In Friedman's piece, he discussed our day-to-day lives as if they were a game. In this game the players needed to agree upon the rules of the game and to have an umpire to regulate the game. Friedman stated that government acted as the umpire. He stated that unless all the players of a game agreed that the rules were fair then there were would be no set of rules that would prevail. The umpire, or government, was responsible for allowing the players a way of adjusting the rules, mediation between players, and enforce that the rules were followed.The government must decide the best way ti resolve issues among individuals to protect the freedom of all. Friedman states that "men's freedom can conflict, and when they do, one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's." Because nobody in a free society should have to have their freedoms limited by another the government must create consequences for these instances.
Freidman states that the role of government "is to do something that the market cannot do for itself." Without government it would be difficult for men to determine what rules are necessary for a free society and even more difficult to enforce them. A government also has the responsiblility of intervening in the game if consequences of a free society are causing individual's freedoms to be impaired. This is specifically the case with monopolies and neighborhood effects. Monopolies require government intervention because they defeat the concept of a free society. A free society must be voluntary and offer alternatives. Monopolies are the absence of alternatives. Neighborhood effects, on the other hand, are when "actions of individuals have effects on other individuals for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them.
Friedman's perspective of government as an umpire in a democratic society seems to be an accurate description. For the most part people are able to go about their day-to-day lives without government interference. However, when a problem arises or a player is breaking the rules of the game it is the government's responsible to deal with the situation. The government employs many tools to attempt to keep the game as fair and free as possible. The government has police officers and courts to enforce rules and to give consequences when rules are not followed.
3 comments:
I really liked Friedman's analogy with the umpire in the game as the government's role ins society and the economy. The role that the government plays in society in Friedman's opinion is a lot less threatening, omnipresent and all encompassing as the government in Hobbe's Leviathan.
In Friedman's world, the government serves to monitor freedom so that individuals do not trample over other individual's freedom. You give up some of your freedom to gain protection of your freedom by the government.
Friedman's analogy also seems to illustrate a key position of most conservative Republicans in the US today. I don't know of any Republicans in Congress who want to see the absolute elimination of government oversight of the economy. However, I do know of many Republicans who want to eliminate government oversight except when it is undisputedly necessary, such as cases that involve dealing with monopolies.
Friedman's concept of the government as umpire is very similar to Locke's. Locke, in reaction to Hobbes, thought that government should be limited and play only a few limited roles, one of which was the "umpire" or mediator of disputes between citizens. The difference between them seems to be that Friendman is framing this primarily in economic terms, while Locke was considering social aspects. However, there is still considerable overlap between the ideas and the basic principle is the same.
Post a Comment