The principal criticism of libertarianism is that it would damage human welfare. In response, this book considers an extreme libertarian thesis: there is no conceptual or practical clash among the most plausible accounts of economic rationality, interpersonal liberty, human welfare, and private-property anarchy. Eschewing moral advocacy as a distraction, it offers a critical-rationalist defence of this objective thesis from many criticisms in the literature.
I read this book a few years ago, and I now look forward to reading the second edition. I believe this is the best contribution to libertarian thought for some decades. The biggest departure from other libertarian writers is that Lester does not attempt to define liberty in terms that presuppose property, but defines liberty in such a way that property is not mentioned, then separately argues that, as a matter of fact, liberty requires property. The discussion is very clear, unpretentious, and provocative. I disagree with the author on a number of issues. The most important is that he defines liberty in terms of absence of imposed costs. This has the result that anything that makes you feel bad is a curtailment of your liberty. I prefer the view that liberty is absence of restrictions on your ability to do things (regardless of whether you want to do those things). Ultimately, I think this definition is more fruitful and captures what people are talking about when they say they want to be free. But still, this is a brilliant effort by Lester and I absolutely recommend it as a fundamental work of libertarian philosophy.