It does not mean they are arbitrary - some fit reality better than other - but they are all selective in that they focus on some things and ignore others. It is that selective focus rather than "truth" (i.e. fitting the facts) that makes the relationship between a theory and the place and time very tricky. There might be some truth in the theory that some cognitive traits are inherited in ethnic groups, but proclaiming that truth in, say, apartheid South Africa ceases serving the interests of science and instead becomes a tool of oppression.
Ditto for free market ideals. If we had a situation where free market or administrative control in certain area of economics are impartially debated as two possible policy options - then it is possible to weigh both options on their merits in that particular situation. But we seldom face such a situation. Instead, we face either an authoritarian state proclaiming infallibility of administrative control or an imperialist state and business monopolies proclaiming the infallibility of free markets. If Mr. Friedman defended his theories while living in the USSR, he would be saying something very much different than if he lived in the US and took the same position. The former would make him a free thinker and true hero of freedom, the latter - a hack propagandist and a stooge of the regime. Because it is not really about ideas, but about the power of people and groups claiming ownership of those ideas.
This reminds me of an old Soviet era joke. An American and a Russian meet in a bar. After having a few drinks, the American starts bragging - "Think what you want, but we have true democracy in America. I can go to Washington, stand in front of the White House, say that the president of the US is an asshole and nothing will happen to me." "Big fucking deal" the Russian replies, " I too can go to Moscow, stand in front of the Kremlin, say that the president of the US is an asshole and nothing will happen to me."
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>
> I dealt with some of those issues in a handout that I wrote for a
> presentation a year ago.
>
> http://www.academia.edu/1510142/Synopsis_on_Milton_Friedman
>
> Jim Farmelant
> http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
> http://www.foxymath.com
> Learn or Review Basic Math
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Edward Snowden, Enemy of the State
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:25:59 -0400
>
>
>
> On 2013-06-11, at 7:33 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> > Ordinary people are in a far greater need of good
> > life, food, shelter, public services, access to health *care* (not
> health
> > business), social safety net, personal security, - not some bullshit
> > abstraction cooked up by reactionary philosophers.
> >
> > This whole affair is a sad manifestation of American knee-jerk
> anti-statism
> > and libertarianism. It is really sad that they rally against the
> > government (that safe scapegoat of businessmen) in the name of a
> bullshit
> > concept of liberty rather than, say, that of "good life" or "health care
> > and social security for all." For that reason, when I hear about liberty
> > in America, I want to puke (elsewhere, it might be a different story).
> > Long live Hobbes. And send all liberty lovers to a reeducation camp where
> > they can learn the virtues of solidarity and reasonable limits on human
> > capacity to act ;).
>
>
> Another good if overwrought challenging post, Wojtek, but I'm afraid
> you're missing the connection between political rights and the possibility
> of social and economic progress. The classic struggles for democratic
> rights were not simply a preoccupation of the rising bourgeoisie interested
> in free markets and constitutional checks on absolute monarchies. The
> masses, led by the early trade unions and the socialist parties, also
> fought against censorship and for the right to assemble and organize and,
> above all, to vote and to form workers' governments in order to legislate
> public pensions, healthcare, education, unemployment insurance, safe and
> healthy workplaces and neighbourhoods, improved working conditions, sport
> and cultural facilities, etc.
>
> Contemporary social movements still need democratic rights in order to
> advance. That's why they're typically the first demand of social movements
> which are forced underground by dictatorships. State surveillance is
> intended to thwart the appearance and progress of such movements, to
> disrupt and limit their effectiveness. Democratic states also spy on
> fascist and reactionary and terrorist organizations, but in the main they
> have been concerned with popular movements on the left whenever these have
> emerged to seek fundamental reform or overthrow of the capitalist system.
> It may be too much to expect states to accept reforms which defeat the
> purpose of their secret agencies, but calls for greater transparency and
> curbs on the powers of these agencies are well within the tradition of
> popular struggles for democratic rights aimed at improving living
> conditions, and are therefore worth supporting.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ____________________________________________________________
> BlackBerry® 10
> Find out more about the new BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51b734905a771348f4fadst02vuc
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."