To begin with, whenever anyone who writes for the WSJ‘s opinion pages mentions Milton Friedman, you have to deal with hagiographic excess, such as the lede of this column today by Bret Stephens headlined, “How Milton Friedman Saved Chile:”

Milton Friedman has been dead for more than three years. But his spirit was surely hovering protectively over Chile in the early morning hours of Saturday. Thanks largely to him, the country has endured a tragedy that elsewhere would have been an apocalypse….

St. Milton the Liberal, savior of Chile (at the very least)? A bit much…

But the piece is interesting, and instructive. We learn about the role that Friedman’s “Chicago Boys” supposedly played in shaping the modern Chilean economy, fostering liberal policies.

Of course, you know what’s coming: The inevitable (in the WSJ, anyway) assertion that the liberalization of Chile’s economy saved the country from an earthquake 500 times as intense as the one that devastated Haiti.

Now here’s the thing, folks: Looking across the global landscape, I, too, would agree that freeing up the private sector, particularly from truly oppressive governments such as the Pinochet crowd St. Milton’s acolytes were advising, is a good thing. (Where the Friedmanistas get confused is when they think we have, or are in any danger of having, such a stifling, controlling gummint in this country.) I mean, what American would not applaud such measures?

But the whole time I’m reading, I’m thinking, all the free-market measures in the universe would not save one building from collapsing. What you need to keep the buildings up is strong, enforced building codes — in other words, an assertive form of government regulation. Kind of, ya know, the opposite of getting the gummint off folks’ backs.

Mr. Stephens, to his credit, realizes he can’t end his piece without dealing with that huge fact, so he does, thusly:

Chile also has some of the world’s strictest building codes. That makes sense for a country that straddles two massive tectonic plates. But having codes is one thing, enforcing them is another. The quality and consistency of enforcement is typically correlated to the wealth of nations. The poorer the country, the likelier people are to scrimp on rebar, or use poor quality concrete, or lie about compliance. In the Sichuan earthquake of 2008, thousands of children were buried under schools also built according to code.

And you know what? He’s right. A rich country IS more likely to demand strict building codes and strict enforcement. Just as a rich country is more likely to demand a strong, assertive (but obviously, not oppressive) government in general to provide the kind of environment in which property is safe and the forces of nature red in tooth and claw are kept in check.

In other words, government — robust, healthy, legitimate government — is essential to building the kinds of communities in which rational rich people want to live. Always has been. Which is why rational rich people are more than happy to pay reasonable taxes to support such.

But to hear the more radical followers of St. Milton most of the time, they don’t really believe that. If they did, they’d dial back their efforts to constantly denigrate and delegitimize government in all its manifestations, because doing so weakens its ability to perform its essential functions, functions necessary to the protection and preservation of wealth.