Jump to content

Talk:David D. Friedman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economist?

[edit]

Friedman has a B.S. in Chemistry and Physics from Harvard and a PhD in theoretical physics from UChicago. This does not make him an economist, even though he is repeatedly characterized as such in this article. Nor does being Milton Friedman's child make one an economist. The presumption must be that Friedman is not an economist since he lacks academic training and an academic position in the field. He could rebut this presumption with a lot of high-quality peer-reviewed publications in the field of economics. Does he have those? Steeletrap (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is undue emphasis by putting "physicist, legal scholar" ahead of libertarian theorist. His books (published by PUP, CUP, HarperCollins, Open Court, etc) deal with economic subjects and less so with law or physics. So the proper order of description should be "economics writer and libertarian theorist, law professor and physicist." – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that he's a law professor, given that his training is in physics. Is it common for non-JDs to teach at law school? Steeletrap (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Friedman's C.V., I support "economist." He is an autodidact who has contributed to the field. He may have heterodox political ideas, but has done serious empirical work for American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, and other leading journals.
Given his lack of formal academic training, perhaps we should do an RfC? Steeletrap (talk)`
Libertarian/an-cap theorist should be first. Then economist. Then physicist. Steeletrap (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cv. Santa Clara is an ABA approved law school. Usually JDs teach, but a JD is not required. There is a David Friedman who's a member of the California State Bar, [1] but I don't think he's our David Friedman. I wouldn't support putting theorist first without more secondary sources describing him as such. Economist or economics writer are equally fine with me. I don't think an RFC is needed, or would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've known David for over forty years. He and I continue to vehemently disagree on economics across the board; but the record is clear, that he is regarded as a legitimate economist by his peers in that field, however heterodox his theories, ideology and opinions. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His publication track record speaks for itself. His work is regarded as serious and scholarly by the editors of top journals. Steeletrap (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

The page says "He was previously a Markle Senior Fellow at New America Foundation from 2000 to 2002." That is not correct. It is confusing me with another person of the same name. (As is probably obvious, this comment is by the David Friedman who is the subject of the page). I gather that I am not supposed to edit my own page, so am putting this comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8980:DD8D:5462:4C7A:8DEB:5762 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was not sourced, and disputed, there was no reason to leave it there.
 —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David D. Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sourcechecked=true – looks like some duplicate reduction is required and the original URL still works.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David D. Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Free-market anarchist"

[edit]

@15: Friedman isn't a free-market anarchist as the term is understood. We can mention that fellow anarcho-capitalists label him as such, but he does not fit the definition. This does not make him an "anarchist", so trying to add the category "Jewish anarchists" is incorrect. BeŻet (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeŻet,thank you for discussing this on the talk page. He is described as free-market anarchist by academic sources. Are there any sources which contradict that? There are many varieties of anarchism and while there are certainly some anarchists who wouldn't see him as one, it does not make him less of one. In any case, we have to go by sources. 15 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is described as a free-market anarchist by a fellow anarcho-capitalist. Since anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism, as hundreds of sources state, this change is unnecessary. BeŻet (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BeŻet, I don't see why anarcho-capitalism not being anarchists matter in this case. What matters is that he is a free-market anarchist, therefore falling under anarchism. Or is your argument that the sources are not reliable by virtue of allegedly being anarcho-capitalist? 15 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But he isn't a free market anarchist. He is just labelled as such by one of his friends. Since he clearly is a capitalist, why would we label him as an anarchist? It makes no sense. And yes, since the source is from an anarcho-capitalist writer, it uses anarcho-capitalist language, and that needs to be taken into consideration. BeŻet (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BeŻet, whether or not capitalism can be compatible with anarchism is subject of ongoing dispute and not one I wish to go into on this talk page. I don't think Wikipedia should be taking a side in the dispute and enforce it, as you have done with your recent edits. If you believe that anarcho-capitalist should not be labelled anarchists, then it would be good if you sought a consensus on that matter on the appropriate WikiProject or VP before making wide-ranging changes. As it stands, sources describe him as "free-market anarchist", a branch of anarchists. 15 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ongoing "dispute", there is a consensus on Wikipedia, as there is amongst academic research. The only dispute here is anarcho-capitalists being upset they can't use a radical chic. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BeŻet, you're right, I didn't realise Category:Jewish anarcho-capitalists existed - this is undoubtedly better (although it eludes me why Jewish X categories exist at all). It would be appreciated if such a discussion was the first thing to come after the revert. Best, 15 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"anarcho-capitalist" is an unfortunate label, because (as Roderick Long has eloquently pointed out) "capitalism" has multiple conflicting meanings. I assume Friedman would not complain if the corporate form, deprived of state protectionism, were driven extinct by market competition. But apparently that's not good enough for those who say you can't be a Real Anarchist unless you advocate forcibly preventing people from organizing their affairs in disapproved ways. —Tamfang (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

consequentialism

[edit]
He advocates a consequentialist version of anarcho-capitalism

Does he? My read is that he prefers to argue for his system from a consequentialist footing rather than a moral one, because the audience don't all share his moral instincts. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_D._Friedman&oldid=1207311501"