On the general point, I think a lot of people do behave as you say. But just because straw men exist doesn’t mean that you should focus on them. A large number of very sophisticated thinkers are aware of negative consequences etc. of both free-markets and their less pleasant alternatives and devote themselves to figuring out what the optimal policy positions might be. While that’s not a whinge about the MFI (set it up, I say) it does imply that it’s lazy for Horwitz to pick on the loons in his argument.

First, thanks for the comment.

Second, commentary on the theoretical social value of the ideas aside, the part of Horwitz’s post that I am approvingly referencing here (though it is not clear in the post) is the more general and point — and the one I think is Horwitz’ primary focus — that Horwitz is exposing the authors’ attacks the Chicago School and the MFI for promoting free-markets without understanding their negative consequences (including external costs) as failing to consider the sometimes drastic real world consequences of the alternatives.

Maybe Friedman’s supporters should stick with Cochrane’s marginally more intelligent path of hailing China as a paragon of globalization.