Friedman reminds me of the Wilburforce/ Pitt relationship. Wilberforce believed slavery was wrong. Pitt said he did too but he was much more like the rest of us, including Friedman - he believed slavery was wrong - but only in the abstract sense. Much like Lincoln. Eventually it became economically expedient to outlaw slavery so the English Parliament did but some twenty years after most people had accepted that slavery was morally untenable.

What on earth was the basis for slavery? Well obviously it helped enormously to build the British Empire, as it did to develope the wealth of the US. I would say another basis for its acceptance was the clear difference Europeans were able to percieve between themselves and Africans. This is why I compare Friedman to early Pitt and to early Lincoln. He presents the world with two choices, the Lexus or the Olive Tree but one of the choices isn't really a choice. Capitalism is inflexible. It must dominate. And contrary to what people say - ( that it is adaptable, cheap and civilized ) it requires an enormously expensive legal, governmental and physical infrastructure, and it will fundamental alter a population to the point that it will not recongnize itself.

Despite the common wisdom that it promotes a kind of productive peace, its developement in each area of the world has and will continue to be orchestrated in terms of extreme violence. Nowhere has it not been successfully developed without a long period of intense civil strive sometimes continueing for centuries.

Friedman is basically an apologist for a passive view of capital. He is a useless road sign. If there is only one road to take and only one destination, you don't need anyone to show you the way.

I am not marxist. Enthusiasm for socialism is quickly cooled in me by the prospect of government doing or running anything. But I do believe that essential aspects of capitalism require scrutiny at the earliest possible moment. Pathological aspects of capitalism may have been morally tolerable in the past and present. Historically morality has never been of much sway in human affairs. But these aspects of capitalism may be actually existentially intolerable in future.

What an embarrasing post. I have seven different ideas marching off in four directions. Please excuse.

Inside North Korea: Do the North Koreans have a show starring their schoolchildren that could be a smash hit on Broadway or in Las Vegas?