Friedman's brainwaves are flat

One thing about all the policy controversy of late: we're finding out peoples' true colors:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

Who defines "reasonably enlightened?" Having recently met Friedman, I'm 'reasonably' sure he puts himself in that category. Technocrats have flirted with such ideas since Plato. The reality is always messier--and bloodier--than the theory. After all, Friedman's 'enlightened' Chinese rulers have a habit of bashing heads. This is the model he wants to follow here? Autocracy is a lazy form of government, relying on force rather than the more difficult work of reason and persuasion. It's the refuge of those unable or unwilling to demonstrate the superiority of their position. And it's the preference of a population that doesn't want the work of thinking for themselves.

Freedom is dying in America because people don't want to put in the effort to sustain it anymore.

(HT: Vox)