Libertarianism

A Primer

De: David Boaz

Narrado por: Jeff Riggenbach

Tens of millions of Americans, from Generation X-ers to baby boomers and beyond, are rediscovering libertarianism, a visionary alternative to the tired party orthodoxies of left and right. In 1995, a Gallup poll found that 52 percent of Americans said, "the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." Later that year, The Wall Street Journal concurred: "Because of their growing disdain for government, more and more Americans appear to be drifting - often unwittingly - toward a libertarian philosophy."

Libertarianism is hardly new, but its framework for liberty under law and economic progress makes it especially suited for the dynamic new era we are now entering. In the United States, the bureaucratic leviathan is newly threatened by a resurgence of the libertarian ideas upon which the country was founded. We are witnessing a breakdown of all the cherished beliefs of the welfare-warfare state. David Boaz presents the essential guidebook to the libertarian perspective, detailing its roots, central tenets, solutions to contemporary policy dilemmas, and future in American politics. He confronts head-on the tough questions frequently posed to libertarians: What about inequality? Who protects the environment? What ties people together if they are essentially self-interested?

©1997 David Boaz (P)1997 Blackstone Audiobooks

future predicting!

amazing how this book was even abme to predict the rise of crypto currency! do read it!

A (useful) utopia

I have some sympathy for libertarianism. Mainly, they have developed the best arguments to keep in check our ever-swelling governments. I think we need libertarianism in the political discourse.
That said, as a political theory it has some serious flaw that make it unworkable as a complete solution for state organisation. Just to name a few of the many that I noticed while listening.

It suffers from the pasta&salt flaw. If they serve you pasta with no salt it won't be very nice. Add a pinch of salt and gets nicer. Another pinch and it gets even nicer. You can keep adding salt for a while and your pasta will improve. But, will it improve indefinitely adding more salt? Well no. As we know, an optimum will be reached and then, if you keep adding it will get worse and worse. Such is liberty. When you have none every bit you get is a blessing. But as you keep increasing, eventually you reach an optimum and then things start to get worse again. Hard to digest but that is true to the sacred value of liberty too. Where the optimum is nobody know that's the problem. But Boez's principle "unless you harming others" is vagues, simplistic and way past the optimum.

Usual one-sided attribution of the good and the bad of history. If you read a pro-socialism book all the good that happen in history will be a merit of socialism and the bad to be blamed on other evil political theories. If you read a book on conservatism the good is merti of conservatism and the bad to other evil political theories. And so on. This book is no different. All the good things that happen in history are merit of the fight for libertarianism and the rest is to blame to evil state enthusiasts. For example, the author pretends to own the end of slavery. Sure, liberty ideals were some of the main drivers for its end. But also compassion, justice were. And in any case, how do the liberty ideal that denies the right to own a human being relate with a political view that wants no social security or public education? Yeah, they are both about liberty but they are quite apart in my view.

Downplays human tendency to feel part of a community. Here I use "human nature" that the author uses to attack other philosophies, against his arguments. Clearly, libertarianism is about the individual and nothing else. It is clearly stated in the book. But human beings don't work that way. Or better said, not only in that way. We are both individuals and part of communities. Communities ARE active subjects of societies. They have an existence of their own quite unrelated to the indivuals composing them. Deny this fact and you will misinterpret society. Communities pretend that members adhere to the community rules or made to adhere. With force if necessary. At the end of the book he let the community concept re-enter into his world view and imagines a world were people chooses his own community and move from one to the other as they please. How naive! Entering a community would be a serious commitment the community would solemnly require of new members. The kids of the community would not choose to be part of it and would find very hard to leave such communities without being rejected by family and friends. Such things already exists and they are nightmarish. Boez will probably say that such acrimony would not be in line with libertarianism principles of liberty but that's exactly my point. Humane nature does not care about libertarian principles. It is what it is. Boez system is another utopia that would work if almost everybody embraced it to work. So is communism I'm afraid.

The 80-20 rule. It says, "you can achieve 80% of the result with 20% of the effort. If you want the other 20% of the result you have to put the remaining 80% of the effort". Libertarianism will easily handle the 80% of social situation. The problem is that problematic 20%. I bet that if we started with Boez dream society it would work most of the time but that 20% of problematic people, irreducible problems will force you to deviate from the perfect libertarian solution and you will probably end up with... a world similar to the one we live in where many state interventions actually deal with that problematic fringe of society.

Finally, it is against human nature in its request to do nothing. When things go bad, we human, feel an irreprensibile urge to do something to fix it. We can't avoid it. When a problem is community-wide we turn to the community ruleRs, the state, to fix it. And it will do it because so the community wants. I agree that in this game government ends up doing too much and abuse its position. But that is a human-nature problem we need to deal with, it is not an imposition of an elite on the goid libertarian people.

Clear, in-depth analysis

Great book. The author clearly defines Libertarianism and writes about it in such a way as to allow political neophytes like myself to fully understand the subject and its practical applications in today's world. I highly recommend this book for the casual reader and the political junkie alike.

Very good but not excellent

First off, Jeff Riggenbach is a heck of a reader, the kind of deep-voiced authoritative narrator that is now pretty much a throw-back to a bygone era. A great reading voice is no small thing; I've listened to great books that were poorly read - like Milton Friedman's "Money Mischief" - and a bad reading voice can easily ruin the experience. (I never finished "Money Mischief".)

That said, this book does a very good job of explaining the libertarian viewpoint; however, it stops short of what true libertarians aim for. The author takes for granted that we need government for this and that and the other thing, without bothering to explain why. I'm always suspicious of books that make broad, sweeping claims about things that affect everyone's life while affecting the wink-and-nudge attitude that those claims somehow are self-evident - that it would be a waste of time to even think of defending them.

For someone who really wants to understand true, unadulterated libertarianism, Murray N. Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" is a far superior book. Rothbard's book is clear, consistent, comprehensive and (yet) concise (event though it clocks in at over 15 hours). Rothbard argues against ANY government - if this sounds loopy to you, listen to his arguments. The man is brilliant. And that book is narrated by Jeff Riggenbach too.

Great read

It gives the reader an overview of the history of freedom. This book should be in every 8th grade civics class.

Recommended introduction

The book is a good libertarianism in a nutshell. It covers a lot of ground in history and principles. The only regret I have is the quality of the sound. Although it is clear enough to understand it, the sudden changes in volume and pitch make the listening a little annoying.

Excellent

This is a fine book for anyone not familiar with libertarianism philosophy. The book covers a bit of history, explains the fundamentals, and gives numerous examples of a libertarian approach to many issues. It takes on a few of the weaknesses of libertarianism, but does not address a few key issues. The US was much more libertarian in the past, but monopolies and depressions led the US to accept some quite non libertarian policies. The author does not address these (at least perceived) weaknesses – which makes this book less perfect than it might have been.

this book aged pretty well

this book outlines why being libertarian should be a great choice for every human being. the only problem is that it predicted the information age would be robust and balanced it didn't predict that we would have information and Technology overlords like Google Amazon Facebook Etc

The Essential for Any True Libertarian

Libertarians get a bad rep, mainly because those who claim to be libertarians have no idea what it means. This is essential listening for anyone who wishes to expand their understanding of libertarianism and not rely on preconceived notions. The book is far from political rather, it is philosophical. Boaz contextualizes libertarian philosophy as to show its true form.

Viable Third Option

This book is an excellent introduction to the Libertarian philosophy. The first half is dedicated to a concise and informal history of governments and social contracts, and the second half is full of examples of how the Libertarian philosophy would address the problems of the world today. Obviously there will be no magic bullet that will fix all the world's problems, but any thinking man or woman will find this to be the most consistent and liberating course to take. If you enjoy this book, any book covering Rand's Objectivist philosophy should be next on your list.