Relationship Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

Friedman: Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

The importance of the concept freedom cannot be understated. Freedom is not a new phenomenon as it has been in existence for a long time. There are various types of freedom, which are often interrelated. Economic freedom is inextricably related to political freedom. For instance, economic freedom is intertwined with political freedom in the sense that leaders (chosen based on political freedoms) may determine economic policies. The concepts presented in Milton Friedman's work titled 'Capitalism and Freedom' show that political freedom is essential for the realization of economic freedom.

Political freedom and economic freedom are intertwined in that both serve as a function of each other. Friedman confirmed the existence of close connections between politics and economics: only defined combinations of economic and political arrangements are feasible. For instance, a socialist society does not guarantee individual freedom (Friedman 8). Political freedom largely constitutes a free society. Political freedom revolves around individual rights such as the right to free connections, the right to free expression, and the right to vote. These rights often enable people to choose who shall be their leaders and how they shall be ruled.

Economic arrangements play a vital role in the advancement of a free society. Friedman posits that economic freedom is an end in itself and an essential means towards the realization of political freedom. He cites numerous cases in which individual rights are curtailed by the government. For instance, an American citizen who is denied the opportunity to practice his own occupation unless he is licensed under numerous state laws is denied his freedoms. In addition, a person willing to exchange some of his merchandise to a Swiss but prevented from doing so by a quota is also denied his economic freedom (Friedman 12).

Economic freedom can be seen as an end to political freedom because economic arrangements are vital because of their effect on the dispersion or concentration. Political freedoms are often intertwined with free markets. Capitalist systems advance economic freedom by propagating individualism. As such, people are free to own any amount of factors of production and carry out any economic venture. This is contrary to the communist system, which curtails economic freedom by instituting that all factors of production are owned by the state. Political freedoms can be curtailed by economic conditions in the sense that poor people may not have access to information. According to Friedman, political freedom came into being alongside the development of capitalist institutions and free markets. As such, the capitalist system is a prerequisite condition for political freedom (Friedman 9).

Friedman further posits that individual freedoms are seen as the ultimate goals while judging social arrangements. Freedom in this sense refers to the interrelations among individuals. In addition, economic freedom is interrelated with political freedom in the sense that the existence of a free market or capitalist system does not eliminate the need for government. As such, Friedman posits that the government is vital as a forum for defining the rules of the game in terms of laws, and as an arbiter to interpret and enforce those laws. For instance, the government enacts numerous taxation laws and restrictions on international trade such as quotas. In addition, the government also serves to enforce and interpret those laws using its agencies as it deems fit. Political action thus serves to enforce substantial conformity. The free market, as such, only reduces the range of concerns that must be decided via political means thus minimizing government interference (Friedman 13).

Friedman further cites Bentham and philosophical radicals who argued that political freedom was a means to economic freedom. In this case, political freedom acts as a means to economic freedom in the sense that people's economic freedoms are hampered by leaders. As such, if political reforms gave many people the right to vote, they would vote for a laissez faire government. Indeed, political freedoms may influence economic freedoms. For instance, the election of a democratic government that supports free trade may promote economic freedoms unlike a government that shuns free trade. In addition, additional taxes imposed by a government may serve to hinder people's economic freedoms in the sense that they reduce their disposable income. This relationship is further cemented by the fact that political reforms in the nineteenth century resulted into economic reform in the form of the laissez faire government. This was later followed by improvement of the masses' livelihoods (Friedman 17).

Economic freedom is also comparable to political freedom in the sense that the wide diversity provided for by markets alludes to proportional representation in political realms. As such, one's freedom to choose a given commodity is akin to a voter being allowed to vote for a given candidate without being coerced. In this sense, the market provides economic freedom. Political freedom, on the other hand, entails the absence of coercion of individuals by fellow people. When the power to coerce is vested in the hands of a dictator, monarch, or oligarchy, individual freedoms are often curtailed. As such, the preservation of freedom requires the elimination of power concentrated in the hands of the select-few and; it can be distributed via a system of checks and balances. Therefore, the market plays a crucial role in ensuring that the economic strength is a check to political power as opposed to reinforcement.

Friedman also showed that keeping economic power away from political power is a strategy to counter political power. In this case, an economic power that further translates to economic freedom is essential in balancing the political power of a society. A free society advances individual freedoms to advocate completely for a radical change in societal structures. This is possible when the advocacy does not include any form of coercion and is restricted to persuasion. In addition, Friedman posits that political freedom in a socialist system would oblige that people advocate for the introduction of capitalism. However, people can only advocate for anything if their survival is not threatened. In this sense, societies where economic freedoms are curtailed by the government like socialist states do not propagate radical change.

Political freedoms and economic freedoms are also related in the sense that economically empowered citizens can easily demand their political freedoms. This is because they can finance their activities like publishing pamphlets, issuing newspapers and holding public meetings to air their grievances. As such, capitalist societies have seen the success of radical movements based on the support of a few wealthy individuals who sponsor the movements. In addition, the market plays a role in upholding political freedom (Friedman 20).

To support his logic, Friedman provides various accounts of historical occurrences. For instance, Friedman posits that Winston Churchill was barred from talking over the British radio during the outbreak of the Second World War. He further cites a 1959 incident reported in Time in which some writers had been blacklisted in the Hollywood industry as suspected Communists since 1947. This shows that individual's political freedoms have been curtailed by their inclination to certain economic stances. As such, the freedom to advance communist ideas was hindered by the government (Friedman 13).