Libertarianism: what are some good books?

[Flyback]

I've read much of what I can find online regarding Libertarianism but I'd like to take it a step further.

In particular, which books are considered classics and/or popular amongst Libertarian philosophy? Also, books that concern themselves with how to implement/transform into a Libertarian society (I'm thinking it would take 200-300+ years to do it in a non-messy way.) are something I'm interested in.

I've heard of Ayn Rand countless times, but what else is considered classical works?

PS I'm not here to debate Libertarianism. I know this forum is largely in disagreement with the philosophy. I just want/hope that the few Libertarians on here can guide me into learning more.

Thanks!

 

[halik]

Why do you need books on that ? The whole premise can be summarized in one sentance:
"I know nothing about economics, but I think the government shouldn't tell me what do anyway"

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: halik
Why do you need books on that ? The whole premise can be summarized in one sentance:
"I want the government to stay out of my life, but I reallly know nothing about economics"

Thanks for reading the op. I didn't want this to turn into a debate but you just had to go and crap on it eh?

I'm rather interested in economics, too. I believe the economy could support it with a natural transformation over a longer period of time (200-300 years) whereby people could pick themselves up, get an education and try to equalize the playing field.

Libertarianism doesn't have to mean a larger gap between the rich and the poor. Quite the contrary, I believe if we emphasized education in the interim and people understood how much power they exercise with their purchases--pair that with some common sense they could actually make informed purchases that support "good" corporations.

If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. I'm optimistic that people can learn self-discipline, responsibility and so forth to make this happen. I'm not naive in thinking it could happen overnight. Again, 200-300+ years is a ballpark guess.

That isn't a Libertarian belief, rather, I just think it goes hand-in-hand to make for the better.

Also, I'm sure these guys know a thing or two about economics: http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/science/nobel.html

 

[bobdelt]

anything by adam smith?

 

[Sheepathon]

Libertarianism is only possible with a perfectly and completely informed populace. It can't work for the same reasons communism can't - because it makes demands of people that they can't meet.

I don't mean to hate on libertarianism - I think it's great in theory but just impractical for real life.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Libertarianism is only possible with a perfectly and completely informed populace. It can't work for the same reasons communism can't - because it makes demands of people that they can't meet.

I don't mean to hate on libertarianism - I think it's great in theory but just impractical for real life.

But what if it was implemented over the period of 200-300+ years? It is naive to think it could happen today, but what about long-term?

Much of the social policies could be done today, while the fiscal elements be implemented over a much longer period.

 

[bobdelt]

Why would time change anything?


I think its impratical because as a society we cant agree on what public goods we want. Rich people want nice roads, while the poor want public transportation. Every libertarian would want some public goods (roads, police, parks, welfare, etc), except that each class of people wants different goods. So the gov't supplies all\most of them to try to satisfy everyone, and its not longer libertarianism but spend spend spend instead.

Everyone wants the gov't to be small, but we just want to keep the parts that benifit us and not stuff that benifits other people. Nobody will ever agree on one small gov't as everyone will define that differently.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Libertarianism is only possible with a perfectly and completely informed populace. It can't work for the same reasons communism can't - because it makes demands of people that they can't meet.

I don't mean to hate on libertarianism - I think it's great in theory but just impractical for real life.

But what if it was implemented over the period of 200-300+ years? It is naive to think it could happen today, but what about long-term?

Much of the social policies could be done today, while the fiscal elements be implemented over a much longer period.

Waste of time. In 200 or 300 years humanity will be Progressive or dead.

 

[Strk]

It's not a book, although you can buy some on the site I believe, The Cato Institute is a great source for mostly libertarian information (you could argue they're more classical conservative though).

 

[imported_hscorpio]

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is pretty much required reading. Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

 

[BoberFett]

The Law by Frederic Bastiat is excellent.

 

[Vic]

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do by Peter McWilliams (discusses social liberalism)

The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises (classical liberal economic theory)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (a uniquely-written science fiction book describing a libertarian revolution over an authoritarian government)


It never fails to surprise me that socialists always attack classical liberalism (or libertarianism) with blatant lies and obvious falsehoods. Who, I wonder, do they think they're fooling?

"Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. " -- John F. Kennedy

"The diffusion of knowledge among the people - the surest safeguard of liberty " -- Thomas Jefferson (often considered the father of classical liberalism, who was more proud of having founded the University of Virginia, the first public university in America, than of writing the Declaration of Independence).

 

[judasmachine]

I have to second the Heinlein book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's practically a blue-print for libertarian revolution.

 

[Craig234]

Not meaning to 'crap on the thread' - as much as I have to say on Libertarianism in discussion threads - but regarding Adam Smith, he's good reading, but I'd hardly call him Libertarian.

In fact, he's widely misunderstood; he supports a lot of liberal ideas and warned against the sort of corporatocracy we see.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not meaning to 'crap on the thread' - as much as I have to say on Libertarianism in discussion threads - but regarding Adam Smith, he's good reading, but I'd hardly call him Libertarian.

In fact, he's widely misunderstood; he supports a lot of liberal ideas and warned against the sort of corporatocracy we see.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this "corporatocracy" we have now is in no way libertarian. While libertarians support complete freedom of association which includes association with others for purposes of commerce, a true libertarian would not support the current crop of laws in our pseudo-capitalist/socialist system which provide advantages to corporations that individuals can't possess such as living forever, shielding individuals from prosecution for crimes such as negligence, etc. As such, the fact that corporations currently have so much power is a failure brought about by too much government intervention, not too little.

 

[new22003]

Some Libertarian views are nice in theory but, in my opinion, just can?t work in reality. All I ask is that you read up on the subject and then ask yourself if you think you could really apply the ideas, effectively, in America.

But as you said you are not looking to debate the topic you just want some info. I am an independent voter and really not that passionate about political parties. I do try and keep an open mind and actually read ideas from all points of view. As such I have done a decent amount of reading on the subject and I think you should start with the book "Why government doesn?t work" by Harry Browne. Browne was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and the book explains basic philosophies and ideas of the party. It?s a pretty decent read and interesting to view a different viewpoint. It?s not too one sided or argumentative. The book actually furthered my impressions that Libertarianism just can?t work. Browne seems like a good man and he honestly wants what?s best (from his viewpoint) for the country. I just dont think his ideas are realistic.

If that book doesn?t satisfy you quest for knowledge I would suggest the drier Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland. It?s a somewhat boring read but the facts about Libertarianism are explained.

 

[SP33Demon]

Check out http://www.theadvocates.org/ for some book recommendations.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not meaning to 'crap on the thread' - as much as I have to say on Libertarianism in discussion threads - but regarding Adam Smith, he's good reading, but I'd hardly call him Libertarian.

In fact, he's widely misunderstood; he supports a lot of liberal ideas and warned against the sort of corporatocracy we see.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this "corporatocracy" we have now is in no way libertarian. While libertarians support complete freedom of association which includes association with others for purposes of commerce, a true libertarian would not support the current crop of laws in our pseudo-capitalist/socialist system which provide advantages to corporations that individuals can't possess such as living forever, shielding individuals from prosecution for crimes such as negligence, etc. As such, the fact that corporations currently have so much power is a failure brought about by too much government intervention, not too little.

To clarify, I meant those as two seperate comments, his not being libertarian, and his being more liberal and warning about our corporatocracy.

I did not mean that libertarianism is the same thing as the corporatocracy, and did not mean to 'discuss libertarianism', per the OP's request.

 

[BoberFett]

Kudos to everyone who is popping in to spout off their little quips about libertarian ideals are unworkable, and then try to fend off debate by saying this thread isn't about opinions. :roll:

Libertarianism is about freedom. If you say it is unworkable, then you are saying freedom is unworkable. The opposite of freedom is slavery. Take your pick.

 

[Craig234]

BoberFett, if you are going to start debating the merits of it, you need to expect responses. I'm tempted to respond to your misguided, simplistic 'freedom and slavery' post.

 

[fitzov]

Freeman, S., Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View Philosophy & Public Affairs Volume 30 (2001) pg3

Classical liberalism conflicts with libertarianism in that the former has as a central tenet the security of liberty (through government). Locke argues, in fact, that government must safeguard property (property was considered intrinsic to liberty).

Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to hold the belief that government is essentially antithetical to liberty.

They both have a common thread in Kant, who argued that the kind of liberty that should be most valued is autonomy. But for Kant 'autonomy' is defined differently than in the common dictionary--one has autonomy when he accepts the Categorical Imperative (CI).

CI: act only according to those maxims that can be consistently willed as a universal law.

 

[Rainsford]

I third (or possibly fourth) the folks suggesting "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. I'd also add that most of his books are pretty good if you're looking for libertarian philosophy, and he was actually one of the more articulate libertarians out there. The problem with a lot of libertarian literature, in my experience, is that the writers come off as academics who view the free market as some sort of magical well of social success. In fact, many of their tomes have a very socialist bent to them, "libertarianism is good because it benefits society as a whole". Which, while arguably true, is NOT the best argument for libertarianism. Heinlein makes the argument, very well in my opinion, that libertarianism is about the value of an individual, something a lot of libertarian writers (particularly Ayn Rand) tend to gloss over in favor of some sort of populist utopia that sounds a LITTLE too much like a different flavor of socialism for my taste.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Freeman, S., Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View Philosophy & Public Affairs Volume 30 (2001) pg3

Classical liberalism conflicts with libertarianism in that the former has as a central tenet the security of liberty (through government). Locke argues, in fact, that government must safeguard property (property was considered intrinsic to liberty).

Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to hold the belief that government is essentially antithetical to liberty.

They both have a common thread in Kant, who argued that the kind of liberty that should be most valued is autonomy. But for Kant 'autonomy' is defined differently than in the common dictionary--one has autonomy when he accepts the Categorical Imperative (CI).

CI: act only according to those maxims that can be consistently willed as a universal law.

The basic premise of both classical liberalism and libertarianism is:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Which is that government is created to protect the rights of the individual and that the individual's rights supercede those of the government.
Anyone who tells you anything else is filling your head with false propaganda.

The right to life = the right to property BTW. You would argue otherwise? Property is evil? Then I'm eating your dinner tonight and sleeping in your bed, while you go hungry and sleep out in the cold. Oh, you wouldn't like that? You might die if that went on too long? So now do you get it?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Anyone who tells you anything else is filling your head with false propaganda.

Cultism at it's finest.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who tells you anything else is filling your head with false propaganda.

Cultism at it's finest.

Is it? So if I told you black was white, and you disagreed and insisted that white was white, would that be cultism too?

Way to justify lies and slander... :roll: