What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Liberty: Your Life, Your Choices, Your Future
The new low-cost paperback volume, the fourth in a series that includes The Economics of Freedom, Morality of Capitalism, and After the Welfare State, offers, as an alternative to the politics of force, a philosophy of persuasion based on individual liberty and choice.
It includes contributions from student leaders such as Alexander McCobin, co-founder of the fast-growing and international Students for Liberty, and Olumayowa Okediran, founder of African Liberty Students Organization, as well as highly visible thought leaders including TV personality John Stossel. "We are seeing an explosion among college students committed to the ideas of liberty -- there's no other word to describe it," says Palmer. "And today's students are not only interested in discussing these ideas, they want to do something about it. That's why this new book so strongly represents the voices of today's student leaders, some very impressive young people who have developed their own vision for freedom, one that transcends old political divides, and who know how to get organized and to do something constructive to make their vision happen." Dr. Palmer will be traveling the U.S. and internationally for book events and is available for interview upon request. As with previous editions in the same series, the books are not only recommended reading for students, many think tanks and business organizations host book events attracting politicos, professionals, academics, and journalists to discuss the ideas in the book. --The Atlas Economic Research Foundation
It includes contributions from student leaders such as Alexander McCobin, co-founder of the fast-growing and international Students for Liberty, and Olumayowa Okediran, founder of African Liberty Students Organization, as well as highly visible thought leaders including TV personality John Stossel. "We are seeing an explosion among college students committed to the ideas of liberty -- there's no other word to describe it," says Palmer. "And today's students are not only interested in discussing these ideas, they want to do something about it. That's why this new book so strongly represents the voices of today's student leaders, some very impressive young people who have developed their own vision for freedom, one that transcends old political divides, and who know how to get organized and to do something constructive to make their vision happen." Dr. Palmer will be traveling the U.S. and internationally for book events and is available for interview upon request. As with previous editions in the same series, the books are not only recommended reading for students, many think tanks and business organizations host book events attracting politicos, professionals, academics, and journalists to discuss the ideas in the book. --The Atlas Economic Research Foundation
160 pages, Paperback
First published September 24, 2013
24 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
December 10, 2013
I wish I could recommend this book more highly because I agree with so much of what it says. However, it's a book without an audience. Those, like me, that are proponents of liberty will have likely already heard most of its arguments. Those that aren't dedicated to liberty will probably not be interested and not be convinced. It's full of clear, logical arguments, but I doubt it will be of interest to many readers.
October 30, 2016
Koleksi penulisan anak muda yang rata-ratanya adalah daripada Students For Liberty berkenaan konsep liberty atau liberalisme klasikal. Perkataan ‘liberal’ selalu disalah anggap (terutama di Malaysia) sebagai fahaman tentang kebebasan; manusia bebas melakukan apa sahaja tanpa sekatan; dan pandangan ini sebenarnya adalah sangat dangkal. ‘Liberal’ juga sering digunakan oleh agamawan sebagai sesuatu yang buruk dan boleh merosakkan pemikiran untuk menakut-nakutkan masyarakat sedangkan libertarianisme adalah falsafah politik-ekonomi.
Libertarianisme mempercayai bahawa setiap manusia adalah tuan mutlak ke atas nyawa dan bebas melakukan apa sahaja ke atas nyawa dan harta bendanya selagi dia menghormati kebebasan orang lain dan bebas ini bukanlah bebas yang mutlak tetapi masih terikat pada ‘rule of law’ (kekuasaan sebuah hukum). Dalam konsep kenegaraan pula libertarian percaya bahawa perlunya keterhadan kuasa kerajaan dalam mentadbir negara dan kerajaan tidak mempunyai kuasa yang mutlak.
Ada beberapa esei yang saya kira agak menarik dan informatif seperti 'No liberty, no Art' oleh Sarah Skwire yang membincangkan konsep liberty dalam seni dan sastera. Juga esei oleh Olumayowa Okediran berkenaan 'Africa's promise of liberty'; bagaimana konsep libertarianisme mampu membawa keluar negara Africa daripada kancah kleptokrasi.
Libertarianisme mempercayai bahawa setiap manusia adalah tuan mutlak ke atas nyawa dan bebas melakukan apa sahaja ke atas nyawa dan harta bendanya selagi dia menghormati kebebasan orang lain dan bebas ini bukanlah bebas yang mutlak tetapi masih terikat pada ‘rule of law’ (kekuasaan sebuah hukum). Dalam konsep kenegaraan pula libertarian percaya bahawa perlunya keterhadan kuasa kerajaan dalam mentadbir negara dan kerajaan tidak mempunyai kuasa yang mutlak.
Ada beberapa esei yang saya kira agak menarik dan informatif seperti 'No liberty, no Art' oleh Sarah Skwire yang membincangkan konsep liberty dalam seni dan sastera. Juga esei oleh Olumayowa Okediran berkenaan 'Africa's promise of liberty'; bagaimana konsep libertarianisme mampu membawa keluar negara Africa daripada kancah kleptokrasi.
December 29, 2017
A concise collection of essays defending the freedom philosophy from several perspectives. This book exemplifies the kind of language and approach libertarians need to adopt if they are going to help others see the ways in which personal liberty unleashes human flourishing, prosperity, tolerance, and peace.
I would recommend it to anybody interested in personal freedom and wanting to examine the many routes one can take to understand and then defend it.
I would recommend it to anybody interested in personal freedom and wanting to examine the many routes one can take to understand and then defend it.
July 11, 2015
A brief introduction to what is liberalism.
December 7, 2017
A libertarian is someone who believes in the presumption of liberty.
This collection of essays attempts to describe what libertarianism (what Europeans call liberalism) is, and why it is important. Each essay, by a different author, can be read separately, and each is easy to read.
The basics are that government officials shouldn’t be given excessive power, because they are also humans.
Rulers, even when democratically elected, are no more “public-spirited,” and sometimes far less, than average people. There’s no evidence that they’re any less selfish than other people or any more benevolent. And there’s no evidence that they’re more concerned with right or wrong than average people. They’re like us.
Further, people will live better lives when they and their neighbors are free to make the decisions that affect their own lives. We can’t plan our neighbors lives because we don’t, and cannot, know enough to do so successfully.
Humility, a virtue and the result of a skeptical attitude, is both an ingredient in a good life and a foundation for liberty.
Our ignorance—what we don’t know—always and enormously outweighs our knowledge.
It’s an interesting collection of essays, and, except for John Stossel, a new (to me) collection of voices for liberty. If you’ve already read a lot of liberal thought, you probably won’t get much new out of it, but it ought to be a very nice introduction.
February 22, 2018
I enjoyed reading this collection of essays. The students' essays were well-researched and well-thought out. I was fortunate to have seen The Black Panther on the same day as reading the essay written by a Nigerian student. The parallels between what "could have been" and what "could be" was striking.
February 25, 2023
“Why Liberty” is an anthology that consists of twelve essays, largely written by young libertarians who belong to Students for Liberty.
In “Why Be Libertarian” Tom G. Palmer writes, “Libertarians believe in the voluntary principle, rather than force.” That sounds like a good principle. Nevertheless, I have several questions: What does that mean? What would a society based on that principle look like?
If an employer tells a subordinate that she must have sex with him to keep her job, and the government tells him that he cannot do that, who has initiated the use of force?
Telling her that she should look for another job is often not realistic advice. She may have difficulty finding another job. This difficulty will be compounded if she is fired from her present job for not succumbing to her employer's demands.
These questions go to the heart of why libertarian is a bad idea: it assumes that employers and employees interact as individuals of approximate power on the job market. This is only the case for people whose skills are extremely marketable.
Palmer goes on to quote Michael Huemer as pointing out that libertarianism entails recognition of the coercive nature of government.” Libertarianism ignores the coercive power of employers.
As I write The Washington Post website includes a news story entitled, “As temperatures rise, industries fight heat safeguards for workers,” and which points out, “Extreme heat is making work more dangerous. But beyond the West Coast the fight to protect workers faces head winds.”
We may be confident that the workers involved do not fear the coercive nature of government, but that their employers should. The employers should be coerced into providing their employers with plenty of cold water, and frequent rest breaks. The employees have not been able to achieve that by bargaining with their employers. Their employers must be forced into providing those benefits by the government.
In his essay “There Ought Not to be a Law,” John Stossel writes, “Without big government, our possibilities are limited.” He does not explain how they are limited. The “big government” libertarians complain about has ended smallpox, virtually eliminated polio, and quickly created vaccines to fight COVID-19. These are distributed free of charge. Private industry could not have done that nearly as quickly, and nearly as well.
In his essay, “The Political Principle of Liberty,” Alexander McCobin quotes John Tomasi as writing, “Liberty is justified because it is the most effective means to benefit the least well off in society.” Anyone who seriously believes that has not talked to some of the least well off in our society.
I confess to lacking sympathy for most welfare recipients, but the least well off in our society include people forced to work long hours under dangerous circumstances for low wages.
In Sloane Frost’s essay “The Tangled Dynamics of State Interventionism: the Case of Health Care,” the author does not mention the fact that affluent democracies with socialized medicine have longer life expediencies than we do in the United States, and lower infant moralities. Moreover, they spend significantly less per capita on health care than we Americans do. This is because money that goes directly to health care in countries with universal health care goes to insurance companies in the United States. The better health of people living with socialized medicine can be explained by the fact that many governments in these countries pay for regular doctors’ checkups. Thus problems are dealt with proactively before they become life threatening and expensive.
Frost writes, “Most Americans are insured through their employers.”
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “56% of workers are covered by health plans offered by their employers.” The less a worker is paid the less he is likely to have health coverage at work. Many of these have trouble paying the rent every month, and have nothing left for private health plans, and certainly nothing left to save for retirement.
In his essay “The Origins of State and Government,” Tom G. Palmer repeats the libertarian dichotomy of makers and takers. This implies that half of Americans are welfare recipients. Actually, the vast majority of these “takers” are employees who spend their days creating wealth for their employers.
Libertarians like to imply that what they advocate is very new and cutting edge. What they advocate was tried during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Back then owners of factories and mines lived like European royalty, while most of their employees worked twelve hour days, six and sometimes seven days a week, for subsistence wages under working conditions even more dangerous than the conditions I described at the beginning of this book review.
Factory owners dumped untreated waste from their factories into nearby rivers and streams. They polluted the air with their smoke stacks. Food was often contaminated by bacteria. Medicine was often worthless patent medicine that contained dangerous chemicals. All of these conditions were consistent with the voluntary principle revered by libertarians.
The electorate has reacted against libertarianism in practice since the Progressive Era, which began with the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt in 1901.
When reading “Why Liberty” I was reminded of what Edmund Burke wrote in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon be turned into complaints…
“But what is liberty, without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils, for it is folly, vice, and madness without tuition or restraint.”
World history, and particularly the history of capitalism, demonstrates that we cannot count on those with wealth and economic power to exercise their power with wisdom and virtue on our behalf. That is why we must have democratic governments, and why they must have the power to coerce the rich to being more virtuous than they usually want to be.
In “Why Be Libertarian” Tom G. Palmer writes, “Libertarians believe in the voluntary principle, rather than force.” That sounds like a good principle. Nevertheless, I have several questions: What does that mean? What would a society based on that principle look like?
If an employer tells a subordinate that she must have sex with him to keep her job, and the government tells him that he cannot do that, who has initiated the use of force?
Telling her that she should look for another job is often not realistic advice. She may have difficulty finding another job. This difficulty will be compounded if she is fired from her present job for not succumbing to her employer's demands.
These questions go to the heart of why libertarian is a bad idea: it assumes that employers and employees interact as individuals of approximate power on the job market. This is only the case for people whose skills are extremely marketable.
Palmer goes on to quote Michael Huemer as pointing out that libertarianism entails recognition of the coercive nature of government.” Libertarianism ignores the coercive power of employers.
As I write The Washington Post website includes a news story entitled, “As temperatures rise, industries fight heat safeguards for workers,” and which points out, “Extreme heat is making work more dangerous. But beyond the West Coast the fight to protect workers faces head winds.”
We may be confident that the workers involved do not fear the coercive nature of government, but that their employers should. The employers should be coerced into providing their employers with plenty of cold water, and frequent rest breaks. The employees have not been able to achieve that by bargaining with their employers. Their employers must be forced into providing those benefits by the government.
In his essay “There Ought Not to be a Law,” John Stossel writes, “Without big government, our possibilities are limited.” He does not explain how they are limited. The “big government” libertarians complain about has ended smallpox, virtually eliminated polio, and quickly created vaccines to fight COVID-19. These are distributed free of charge. Private industry could not have done that nearly as quickly, and nearly as well.
In his essay, “The Political Principle of Liberty,” Alexander McCobin quotes John Tomasi as writing, “Liberty is justified because it is the most effective means to benefit the least well off in society.” Anyone who seriously believes that has not talked to some of the least well off in our society.
I confess to lacking sympathy for most welfare recipients, but the least well off in our society include people forced to work long hours under dangerous circumstances for low wages.
In Sloane Frost’s essay “The Tangled Dynamics of State Interventionism: the Case of Health Care,” the author does not mention the fact that affluent democracies with socialized medicine have longer life expediencies than we do in the United States, and lower infant moralities. Moreover, they spend significantly less per capita on health care than we Americans do. This is because money that goes directly to health care in countries with universal health care goes to insurance companies in the United States. The better health of people living with socialized medicine can be explained by the fact that many governments in these countries pay for regular doctors’ checkups. Thus problems are dealt with proactively before they become life threatening and expensive.
Frost writes, “Most Americans are insured through their employers.”
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “56% of workers are covered by health plans offered by their employers.” The less a worker is paid the less he is likely to have health coverage at work. Many of these have trouble paying the rent every month, and have nothing left for private health plans, and certainly nothing left to save for retirement.
In his essay “The Origins of State and Government,” Tom G. Palmer repeats the libertarian dichotomy of makers and takers. This implies that half of Americans are welfare recipients. Actually, the vast majority of these “takers” are employees who spend their days creating wealth for their employers.
Libertarians like to imply that what they advocate is very new and cutting edge. What they advocate was tried during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Back then owners of factories and mines lived like European royalty, while most of their employees worked twelve hour days, six and sometimes seven days a week, for subsistence wages under working conditions even more dangerous than the conditions I described at the beginning of this book review.
Factory owners dumped untreated waste from their factories into nearby rivers and streams. They polluted the air with their smoke stacks. Food was often contaminated by bacteria. Medicine was often worthless patent medicine that contained dangerous chemicals. All of these conditions were consistent with the voluntary principle revered by libertarians.
The electorate has reacted against libertarianism in practice since the Progressive Era, which began with the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt in 1901.
When reading “Why Liberty” I was reminded of what Edmund Burke wrote in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon be turned into complaints…
“But what is liberty, without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils, for it is folly, vice, and madness without tuition or restraint.”
World history, and particularly the history of capitalism, demonstrates that we cannot count on those with wealth and economic power to exercise their power with wisdom and virtue on our behalf. That is why we must have democratic governments, and why they must have the power to coerce the rich to being more virtuous than they usually want to be.
May 6, 2018
This book is a short primer on Libertarianism, with some really good essays and other pretty good. All in all, it adds some perspective, especially if you are not too well traveled in the arguments of liberty. It also may give something new to those who have read a lot, but since it is a primer it covers mostly the basics with some information about where to find more.
I found very interesting the chapter on American health insurance since where I come from it is used as an argument against libertarianism. They do not want "American conditions", because they believe it is caused by liberty and not by the state infused regulations the approve of.
I do think it is an affordable and easy giveaway for those that are interested to know more about what I believe in.
I found very interesting the chapter on American health insurance since where I come from it is used as an argument against libertarianism. They do not want "American conditions", because they believe it is caused by liberty and not by the state infused regulations the approve of.
I do think it is an affordable and easy giveaway for those that are interested to know more about what I believe in.
October 28, 2018
This is an _okay_ introduction to small-l libertarianism, for those who haven't studied political concepts before. It could serve well those who want to know more about liberty and libertarians, but were too lazy to read denser books, or are just confused by what libertarians stand for. It could also be used as a introductory book on liberty for highschool kids. All in all, it reads like "libertarianism for Dummies" (Note small-l and capital-D)
Is this a great book? No.
Is this a well edited book? Yes.
Is this a quick read? Yes.
Are there better books out there? Of course.
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard, and End The Fed by Ron Paul are probably the best classical liberal/ small-l libertarian books out there.
Is this a great book? No.
Is this a well edited book? Yes.
Is this a quick read? Yes.
Are there better books out there? Of course.
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard, and End The Fed by Ron Paul are probably the best classical liberal/ small-l libertarian books out there.
February 16, 2018
Gils, gils, saya membaca buku ini hampir satu bulan. Urusan membaca dan menulis bulan ini tidak produktif. Huft.
Cuy, lo masih yakin liberalisme masih bisa hidup? Ideologi sudah mati! Camkan ini baik-baik. Nghahahahhahah
Setelah ini saya tertarik membaca buku Why Liberalism Failed karya Patrick Deneen.
***
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang mengganggu pikiran banyak bermunculan. Misalnya seperti ini, Apakah yang dimaksud modern itu, memilih merekam dengan ponsel pintar kejadian kecelakaan lalu lintas dibanding menolong korban kecelakaan--yang terjadi di Subang? Bagaimana liberalisme klasik atau libertarianisme merespon peristiwa seperti itu?
Saya yakin rasionalitas dan pikiran yang bebas tidak akan mampu muncul tanpa sarana dan prasarana pendidikan yang mudah diakses. Bagaimana dengan distribusi pengetahuan yang tidak merata?
Bagaimana jika sarana dan prasarana pendidikan telah dikuasai oleh mereka yang berkepentingan untuk menumpulkan nalar? Bagaimana jika sarana dan prasarana pendidikan justru melayani kepentingan model produksi yang mengeruk keuntungan sebesar-besarnya/sistem akumulasi modal yang menindas?
Bagaimana jika pendidikan tidak lagi membebaskan nalar, karena murid-murid hanya berdiri sebagai obyek, bukan sebagai subyek yang mampu berdialog? Yang lebih menyesakkan, apakah modernitas saat ini benar-benar menghasilkan suatu masyarakat yang maju? Di mana? Siapa? Yang saya temui justru absurditas dan kekacauan. Kita memang harus membedakan modernisasi dan westernisasi.
Tentu sangat menyedihkan apabila sekadar menyalahkan individu. "Salah sendiri gak bisa mikir!"
Bagaimana jika sebagian masyarakat kita sudah putus asa? Apakah rasionalitas dan nalar bebas akan menjadi pilihannya? Saya kira tidak. Kalau kemudian mereka yang putus asa memilih menjadi rasional dan menggunakan nalar bebas, fundamentalisme agama dan fasisme dengan kedok identitas tidak akan populer di berbagai belahan dunia. Tak perlu menutup mata, ketimpangan sosial masih ada.
Sistem pemerintahan yang dikehendaki liberalisme adalah demokrasi liberal. Bagaimana jika ternyata demokrasi liberal melahirkan oligarki? Bahkan hampir-hampir atau sudah menciptakan tirani? Apakah demokrasi liberal membuat orang berlomba-lomba menjadi serigala duduk di parlemen dengan menggunakan politik uang? Lihat DPR dan pemimpin negara punya tameng melalui undang-undang atau aturan hukum karena takut dikritik! Demokrasi liberal pelan-pelan dibunuh.
Saya tahu, buku ini belum cukup untuk memahami liberalisme klasik/libertarianisme. Buku ini saya pilih karena topik bahasan liberalisme dikemas secara ringan dan sederhana. Buku ini juga memuat semacam klarifikasi mengenai makna liberal. Ya, tidak ada salahnya menjadi liberal. Tidak ada salahnya. Saya pun mengamini semangat libertarianisme. Tetapi banyak juga pertanyaan di hadapan saya, bagaimana liberalisme menyelesaikan ketimpangan sosial? Bagaimana liberalisme berhadapan dengan teknotopia (data pribadi di internet)? Bagaimana jika kapitalisme, anak dari liberalisme, sudah memakan induknya?
Cuy, lo masih yakin liberalisme masih bisa hidup? Ideologi sudah mati! Camkan ini baik-baik. Nghahahahhahah
Setelah ini saya tertarik membaca buku Why Liberalism Failed karya Patrick Deneen.
***
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang mengganggu pikiran banyak bermunculan. Misalnya seperti ini, Apakah yang dimaksud modern itu, memilih merekam dengan ponsel pintar kejadian kecelakaan lalu lintas dibanding menolong korban kecelakaan--yang terjadi di Subang? Bagaimana liberalisme klasik atau libertarianisme merespon peristiwa seperti itu?
Saya yakin rasionalitas dan pikiran yang bebas tidak akan mampu muncul tanpa sarana dan prasarana pendidikan yang mudah diakses. Bagaimana dengan distribusi pengetahuan yang tidak merata?
Bagaimana jika sarana dan prasarana pendidikan telah dikuasai oleh mereka yang berkepentingan untuk menumpulkan nalar? Bagaimana jika sarana dan prasarana pendidikan justru melayani kepentingan model produksi yang mengeruk keuntungan sebesar-besarnya/sistem akumulasi modal yang menindas?
Bagaimana jika pendidikan tidak lagi membebaskan nalar, karena murid-murid hanya berdiri sebagai obyek, bukan sebagai subyek yang mampu berdialog? Yang lebih menyesakkan, apakah modernitas saat ini benar-benar menghasilkan suatu masyarakat yang maju? Di mana? Siapa? Yang saya temui justru absurditas dan kekacauan. Kita memang harus membedakan modernisasi dan westernisasi.
Tentu sangat menyedihkan apabila sekadar menyalahkan individu. "Salah sendiri gak bisa mikir!"
Bagaimana jika sebagian masyarakat kita sudah putus asa? Apakah rasionalitas dan nalar bebas akan menjadi pilihannya? Saya kira tidak. Kalau kemudian mereka yang putus asa memilih menjadi rasional dan menggunakan nalar bebas, fundamentalisme agama dan fasisme dengan kedok identitas tidak akan populer di berbagai belahan dunia. Tak perlu menutup mata, ketimpangan sosial masih ada.
Sistem pemerintahan yang dikehendaki liberalisme adalah demokrasi liberal. Bagaimana jika ternyata demokrasi liberal melahirkan oligarki? Bahkan hampir-hampir atau sudah menciptakan tirani? Apakah demokrasi liberal membuat orang berlomba-lomba menjadi serigala duduk di parlemen dengan menggunakan politik uang? Lihat DPR dan pemimpin negara punya tameng melalui undang-undang atau aturan hukum karena takut dikritik! Demokrasi liberal pelan-pelan dibunuh.
Saya tahu, buku ini belum cukup untuk memahami liberalisme klasik/libertarianisme. Buku ini saya pilih karena topik bahasan liberalisme dikemas secara ringan dan sederhana. Buku ini juga memuat semacam klarifikasi mengenai makna liberal. Ya, tidak ada salahnya menjadi liberal. Tidak ada salahnya. Saya pun mengamini semangat libertarianisme. Tetapi banyak juga pertanyaan di hadapan saya, bagaimana liberalisme menyelesaikan ketimpangan sosial? Bagaimana liberalisme berhadapan dengan teknotopia (data pribadi di internet)? Bagaimana jika kapitalisme, anak dari liberalisme, sudah memakan induknya?
December 4, 2020
This book serves as a concise guide to libertarianism for those interested in the ideas of liberty. While this book is primarily directed for use within the Students For Liberty, this book is widely accessible and can be found in online marketplaces. Touching on several contexts concerning how libertarian philosophy is applicable in various spheres of life, this book makes a good case for liberty and how it relates to our day-to-day lives.
December 23, 2016
This is a collection of essays on libertarianism. Some are case studies and some are more academic/theoretical treatments. It's not super in-depth, so it works as a great introduction. There is a decent bibliography and suggested reading section.
Overall 3.7/5
Overall 3.7/5
April 12, 2023
My takeaway: What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society. This freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it all.
April 10, 2021
A very good introduction to classical liberalism.
October 25, 2014
I like the political philosophy and do believe I lead it as a everyday moral ethical code of 'live and let live ' .However, their claims run false to me.
1. They claim that most people do this anyway. If 'live and let live' were true, then why am I afraid to mention I am gay without losing my safety, job, and family, and to receive public accommodations in stores, restaurants, bars, etc.
2. They mention a ' spontaneous order' that people can be trusted to respect that natural rights of others. If that is true, I never would have been bullied as a kid for being gay and I would never had a law passed against me for this reason either. (these laws were voted by or at least did not fight the passage by most of American society).
3. They mention a limited government that is there only for the purpose of the protection of rights. . Okay, how come I can't get any protection for being a gay man!?!?!?!? Fix that and I will buy this baloney.
4. They mention the free market as a natural place for the society to order itself. Really?!?!?!. So Wall Street executive decisions were concerned with respecting 'my naturally ordered rights' and not stealing my investments. I find their unwillingness to put a clear definition of 'stealing' versus 'income ' at all costs. This is something I am not comfortable with accepting.
This book has not answered my worries or concerns .
1. They claim that most people do this anyway. If 'live and let live' were true, then why am I afraid to mention I am gay without losing my safety, job, and family, and to receive public accommodations in stores, restaurants, bars, etc.
2. They mention a ' spontaneous order' that people can be trusted to respect that natural rights of others. If that is true, I never would have been bullied as a kid for being gay and I would never had a law passed against me for this reason either. (these laws were voted by or at least did not fight the passage by most of American society).
3. They mention a limited government that is there only for the purpose of the protection of rights. . Okay, how come I can't get any protection for being a gay man!?!?!?!? Fix that and I will buy this baloney.
4. They mention the free market as a natural place for the society to order itself. Really?!?!?!. So Wall Street executive decisions were concerned with respecting 'my naturally ordered rights' and not stealing my investments. I find their unwillingness to put a clear definition of 'stealing' versus 'income ' at all costs. This is something I am not comfortable with accepting.
This book has not answered my worries or concerns .
February 10, 2014
good collection of writings concerning the very basics of Libertarianism.
March 6, 2015
Excelente libro de ensayos sobre el liberalismo (liberalismo clásico o libertarialismo) en todo ámbito, político, económico y social.
February 22, 2019
It’s a huge different between liberalism and libertarians 😛
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews