On the one hand, I'm sure Friedman would say no government officer has any right to "regulate" any other person's behavior, nor insist on his own judgment of another person's abilities or needs, because he can never know enough about that other person's situation even to hope to qualify.

On the other hand, that ignores the even more basic moral premise: it is not his job to judge the abilities or needs of another, because no harm can come to him personally if the other person does something wrong.

More broadly: "I can't be sure" sounds awfully like postmodernism. And that would stop one even from pressing freedom as a good to be attained. If that government official can never be sure he's right and the target of a regulation is wrong, neither can the target be sure he is right and someone seeking regulation is wrong.

Well, somebody's got to be right.

But of course: Common Core Math gives you the winning score, not for a single correct answer, but for making a good argument. So we are to accept valid reasoning on false premises, and never correct anybody on those false or faulty premises.

That's what's wrong with the Friedman position.

Suppose. I was trying to make the leap to modern economic systems and see if one could defend Capitalism and not really be a "reason" advocate.

If you stick with bartering, it is even easier. Who would want to barter away something of less worth?

the problem von mises had when he was communicating with Ayn Rand was that he was trying to communicate with a GENIUS. never attack a battleship with a pea shooter. he obviously lost the argument as evidenced by his shouting and screaming.

Certainly. Of course it helps if you've been awarded a Nobel Prize and a column in the NY Times by equally reason-impaired people. ;-D

Spoiler: This refers to Keynesianism and a certain well-known proponent thereof.

Guess it depends on what "support" means

don't you think that capitalism could serve very well
in a pure barter environment? . I would not need a
currency to strike a bargain with you for eggs, if I
had corn meal. -- j

an idiot's support doesn't make a cause good,
merely noble. -- j

I vote no. -- j

I just trudged through the first third of this exposé,
and need to assert that humility is courtesy and
that coercion is force. . it's good, so far, and Thanks, Dale! -- j

It seems as if Friedman is asserting Rand simply had a hypothesis, and seeks to evaluate it against data. His argument that this is unscientific is a little off-base, but given the volume of research he did, perhaps he feels more data is required to evaluate her assertions.

Subjectivity in prices in a free market only applies to an individual's opinion about a price. If a market is truly free, then the market price settles at an equilibrium level which can be considered purely objective. However, that price is only formed by averaging each individual's subjective opinion.
This is not a contradiction, just opposite perspectives.
Also, an individual's price opinion is not always rational, as it often includes some prediction about future price levels.

I think one could, but perhaps not defend it clearly. Capitalism is quite natural. Once you get to liquid currency, the obvious economic model is Capitalism. It seems one could latch on tho this without really evaluating and understanding the options (e.g. objective evaluation).

The real-world utilities you describe are certainly examples of value on which practically everyone would agree, simply because of the instinctive desire to go on living. But once a person has climbed high enough up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to have disposable income, the value of whatever he buys then will be subjective.

I feel this is the limit of Objectivism's own utility: it simply doesn't allow for the fact that there are matters of taste, and that more than one valid answer to a question of taste can exist. This is one Gordian knot that the sword of Reason can simply never penetrate.

I find Mendenhall's argument shallow and worthless.

Friedman's "humility" is better expressed as what his son David calls "consumer sovereignty." This is the principle that each person's own good is determined by what he says it is, period. I consider this idea the one major difference between libertarians and objectivists -- and I take the Friedmans' side, the libertarian side, of it.

Yes. Heinlein said, there is no cause so noble that you can't find an idiot supporting it.

An economic precept or a philosophy can survive without reason like a tiger can survive without teeth.

No because to be "anti-reason" you must neglect to understand human nature - this is the reason that Communism nor Socialism will ever work properly without resorting to tyranny by dictatorial rule.

Hi Lucky,

Why do (did) you go to work? Why do any of us work?

Get rid of money and it is clear that we work because it is necessary to support our life. The value of a fish to a starving person is different than to a wealthy well fed person, but both are based in reality. (marginal utility)

Even though as we get wealthier it is harder to see the connection to reality, the statistics bear out that there is still a connection to reality. Those people who are wealthier live longer, have better access to health care, have better access to education, live is less polluted areas, drive safer more comfortable cars, are less like to suffer from food poisoning, etc. In other words even those who are relatively wealthy still make economic decisions based in reality - although not every decision is rational.

In catching up on reading I am up to October 2014 of the Spectator (UK). A review of an art exhibition at the London Tate Gallery says:

Artist Sigmar Polke's doodle 'Mona Lisa' included the caption
'Original value $1,000,000. Now only 99c, including frame'.
Polke's pictures now sell for millions.

With this story as an example, and with experience of all art, literature and indeed anything traded, is there, can there, be any philosophical approach to value and price that excludes subjectivity?
Subjectivity being the perception of individuals who differ from each other, who will differ in the price they will pay for a painting not just from person to person but from hour to hour in themselves.

Further, what better system for trading anything suited to this reality is there than capitalism?

Short answer, no IMHO.

Is it possible to support Capitalism and be anti-reason?