democracy raises concerns over coercing that have already come true in the expansion of bureaucracy. This can be illustrated in Trump’s Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission expanding Sinclair Broadcast Group, turning it into state media through severe pressure and coercion (Teixeira, 2016). If this is not the abuse of power by the government’s justice system, it is hard to say what is. The “rules of the game” are flexible to those holding power, with the country ending up electing a president with a distinct stance against democracy and giving green light to feral institutions (Teixeira, 2016). The Sinclair Broadcast Group is a perfect example of what Friedman wanted to avoid. The government’s control of media under Trump’s administration intentionally suppressed unpopular speech. In the philosopher’s view, the government should not have been given economic power because, in such a case, it would be virtually impossible to preserve real political freedom.
Therefore, however appealing Friedman’s ideas may seem, I think that they are naïve in the sense that they did not predict the inherent complexity of modern political and economic systems. Indeed, it would have been better if organizations played by the rule of the game and the government followed the social obligation of using its inherent power to establish good and reasonable rules and not the bad ones. However, under Trump’s administration, the rules have become worse, allowing companies to lobby for systems of taxation that allow them safeguard their profits in tax havens or for organizations to neuter the policies of effective competition. In instances when organizations can act unethically, the government should be the one to blame because it has weakened the system of democracy, giving more and more power to the selected few. Thus, one can say that Trump trumped Friedman’s legacy and chose to play his own game of poisoning democratic politics, which would then will have to spend decades to restore to its previous state.
Conclusion
To conclude, Friedman wanted to convince the new generations of conservatives that their intention to scale back the power of the government could lead to stronger democratic institutions. In his view, the direct importance of economic freedom is, to the lowest extent, should be comparable to the importance of indirect economic freedom as a facilitator of political freedom. However, the reality of the movement that Friedman helped shape is that economic freedom is being achieved at the expense of political freedom, which is a problem. Corporations should not have the power in order to make contributions from political standpoints, fund various campaigns, or participate in any other political activities. They should be allowed to lobby for the sake of commercial interests, the purpose of which is to drive the economy. Trump’s presidency has shown that the rules of the game can be changed as those in power wish them to change, which creates challenges for both political and economic freedom. In the perfect world, both the government and corporations will do the right thing. In reality, this is far from being so, with the public being the one expected to do the right thing.
References
Chait, J. (2018). Milton Friedman predicted socialism would kill democracy. Instead, Trump Is. New York Intelligencer.
Friedman, M. (2020). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Teixeira, M. (2016). Why Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom is still relevant today. Action Institute.
Wolf, M. (2020). There is a direct line from Milton Friedman to Donald Trump’s assault on democracy. Promarket.
Mattioli, D. (2020). Amazon accused of using monopoly power as e-commerce ‘gatekeeper’. WSJ.