A Study Of Liberty
Written: Jun 15 '05 (Updated Jun 15 '05)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Well rounded. Presents a clear picture of libertarianism. Informative.
Cons: Requires a bit of intellectual sophistication and prior interest. Some gaps.
The Bottom Line: A good book for the student of politics.
|
|
|
| jay1051971's Full Review: David Boaz - Libertarianism: A Primer |
Libertarianism is probably one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented political ideologies today. To adherents and critics alike, it is a political worldview that demands attention and analysis, as it attempts to answer fundamental questions regarding the relationship between the individual and the State. In Libertarianism: A Primer, author David Boaz attempts to provide a foundation for the study of libertarianism by examining its history, its ideals, and its future.
Chapter Listing:
1. The Coming Libertarian Age
2. The Roots of Libertarianism
3. What Rights Do We Have?
4. The Dignity of the Individual
5. Pluralism and Toleration
6. Law and the Constitution
7. Civil Society
8. The Market Process
9. What Big Government Is All About
10. Contemporary Issues
11. The Obsolete State
12. The Libertarian Future
Appendix: Are You A Libertarian?
For Further Reading
Acknowledgements
Breakdown:
Although many of us are too young to remember, there was a time not too long ago when collectivist ideologies were taken for granted as the wave of the future. In the 1930s, we were told that we basically had two choices of which particular strain of collectivism we would evolve into: fascism or communism. The individualist qualities of classical liberalism, the ideology that birthed our nation, were seen as an outmoded and inefficient relic of the past to be discarded. Indeed, that is why most university classes in political science often portray all varieties of political thought on a two dimension spectrum, with communism at the left end and fascism at the right, and modern liberalism and conservativism just to the right and left of center, representing the “status quo”, accordingly.
But is this really an accurate portrayal of the various perspectives on politics? Given that they are both totalitarian and collectivist ideologies, are they really polar opposites of each other? Where does one place they on the spectrum if they are in favor of smaller and limited government, individual autonomy and responsibility, and free markets? Certainly in today’s environment, that certainly is not the political center!
Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that upholds the dignity and sanctity of the individual. It can be summed up in one very simple sentence: Every person ought to be able to live their lives in anyway they wish, without interference, so long as they abstain from violence and fraud. In short, it is the philosophy of individualism and freedom. As simple as this may sound, to many people it is an extremely radical concept once they start examining the full implications of this view. But to the extent that one accepts that people should be free to go about their business, deciding for themselves how to conduct their affairs and how their property shall be used, one is a libertarian. To the extent one believes that individuals should not be allowed this self-determination, in whatever form, one is the opposite of a libertarian; one is an authoritarian.
Libertarianism is the philosophy of peace. Libertarians embrace a concept known as the “non-aggression principle”. In short, it takes the view that the only acceptable use of violent force is in defense against aggression. The initiation of force is immoral. That may seem self-evident to most people, but where libertarians differ is that they hold government to the same moral standard as individuals. Government works by one principle and one principle alone: force. Any law, regulation, tax, or program is backed up by the threat of violence for non-compliance. Libertarians recognize this, and seek to minimize or eliminate government power wherever it is used in an unjust manner. They recognize that any action that would be immoral for an individual to commit, say walking up to a stranger with a gun and demanding money, would be just as immoral if government did the same thing.
Some critics might label this as pacifism. But it is only the patently stupid or willfully dishonest critic who would level such a charge. The non-aggression principle holds that the initiation of force is immoral. Using force to defend oneself against violence is perfectly acceptable. As a logical extension, this supports the concept of national defense, which all libertarians would agree is a legitimate function of government. What most libertarians protest is the use of our military and political might to engage in international offense, as is being used in the current war on Iraq, and what has been the basis for the whole of American foreign policy over the past 100 years.
Other critics might label this as irresponsible hedonism. Let people behave any way they wish?! Are you nuts?? But what most fail to realize is that such freedom is inseparable from the responsibility it carries. When one is free to pursue happiness on their own, it then becomes their responsibility to achieving their goals. They do not have the ability to place that burden on others. Their successes and their failures are their own.
But other critics might say this is cruel. Let people fail, with no safety net?! We’ll have old ladies and orphans starving in the streets! But isn’t it crueler to keep adults in a state of perpetual childhood by seeking to constantly shelter them from the consequences of their behavior? How many times as youngsters did we do something stupid, only to learn a lesson from our folly when we reaped the consequences of poor decision making?
The “social safety net” breeds what economists call a “moral hazard”. When people are not likely to incur any repercussions for short-sighted or irresponsibility, they are more likely to engage in the risky behaviors that lead to disastrous failure, leaving others with the burden for picking up the pieces. It socializes the costs for dangerous behavior, this subsidizing and promoting more of this behavior. Now that’s hedonism!
As a libertarian myself, I am always on the look out for books on libertarianism, not so much to educate myself on that which I already embrace, but to examine how libertarianism is being presented to people who want to learn more about its principles, ideals, ideas, and solutions. Often times, when discussing politics with others, one is only given a short time span to discuss a relevant topic in a limited scope. At first introduction, many don’t quite “get” what libertarianism is all about. What’s even more telling is that I have been called at different times, with equal repugnance from each of my accusers, both a “bleeding heart leftist” and a “right wing nut”. That I have been basically accused of harboring sentiments from what most people assume are completely opposite political views says more about the limitations of our current political language than it does about any of my principles. Obviously, good books that can represent these views are in much demand.
Libertarianism: A Primer is a book designed to walk an informed layman through the philosophy of libertarianism. It begins with a look at the future and why there is hope that the ideals of liberty and freedom are on the march. The first sentence of the book discusses a gallop poll in which 39 percent of all Americans feel that the Federal government has grown so large, that it poses an immediate threat to ordinary citizens. Take out the word ‘immediate’ and the percentage jumps to 52 percent!
From there, the books discusses the historical roots of libertarianism, finding common ground in the wisdom of the ancient Chinese, the Bible, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the American Founding Fathers. It is a whirlwind of the history of philosophy that leads into a discussion of the nature of rights. In short, there is only one right, from which all other rights flow: the right of private property. Today, when many people want to claim that they have this right or that right, it is important to know the difference between a natural right and a manufactured one. What Boaz demonstrates is that claiming a “right” to, say, health care means that you have a right to force someone to provide it for you; in essence, you make them your slave. False rights such as these only muddy the water when it comes to the protection of genuine rights.
Toleration is a libertarian credo. “Live and let live,” as the saying goes. There is a chapter that discusses toleration and why it is important to the functioning of a civil society. Often, so many people feel that they can solve all of societies problems by simply forcing people to behave properly. Maybe they are have the wrong, or no, religious values. Maybe they think in a backward, ignorant way. But such efforts only lead to societal conflict and strife.
Of course, no discussion of libertarianism would be complete without a discussion of the framework of government and free market economics. Libertarians believe that government, because it is institutionalized violence, needs to be restrained and held in check by a system of checks and balances. This is why many Libertarians consider themselves Constitutionalists. But limiting the functions of government doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t want the services that government performs. Libertarians recognize the most efficient, and peaceful way for the needs of society to get met are to allow the free-market the fullest range possible. Allowing private individuals to work together, to buy, sell, and trade in accordance with their own plans and ambitions, allows for the efficient allocation of resources. The empirical evidence of history backs this up. Wherever the free market has been allowed to function (take the computer industry, for instance), we’ve seen rapid technological innovation, better quality and service, at lower prices. In the areas where government has wielded a heavy hand (like health care or the post office), we’ve seen stagnation, rising costs, and chaos.
The book concludes by examining some concrete examples of how libertarian ideas would be implemented, and what sort of solutions libertarians would propose, followed by another look at the future with optimism and hope. Many people accuse libertarians of being chronic complainers, “navel gazers”, or malcontents. They say, “sure that’s nice to gripe about, but what’s your solution?” This book provides a look at just a few examples of libertarian solutions to modern problems: crime, education, welfare, warfare, etc. The author states very clearly that “political society has failed to usher in the new age of peace and plenty it has promised.” Because of this, more and more people are beginning to accept that if they have a problem, government will not solve it, and indeed, may only make it worse. Given the disastrous record of government, the author is optimistic that we can get on the road to a better future.
Overall:
This is not a bad book for an educated reader to use for a beginning study. I do have trouble with the title, namely that this is a “primer”. To me, a primer is meant for a real beginner. This book is not for someone who is completely ignorant of some history, philosophy, and economics. Furthermore, his writing style is just half-a-hair too academic for the average reader. I would say that this book is suitable for a college sophomore with a prior interest in politics and economics. Would this be the first book to turn to if one wanted to learn about libertarian ideas? Probably not. I like other books like The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne that may be more lucid and consumable.
Also, I think in certain parts, Boaz tends to over simplify some of the arguments for the sake of expediency. Reading it, I felt that, had I wanted to play Devil’s Advocate, I could have punched some good-sized holes in his arguments. Still, taken as a whole, the book serves a useful purpose, and may encourage more dialogue and or study of libertarian ideas by any skeptics. As the title specifies, it is a primer, and not a treatise devoted to the entire scope of thought. If one is looking for books of that sort, one need not go any further than For A New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard.
With the above caveats, I recommend this, and give it four stars.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
jay1051971
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Jason
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Reviews written: 343
Trusted by: 216 members
About Me:
The 4 Essential Food Groups: Drugs, Guns, Booze, and Hookers.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.