The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever

Non-Fiction Reviews, Statism, The Basics
Share

I am not exaggerating: this is what Jacob Huebert’s just-published book Libertarianism Today is [Scribd version; PDF; Amazon; Mises store; online at https://b-ok dot cc/book/1270024/2f0d43]. I’ve been a libertarian for over 25 years, and have read a lot of libertarian books. I am sure I was one of Laissez Faire Books‘s biggest customers in its heyday in the 80s and 90s. Among introductions to libertarianism I’ve read are Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty (1st ed. 1973), David Bergland’s Libertarianism in One Lesson (1st ed. 1984), David Boaz’s Libertarianism: A Primer (1997), Charles Murray’s What It Means To Be A Libertarian (1997), Jeffrey Miron’s recent Libertarianism from A to Z (2010), and probably others I’ve forgotten.

Now, among these, Rothbard’s FANL is a classic and stands out, of course. But FANL is more of Rothbard’s own particular vision of libertarianism rather than a more comprehensive presentation of the views of the libertarian movement. And of course it is a bit dated by now, does not cover in detail topics that have risen to the fore in the intervening years (such as intellectual property, the Tea Party movement, nullification, etc.).

Given the rise of the Tea Party and the expansion of the libertarian movement in the last couple decades–and the inadequacies of other introductory books (each of them, other than FANL, has various deficiencies, although some of them are excellent and most of them worth reading too)–it was high time for a good, up to date new treatment. Huebert has done just this. I read the book in manuscript form well before its publication; I readily disclose I’m friends with Huebert (he’s also a co-blogger here at TLS). I read it with growing excitement. Here, finally, was a book that covered all the major issues, and from a solidly Austrian and anarchist-informed base–one that did not reveal (or feign) ignorance of various libertarian perspectives on issues such as democracy and decentralization and drawbacks of use of electoral politics or court battles. I’ve long maintained that an appreciation of Austrian economics is essential to sound libertarian theorizing; without it, there is always something missing; with it, a more integrated and coherent libertarian perspective is possible (and frankly I don’t see how one can be an Austrian and not a libertarian, unless one is a misanthrope). Huebert’s book exemplifies this strength in spades. He is thoroughly familiar with Austrian economics and intertwines it throughout his analysis. Let me also say, as somewhat of a specialist on IP related matters, that Huebert’s chapter on this topic is probably the single-best concise overview and explanation of the proper Austrian-libertarian case against IP, and the related libertarian debates about this matter, that I’ve ever read.

The book is great for the intelligent person looking to learn more, but has enough insights to interest even seasoned libertarian intellectuals. This is one of the first books I can imagine giving to intelligent, almost-libertarian friends, who have some interest in our ideas (others include Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, Rothbard & Rockwell’s The Free Market Reader, Bastiat’s The Law, Woods’s Nullification and Meltdown; for more ideas, and links to some of these, see my The Greatest Libertarian Books). The book is punchy and well written, not boring; but it doesn’t talk down to the reader either. It’s got exactly the right tone, and covers all the major, modern libertarian issues–and fairly and objectively, to boot. It’s going to be very useful and popular among seasoned libertarians; the growing young generation of emerging libertarians; and with potentially interested people among the civil libertarian left and among the anti-bailout right/Tea Party types. I highly, highly recommend this wonderful book.

Update: More reviews:

The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever Read Post »

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

(Austrian) Economics, Nanny Statism, Vulgar Politics
Share

According to this Boston Globe article, How facts backfire, people are not persuaded by facts, and this does not bode well for the future of democracy as people’s perceptions (and voting decisions) are unaltered by “evidence”.  In one experiment researchers ask people to guess how much the government spends on welfare and how much they should spend.  One group is told the “correct” answer of 1% ahead of time, while the other one is not …

There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas. He asked one group of participants what percentage of its budget they believed the federal government spent on welfare, and what percentage they believed the government should spend. Another group was given the same questions, but the second group was immediately told the correct percentage the government spends on welfare (1 percent). They were then asked, with that in mind, what the government should spend. Regardless of how wrong they had been before receiving the information, the second group indeed adjusted their answer to reflect the correct fact.

Apparently some ideologues are unpersuaded by facts, but others manipulate them to justify their agendas. Looking at US Government Spending, lets find out what government welfare spending is …

If one excludes about $987,400,000,000.00 dollars in social security/retirement, and excludes another $1,046,600,000,000.00 dollars in education, and excludes another $1,090,200,000,000.00 dollars in health care expenses, and includes only federal spending leaving out about another $200,000,000,000.00 dollars in state spending.  That leaves about $557,000,000,000.00 dollars in the welfare category, which is about 15% of total federal-only spending, and about 8.3% of total government spending including the states.

However, if one digs down into the sub-categories of the welfare category and excludes another $194,000,000,000.00 dollars in unemployment, and excludes another $77,000,000,000.00 dollars in housing, and excludes another $186,000,000,000.00 dollars in “social exclusion” (which sure looks like welfare, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt). That leaves about $99,000,000,000.00 in the “Family and Children” category.  Which would be about 2.6% of federal-only spending, and about 1.5% of total government spending including the states, which in theory could be rounded down to 1%.

So in theory it could indeed be argued that the correct amount that government spends on welfare is 1%, but it could be better argued that facts, statistics, and semantics are being manipulated using a pointless definition of “welfare” to associate it with all entitlement spending in general and confound people who correctly and intuitively know we live in a world where entitlements have run amok.

The article is right about one thing. Some people (including the mainstream media) are not persuaded by facts, and the future does not bode well for democracy (not to be confused with liberty).

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics Read Post »

Is Libertarian Legal Activism Worthwhile?

Firearms, Statism
Share

These quotes from 1976 and 2010 (via “Snowflakes in Hell“) suggest an answer:

Then:

“Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”

–Pete Shields, July 1976, President of National Coalition to Control Handguns (which later became Handgun Control Inc. and then the Brady Campaign)

Now:

“It is settled law. If I were taking a law school exam today, I would say, yes, you have got an individual right to have a gun in your home for self-defense.”

— Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, June 28, 2010

Is Libertarian Legal Activism Worthwhile? Read Post »

The long, slow flight from the US Dollar

(Austrian) Economics
Share

Fortune magazine has an interesting piece summing up some recent trends in the dollar. While there has not been a radical or frantic dumping of the dollar, central banks and private investors continue to distance themselves from the US Dollar. The piece notes that other dollars, namely the Australian and Canadian ones, are gaining in prestige:

A new report from Morgan Stanley analyst Emma Lawson confirms what many had suspected: the dollar is firmly on its way to losing its status as the reserve currency of the world. We already knew that central banks have preferred gold to dollars, and that they’re even selling their gold for cash; now, according to Lawson’s data, it seems that those central banks prefer almost anything to dollars.

The new competition over reserve currency is interesting for more than its economics since it is an important political issue. The nation that can build up its own currency as a reserve currency will expand its ability to inflate and incur debt with less fear of inflation.

The US has benefited from this situation for decades. As the Fed inflates to finance deficit spending and to “stimulate” consumer spending, dollars are eventually absorbed by foreign central banks, put in reserves and out of circulation. The United States has managed to stave off the effects of reckless money printing for decades thanks to the willingness of foreign investors and central banks to sit on dollars as a store of value.

Now the demand for the dollar is fading away slowly. This won’t mean sudden hyperinflation, however, since the economy is still in terrible shape, and even if a boatload of dollars were to return to our shores right now, the lack of lending and spending, as a consequence of deflating portfolios across the land, will keep prices relatively contained, at least in the short- and possibly medium-term.

The good news is that the fall of the dollar will mean that the United States will slowly have to come to the realization that it won’t be able to engage in endless deficit spending and monetization of debt without feeling the consequences of runaway inflation. The empire has been financed by a dollar that was the world’s reserve currency. Those days are coming to an end.

The long, slow flight from the US Dollar Read Post »

Scroll to Top