Mill and Friedman: Different Only in Their Details

Political theorists build their ideas upon past theories. Jon Stuart Mill learned from Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism. Even though regarded highly revolutionary at the time, Mill derived his ideas from utilitarianism thinking. Milton Friedman, one of more prominent neo-liberalism thinkers, was no different. Friedman was largely inspired by Mill and other classical liberalism thinkers when he sought to develop the idea that would address the growth of New Deal policies. The language of Friedman differs from that of Mill because Friedman lived a century ahead of Mill; however, Friedman’s idea does not derive much from Mill’s in its basic principle.

Friedman and Mill’s idea do have some differences, although they are relatively minor. Differences came largely from Friedman adopting classical liberalism into the modern political and economic landscape. Just as socialists incorporated their utopian ideal of a classless society into their ideas, Friedman incorporated his utopian ideal of natural rights – that everyone is entitled to natural rights - to make his idea of a limited government more appealing to those disillusioned with Keynesian, New Deal policies. Since a government has no authority to regulate a nature, Friedman claims laws should protect, not interfere upon individual’s rights. Friedman’s reasoning differs from that of Mill, although both share in a principle of limited government. On his book On Liberty, Mill relies on a utilitarian logic to advance his argument for a limited government. Mill argues an individual with his self-interest in the matter can conduct a business better than a government which has no self-interest because an individual is likely to pay greater attention to a business than a g...

... middle of paper ...

...

Mill and Friedman, while a century apart, are remarkably similar in their principle. Both advocate for a limited government and a competition-based economy. Both believe competition should be fair and played by the rule interpreted and enforced by the government. They believe in the government’s power to control the monetary supply as well as the power to control some monopoly if the resource is essential. Finally, despite their skepticism against the paternalistic government, both voice their opinion that madmen and children should be governed in a paternalistic way by the government because they are not fully capable of making responsible decisions. Friedman, while adopting Mill’s policy to fit into the modern political and economic landscape, differ from Mill largely only in details and semantics; Friedman retain most of principles shaped by Mill a century ago.