Friedman held individual market exit could substitute for political regulation of war products

Evidence

The extent of Friedman’s departure from Knight’s position was evident in his comments in a 1972 interview in the Business and Society Review. “If a chemist feels it is immoral to make napalm, he can solve his problem by getting a job where he doesn’t have to,” he told the interviewer. “He will pay a price. But the ultimate effect will be that if many, many people feel that way, the cost of hiring people to make napalm will be high, napalm will be expensive, and less of it will be used. This is another way in which the free market does provide a much more sensitive and subtle voting mechanism than does the po liti cal system.” Friedman’s comments here strongly implied that any social harms brought about by a transaction could be redressed through the effect of the qualms of unique individuals on the marketplace price. He did not concede the existence of a collectiveaction problem even in matters involving a weapon of extraordinary force. — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 478

Categorization

• QUESTION: The individual-exit model treats moral qualms as cleanly priced into labor supply — but how does that hold when the consumers of napalm are states, not individuals? Worth chasing.
• XREF: Directly anticipates the logic Hirschman’s ‘Exit, Voice, and Loyalty’ critiqued; also connects to Burgess/Stein neoliberal citizenship debate. — connects to: Friedman saw market expansion as reducing the need for political deliberation — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 794; Friedman valued market freedom over political democracy and saw the market as eliminating coercion. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 326

Broader Connections

• Friedman saw market expansion as reducing the need for political deliberation #corroborates (0.88) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 794
• Friedman valued market freedom over political democracy and saw the market as eliminating coercion. #expands (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 326