Milton Friedman on Crime and the law
The rule of law does not guarantee freedom, since general laws as well as personal edicts can be tyrannical. But increasing reliance on the rule of law clearly played a major role in transforming Western society from a world in which the ordinary citizen was literally subject to the arbitrary will of his master to a world in which the ordinary citizen could regard himself as his own master.
Context. From the first of two New York Times op-ed essays written at Ely, Vermont, in October 1971, after the August 15 wage-price freeze and as the Nixon administration’s Phase II pay board and price board took over.
Where this comes from
Checked against the sourceThe wording was checked against the work itself.
Cite this passage
Milton Friedman, “Morality and Controls: I” (The New York Times, October 28, 1971; reprinted in the Congressional Record, Senate, October 29, 1971, pp. 38201 to 38202, introduced by Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, who dates the two essays to “the October 28 and 29 editions of the New York Times”, under the header “[From the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1971]”, 1971), Congressional Record, October 29, 1971, pp. 38201–38202. https://miltonfriedman.org/quotes/rule-of-law-does-not-guarantee-freedom-1971
Quoted for commentary and research. Rights in the underlying work remain with its rights holder, so cite the work itself, not only this page.
Topics
He also said
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.
In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your country” implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.
One of the proudest achievements of Western civilization was the substitution of the rule of law for the rule of men. The ideal is that government restrictions on our behavior shall take the form of impersonal rules, applicable to all alike, and interpreted and adjudicated by an independent judiciary rather than of specific orders by a government official to named individuals.
Context. From the first of two New York Times op-ed essays written at Ely, Vermont, in October 1971, after the August 15 wage-price freeze and as the Nixon administration’s Phase II pay board and price board took over.
Morality and Controls: IColumn, 1971, The New York Times, October 28, 1971; reprinted in the Congressional Record, Senate, October 29, 1971, pp. 38201 to 38202, introduced by Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, who dates the two essays to “the October 28 and 29 editions of the New York Times”, under the header “[From the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1971]”, Congressional Record, October 29, 1971, pp. 38201–38202Checked against the sourceRead the original
Think this quote is wrong, misattributed, or missing context? Report it and it gets fixed, not argued with.