Editing Free to Choose (section)

==Positions advocated==
The Friedmans advocate ''[[laissez-faire]]'' economic policies, often criticizing [[Interventionism (politics)|interventionist]] government policies and their cost in personal freedoms and economic efficiency in the United States and abroad. They argue that international free trade has been restricted through [[tariff]]s and protectionism while domestic free trade and freedom have been limited through high taxation and regulation. They cite the 19th-century [[United Kingdom]], the [[United States]] before the [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]], and modern [[Hong Kong]] as ideal examples of a minimalist economic policy. They contrast the [[Economic history of Japan|economic growth]] of [[Japan]] after the [[Meiji Restoration]] and the [[economic stagnation]] of [[India]] after its independence from the [[British Empire]], and argue that India has performed worse despite its superior economic potential due to its centralized planning. They argue that even countries with [[Planned economy|command economies]], including the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], have been forced to adopt limited market mechanisms in order to operate. The authors argue against government [[Fuel tax|taxation on gas]] and [[Tobacco tax|tobacco]] and government regulation of the public school systems. The Friedmans argue that the [[Federal Reserve System|Federal Reserve]] exacerbated the [[Great Depression]] by neglecting to prevent the decline of the [[money supply]] in the years leading up to it. They further argue that the American public falsely perceived the Depression to be a result of a failure of capitalism rather than the government, and that the Depression allowed the [[Federal Reserve Board of Governors|Federal Reserve Board]] to centralize its control of the monetary system despite its responsibility for it.

On the subject of [[Welfare state|welfare]], the Friedmans argue that the United States has maintained a higher degree of freedom and productivity by avoiding the [[nationalization]]s and extensive welfare systems of [[Western Europe]]an countries such as the [[Welfare state in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] and [[Sweden]]. However, they also argue that welfare practices since the New Deal under "the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services#Department of Health, Education, and Welfare|HEW]] empire" have been harmful. They argue that [[Social programs in the United States|public assistance programs]] have become larger than originally envisioned and are creating "[[wards of the state]]" as opposed to "self-reliant individuals." They also argue that the [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security System]] is fundamentally flawed, that [[urban renewal]] and [[public housing]] programs have contributed to [[Racial inequality in the United States|racial inequality]] and diminished quality of low-income housing, and that [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] and [[Medicaid]] are responsible for rising healthcare prices in the United States. They suggest completely replacing the welfare state with a [[negative income tax]] as a less harmful alternative.

The Friedmans also argue that declining academic performance in the United States is the result of increasing government control of the [[Education in the United States|American education system]] tracing back to the 1840s, but suggest a [[School voucher|voucher system]] as a politically feasible solution. They blame the [[1973–1975 recession|1970s recession]] and lower quality of [[consumer goods]] on extensive business regulations since the 1960s, and advocate abolishing the [[Food and Drug Administration]], the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]], the [[U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission|Consumer Product Safety Commission]], [[Amtrak]], and [[Conrail]]. They argue that the [[1970s energy crisis|energy crisis]] would be resolved by abolishing the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] and [[price floor]]s on [[Petroleum|crude oil]]. They recommend replacing the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] and [[Environmental policy of the United States|environmental regulation]] with an [[Ecotax|effluent charge]]. They criticize [[Trade union|labor unions]] for raising prices and lowering [[Law of demand|demand]] by enforcing high wage levels, and for contributing to [[Unemployment in the United States|unemployment]] by limiting jobs. They argue that inflation is caused by excessive government spending, the Federal Reserve's attempts to control [[interest rate]]s, and [[full employment]] policy. They call for tighter control of Fed money supply despite the fact that it will result in a temporary period of high unemployment and low growth due to the interruption of the [[Price/wage spiral|wage-price spiral]]. In the final chapter, they take note of recent current events that seem to suggest a return to free-market principles in academic thought and public opinion, and argue in favor of an "economic [[Bill of rights|Bill of Rights]]" to cement the changes.