in Capitalism and FreedomMilton Friedman warned that too much government involvement in the economy limits freedom, and Friedrich Hayek made a similar argument. The Road to Slavery.
I have always found this argument plausible, but sometimes I wonder if it is truly persuasive. Throughout my life, European governments have been fairly large as a percentage of GDP, and yet Europe still appears relatively free, at least compared to more authoritarian parts of the world. Recent events, however, have made me more sympathetic to the Friedman/Hayek position, especially the regulation of social media platforms. David Rose:
If the government were to directly punish free speech there would be an immediate backlash among voters, but the government is operating quietly behind the scenes like a mob boss, effectively saying “Great social media platform, too bad something happened to it.”
All the government has to do to diminish our right to free speech is make it more costly than it would be otherwise. The more we allow the government to intrude into our lives, the greater the risk that we will speak out against the government through actions or inactions where there will be no way to prove that there was any intent to suppress or stifle our speech.
The root of the problem lies not in the ability of any particular court to deal sensibly with specific wrongdoings, but in the government’s ability to impose costs without accountability.
China is an exception to the assumption that capitalism promotes freedom. But is this really the case? Over the past 40 years:
1. China is going backwards in terms of freedom of speech (in 1984, speech was far from free).
2. Chinese people are more free to have multiple children.
3. Chinese people are now more free to choose where they live. (“Hukou” restrictions remain, but are being relaxed over the years.)
4. Chinese people have more freedom to date whoever they want (gays are no longer arrested).
5. You will have much more financial freedom to start a business, travel, or pursue a variety of professions.
I am not arguing that China is a good example of how capitalism promotes freedom. It is not. But even in the worst case scenario for Friedman’s hypothesis, Cited by almost every opponent of neoliberalismCapitalism’s impact on freedom is ambiguous, with gains in some areas and losses in others.
