What do you think?
Rate this book
The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom
A revised, updated, and retitled edition of David Boaz’s classic book A Primer, which was praised as uniting “history, philosophy, economics and law—spiced with just the right anecdotes—to bring alive a vital tradition of American political thought that deserves to be honored today” (Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago).Libertarianism—the philosophy of personal and economic freedom—has deep roots in Western civilization and in American history, and it’s growing stronger. Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the campaigns of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses have pushed millions more Americans in a libertarian direction. A Primer, by David Boaz, the longtime executive vice president of the Cato Institute, continues to be the best available guide to the history, ideas, and growth of this increasingly important political movement—and now it has been updated throughout and with a new The Libertarian Mind. Boaz has updated the book with new information on the threat of government surveillance; the policies that led up to and stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis; corruption in Washington; and the unsustainable welfare state. The Libertarian Mind is the ultimate resource for the current, burgeoning libertarian movement.
426 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1997
269 people are currently reading
3235 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 - 30 of 133 reviews
April 29, 2021
Very good.
For both newbies to libertarian ideas as well as folks like me who have been in & around the libertarian movement for many, many years.
Great background on what the ideas are all about. Who are the key people. Why the ideas and movement are so important. What the ideas promise for beneficial changes in the world. What vast improvements have already taken place in the world as a result of libertarian ideas already being adopted. How well grounded they are in reality, not some fantasy.
Highly recommended.
I co-hosted with the Federalist Society of Silicon Valley a lunch with David Boaz on 31 March 2015 in Palo Alto, CA. About 50-60 people enjoyed meeting David, meeting others interested in hearing more about libertarian ideas, hearing David's remarks on his book, asking questions and having fun in the newly resurgent move toward more liberty.
For both newbies to libertarian ideas as well as folks like me who have been in & around the libertarian movement for many, many years.
Great background on what the ideas are all about. Who are the key people. Why the ideas and movement are so important. What the ideas promise for beneficial changes in the world. What vast improvements have already taken place in the world as a result of libertarian ideas already being adopted. How well grounded they are in reality, not some fantasy.
Highly recommended.
I co-hosted with the Federalist Society of Silicon Valley a lunch with David Boaz on 31 March 2015 in Palo Alto, CA. About 50-60 people enjoyed meeting David, meeting others interested in hearing more about libertarian ideas, hearing David's remarks on his book, asking questions and having fun in the newly resurgent move toward more liberty.
October 15, 2019
Libertarianism i just psycopathic. In a way it like Nazism. Nazism believed in the exterminating people based on race or DNA. ie Jews, Gypsies, Poles etc Libertarianism aims to exterminate people based on ability and economically productiveness. Libertarians aim to exterminate all those who are not ‘economcally productive’. If you not earning money a libertarian wil say you are not human but a ‘consuming animal’.
March 20, 2017
The Cato Insitute's David Boaz has written an engaging and thought provoking book with The Libertarian Mind yet his logic and arguments fail to convince in the end. It would be perhaps unfair to blame Boaz for this as he does earnestly try to explain the general Libertarian position. In fact he doesn't do too badly when looking at issues around personal freedom. His explanation of why government should be less involved in the personal lives of its citizens seem to be commonsense nowadays - something Boaz claims is a triumph of libertarian ideas. While this may be true to some extent, particularly with changing attitudes toward the failed War on Drugs as well as gay marriage, when Boaz switches over to economic freedom he loses his power to convince.
He makes a compelling case for big government to get out of people's lives, to be minimally invasive and maintain a very limited role which includes basic functions: security, protection of life and property and protection from external threats. He also points out that the separation of powers and checks and balances are fundamental to allow our individual freedom to thrive. He notes time and again that the reason for this is that power corrupts and that this tendency towards political corruption and bureaucracy is precisely what makes a myriad of public programs inefficient and unproductive. It is undoubtedly true that many people's experiences with government agencies is less than satisfactory (Boaz holds the US Postal Service in particular contempt, a sentiment which with I can readily empathize) and he does make a convincing argument that public services hold back creativity. He also notes that political power in the form of various interest groups encourages modes of production that are inefficient and as a result makes everyone poorer. Yet however much his insight into political power and corruption in the public sector rings true, he wholeheartedly fails to address similar problems and corruption inherent in the private sector due to a different type of power - economic power.
Fundamentally Boaz sees unbridled capitalism as the answer to most problems he covers, from racism and inequality to the capacity of human beings to create wealth for the betterment of society. Whereas his analysis of political corruption rings true for many, he tends to downplay and ignore the very real and utterly corrupt behavior at the heart of the economic power of the private sector. It strikes the reader as odd that Boaz argues that this natural tendency towards corruption and power is so much a tendency of humans that very strong checks and balances are needed to prevent it in governments and public organizations, but rapidly disappears when he speaks of the markets and private sector. Even if one were to see political and economic power as entirely separate, it is hard to see how the tendency towards corruption and abuse of power would only be present in the former; that only matters relating to the state and public sector need to have checks and balances while the private sector is left to regulate itself. This is especially true in the wake of the 2008 economic crash where these natural tendencies were on vivid display.
It is true that Boaz does give some limited commentary addressing the issue of corporate corruption (in fact he spills more ink warning against single mothers than the bail out of the banks) but he seems to believe that such corruption is the result of government intervention in the natural flow of the market. He seems to believe that a sort of natural chaos is necessary for the markets to really show what they can do. In essence he demands a strong but limited state to protect basic personal liberties but seems to care very little about the protection of whole communities and groups of people who have had their individual liberties trampled by the excesses and corruption of corporations.
While deriding Karl Marx throughout, Boaz is striking similar to Marx in his economic determinism. He seems to believe that the free market is the answer to nearly every problem much like the inherent economic conflict between the classes was Marx's. While Boaz maintains he is against the idea of a utopia, he nonetheless argues for an unfettered free market as a solution to society's ills - very far from a realist view of the world.
Perhaps his most far-fetched claim is that Libertarianism's greatest triumphs were the abolition of slavery and the eradication of Jim Crow while neglecting the fact that the both of these were due to the strongest forms of federal government intervention; war and a federal civil rights act. According to Boaz's own arguments, any modern equivalent of these actions would be a violation of the role of a limited federal government.
Yet it is hard to blame Boaz alone for the inconsistency in these arguments. Even he seems to be aware that the most compelling argument against free market libertarianism is that it lacks a moral core and this is hardly a new problem - it's been debated since the birth of Libertarianism as a movement.
Economic efficiency, while increasing productivity and in some cases human progress, is not the only thing human beings care about, and rightly so. Along with a commitment to personal liberty, we also care about inequality, injustice and unfair treatment. This is perhaps the largest missing piece of Libertarian ideology, one which Boaz and others would do well working to resolve.
He makes a compelling case for big government to get out of people's lives, to be minimally invasive and maintain a very limited role which includes basic functions: security, protection of life and property and protection from external threats. He also points out that the separation of powers and checks and balances are fundamental to allow our individual freedom to thrive. He notes time and again that the reason for this is that power corrupts and that this tendency towards political corruption and bureaucracy is precisely what makes a myriad of public programs inefficient and unproductive. It is undoubtedly true that many people's experiences with government agencies is less than satisfactory (Boaz holds the US Postal Service in particular contempt, a sentiment which with I can readily empathize) and he does make a convincing argument that public services hold back creativity. He also notes that political power in the form of various interest groups encourages modes of production that are inefficient and as a result makes everyone poorer. Yet however much his insight into political power and corruption in the public sector rings true, he wholeheartedly fails to address similar problems and corruption inherent in the private sector due to a different type of power - economic power.
Fundamentally Boaz sees unbridled capitalism as the answer to most problems he covers, from racism and inequality to the capacity of human beings to create wealth for the betterment of society. Whereas his analysis of political corruption rings true for many, he tends to downplay and ignore the very real and utterly corrupt behavior at the heart of the economic power of the private sector. It strikes the reader as odd that Boaz argues that this natural tendency towards corruption and power is so much a tendency of humans that very strong checks and balances are needed to prevent it in governments and public organizations, but rapidly disappears when he speaks of the markets and private sector. Even if one were to see political and economic power as entirely separate, it is hard to see how the tendency towards corruption and abuse of power would only be present in the former; that only matters relating to the state and public sector need to have checks and balances while the private sector is left to regulate itself. This is especially true in the wake of the 2008 economic crash where these natural tendencies were on vivid display.
It is true that Boaz does give some limited commentary addressing the issue of corporate corruption (in fact he spills more ink warning against single mothers than the bail out of the banks) but he seems to believe that such corruption is the result of government intervention in the natural flow of the market. He seems to believe that a sort of natural chaos is necessary for the markets to really show what they can do. In essence he demands a strong but limited state to protect basic personal liberties but seems to care very little about the protection of whole communities and groups of people who have had their individual liberties trampled by the excesses and corruption of corporations.
While deriding Karl Marx throughout, Boaz is striking similar to Marx in his economic determinism. He seems to believe that the free market is the answer to nearly every problem much like the inherent economic conflict between the classes was Marx's. While Boaz maintains he is against the idea of a utopia, he nonetheless argues for an unfettered free market as a solution to society's ills - very far from a realist view of the world.
Perhaps his most far-fetched claim is that Libertarianism's greatest triumphs were the abolition of slavery and the eradication of Jim Crow while neglecting the fact that the both of these were due to the strongest forms of federal government intervention; war and a federal civil rights act. According to Boaz's own arguments, any modern equivalent of these actions would be a violation of the role of a limited federal government.
Yet it is hard to blame Boaz alone for the inconsistency in these arguments. Even he seems to be aware that the most compelling argument against free market libertarianism is that it lacks a moral core and this is hardly a new problem - it's been debated since the birth of Libertarianism as a movement.
Economic efficiency, while increasing productivity and in some cases human progress, is not the only thing human beings care about, and rightly so. Along with a commitment to personal liberty, we also care about inequality, injustice and unfair treatment. This is perhaps the largest missing piece of Libertarian ideology, one which Boaz and others would do well working to resolve.
May 15, 2015
Superlative analysis of human rights, the politico entities (specifically their labels) and those descriptions and systems of law and governmental hierarchies that seek to control human individuals and economics of groups.
Boaz uses bases of exquisite and historical definition in an exact sense. His writing is not equivocal as current politico trends are using these redefined categories. His labeling (charting yet)and exact definition skills are 6 star. Far left Communism and far right Fascism having totalitarian cores far more common to each other than the numerous politico stances in between. Social and economic degrees toward "change" or "status" being other factors. Degrees of economic freedom or social freedom all occurring on a scale. So an Authoritarian is oppositional to a Libertarian- with the first giving supreme control to the group and the second to the individual.
His chapters on Civil Society and the protection of property, Market Process, and What Big Government is All About are each worth triple reading.
But overall, historically and in reference, the research here on where real wealth and human progress in longevity and "improved states" of living have occurred in real time for homo sapiens history is the most compelling feature of these proofs. Because Socialism, Communism and other "we" think over powers of control have never prospered in any material sense. They have given the PR that they have, but they have not.
His historical references to USA Constitutional origin and uses until this last century should be read by all current Americans. The Constitution was created the way it was for a reason. That reason being that big Government proceeds to become the enemy of the individual.
We are heading to a new age of Libertarianism eventually. Because the entire Western Civilization divided the powers (mostly from Religious controls or "equals") on its way to become the institutions of democracies and republics that do exist.
Awesome book in our age of increasingly bigger and bigger and worse and worse government.
Boaz uses bases of exquisite and historical definition in an exact sense. His writing is not equivocal as current politico trends are using these redefined categories. His labeling (charting yet)and exact definition skills are 6 star. Far left Communism and far right Fascism having totalitarian cores far more common to each other than the numerous politico stances in between. Social and economic degrees toward "change" or "status" being other factors. Degrees of economic freedom or social freedom all occurring on a scale. So an Authoritarian is oppositional to a Libertarian- with the first giving supreme control to the group and the second to the individual.
His chapters on Civil Society and the protection of property, Market Process, and What Big Government is All About are each worth triple reading.
But overall, historically and in reference, the research here on where real wealth and human progress in longevity and "improved states" of living have occurred in real time for homo sapiens history is the most compelling feature of these proofs. Because Socialism, Communism and other "we" think over powers of control have never prospered in any material sense. They have given the PR that they have, but they have not.
His historical references to USA Constitutional origin and uses until this last century should be read by all current Americans. The Constitution was created the way it was for a reason. That reason being that big Government proceeds to become the enemy of the individual.
We are heading to a new age of Libertarianism eventually. Because the entire Western Civilization divided the powers (mostly from Religious controls or "equals") on its way to become the institutions of democracies and republics that do exist.
Awesome book in our age of increasingly bigger and bigger and worse and worse government.
December 4, 2018
I found this book riveting. Libertarianism --not conservative, not liberal. Somewhere else--. I came to the read neutral, and I leave fairly neutral, but the read has given me much to think about. Individual liberty versus power of the state. I became interested in Libertarianism when I read Joel Salatin's Book _Folks This Ain't Normal_. If you are interested in Libertarianism, I highly recommend this book as it covers both the historical perspective and also the possible role of Libertarian thought today.
September 30, 2018
Либертари үзлийн талаар ойлголттой болмоор байвал энэ номыг уншаарай. Өнөөгийн нийгэм улс төрийг маш тодорхой, цэгцтэй, баримттай нь тайлбарласан байгаа. Би багшийн шаардлагаар уншсан (нуугаад яахав хха).
December 19, 2020
Many people, who want to know about libertarianism, asks me what book to read. I often have to decide between “The Law", “Atlas Shrugged", ”Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics", etc. From now on, “The Libertarian Mind” will be the book I’ll recommend as the first book to introduce libertarianism. I think David Boaz is much underrated as a libertarian intellectual and thinker.
Muchas personas, que desean conocer sobre los principios del liberalismo, me preguntan qué libro leer. Siempre estoy en duda si sugerirles, “The Law", "Atlas Shrugged", “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics", etc. A partir de hoy, el libro que recomendaré será “The Libertarian Mind” para aquellos que deseen introducirse en el pensamiento del liberalismo. Creo que David Boaz está muy subestimado como intelectual y pensador liberal.
Muchas personas, que desean conocer sobre los principios del liberalismo, me preguntan qué libro leer. Siempre estoy en duda si sugerirles, “The Law", "Atlas Shrugged", “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics", etc. A partir de hoy, el libro que recomendaré será “The Libertarian Mind” para aquellos que deseen introducirse en el pensamiento del liberalismo. Creo que David Boaz está muy subestimado como intelectual y pensador liberal.
November 11, 2016
I was given this book by somebody who loved it and I promised to read it.
I must confess that I approached it with prejudice. I've never met a poor libertarian, my prejudice is that libertarianism is a philosophy of convenience for the rich. The way I see it, the minority of people who pay tax directly (we all do indirectly) need to feel good about something. And this is a philosophy that helps them stand for a set of ideas, rather than merely be indignant about being "soaked" on tax.
I was so prejudiced about the whole thing, I bought a book by a Nobel Prize winning economist / historian / philosopher about the role of institutions (for example: the government) and read it first. I thought it would educate my mind on the subtleties of the issues I'd confront in any book about libertarianism and give me a bank of ideas to compare with as I'm reading.
I needn't have. David Boaz' "primer" is not an ambitious book. It never goes deep enough into issues that you could vehemently oppose. Equally, it does not build its arguments on an axiomatic basis; so you can't go through and look for errors in logic that isn't there. This is a presentation of a bunch of ideas. "Primer" is probably overselling it, much as it says so on the cover.
I am not exposed to philosophy, so I hate taking literally what "popular philosophy" books have to say. The history of the various ideas will inevitably be interpreted from the angle of the author and important thinkers will invariably be mixed with less important thinkers who are closer to the ideas of the author. If this author did so, he certainly did it without me noticing. It was fun to read what he had to say.
That said, he completely failed to change my mind on any of my prejudices. How do I know? Easy: on the back of the book there is a questionnaire that helps you decide if you are a libertarian or not. I don't think I'd have answered any of the questions differently before and after having read the book, and I indeed remain of the opinion that this is a philosophy of convenience for taxpaying Americans.
Which brings me to the first major benefit I gleaned from reading this book. I finally understood why libertarianism is big in America and nonexistent everywhere else:
As the author argues, and from having lived there I'd have to agree, in America people who are free-thinking about the economy tend to be conservative about personal liberties. They call themselves the "conservatives." And people who are free-thinking about personal liberties tend to be anti-market when it comes to the economy. They are, of course, the "liberals." What here in Europe you'd call normal (even if we don't necessarily practice as we preach) is difficult to find in America as an ideology. But Americans call it libertarian. Over here there's no point giving it a name. We may not truly practice this combination of free markets and personal freedom around here, but we all advocate it.
It's actually easy to see why things are different in America, and this is me talking now, not the book: in America, personal liberties are de facto significantly more circumscribed and under attack. Much as Americans are free to carry guns (or perhaps because they do) your life can be under threat if you perform abortions, for example. Some states will lock you up forever after the third petty crime. The percent of Americans in jail is a vast multiple of what it is in any European nation. A cop catches you speeding around here in the UK, you actually don't have to show him your driver's license. You have 48 hours to present it to the cop shop of your choice. No American believes me when I say that, he's thankful if he does not get splayed on the hood of his car. This week, French cops are refusing to police riots in Brittany because they're scared. Peaceful "occupy Wall St." protesters got pepper spray in their face. Better not to get into Wikileaks, drones etc. Meanwhile, the US government taxes much less than any European government (at 25% of GDP between state and federal, significantly less than half of French or Italian tax, for example, and two thirds as much as British or German) so the economy is vastly "to the right" of Europe, with many "natural monopolies" fully privatised. The most celebrated Democrat president of the last 50 years got rid of the Glass Steagall act, allowed pharmaceutical companies to advertise drugs on TV and on his last day in office pardoned the country's most famous tax dodger. So there is a distinct "losing side" in America: the "liberals." It's game set and match, really.
As a result, the axis along which the friction occurs is between the losing "liberals" and the winning free-market / lower personal liberties "conservatives."
The a la carte fellows who don't want either package and want low government involvement in the economy and more personal freedoms have a name in America, they call themselves the "libertarians." They tend to be rich, because the poor are too busy, of course. That's the first thing I learned from this book and it makes good sense, much as it is very obviously a sweeping generalisation. But it explains a lot.
The other idea I found appealing in this book is the idea of "natural rights." Yes, I'm revealing that I know diddlysquat about philosophy, but that probably makes me the target reader. As a young student I was told that the mathematics is out there and all we humans have to do is go discover the theorems. We're not making them, we merely go find them. So we now have proofs that you can pack spheres particularly well in 24 dimensions, that you can color a map with 4 colors, that there are 52 types of finite groups and no more. The book argues that we have natural rights and all we have to do is go find them. We set up courts and we grope toward the truth. Sounds awesome to me. Don't know if it's wrong or right, on the other hand. Maybe it's fanciful. David Boaz states it as an axiom, but God knows he needs to do better than that.
Similarly, the author argues that in a free economy every time I transact with you by definition we must both be winners, otherwise the transaction would not occur. So a market economy works via billions of such win-win transactions and gets us to a place where a planned economy could never go. Yes, agreed, but a second year course in Economics in every single university in the world has a few weeks dedicated to stuff that people cannot achieve in this manner. Dunno, air traffic control. The author is rather pathetic when he goes looking for examples that defy this theory. Yeah, congratulations, there's a country where people got together and built lighthouses, but it was the country that controlled the seven seas for a few centuries.
More to the point, yes, I see where the author is coming from. But he has not made me move from where I started. He states that restaurant owners should be allowed to admit smokers. I have not met anybody who is not extremely happy about the smoking ban. Maybe not at first, but pretty much everybody I know has turned on this issue. The state got involved and stopped people from harming themselves in public places. It was necessary for somebody to nudge us that way (and I'm sorry I'm borrowing the hyper-popular term) but now car companies don't fit an ashtray as standard anymore, and that's because this small nudge (there I go again) has moved us all to a better place.
I'm a mathematician, that's proof by counterexample. QED, baby.
Regardless, I enjoyed the book. It's far too prosaic for me to award it more than three stars, but it informed me, it entertained me and it made me think. Bring on Nozick! He won't be as easy to dismiss.
I must confess that I approached it with prejudice. I've never met a poor libertarian, my prejudice is that libertarianism is a philosophy of convenience for the rich. The way I see it, the minority of people who pay tax directly (we all do indirectly) need to feel good about something. And this is a philosophy that helps them stand for a set of ideas, rather than merely be indignant about being "soaked" on tax.
I was so prejudiced about the whole thing, I bought a book by a Nobel Prize winning economist / historian / philosopher about the role of institutions (for example: the government) and read it first. I thought it would educate my mind on the subtleties of the issues I'd confront in any book about libertarianism and give me a bank of ideas to compare with as I'm reading.
I needn't have. David Boaz' "primer" is not an ambitious book. It never goes deep enough into issues that you could vehemently oppose. Equally, it does not build its arguments on an axiomatic basis; so you can't go through and look for errors in logic that isn't there. This is a presentation of a bunch of ideas. "Primer" is probably overselling it, much as it says so on the cover.
I am not exposed to philosophy, so I hate taking literally what "popular philosophy" books have to say. The history of the various ideas will inevitably be interpreted from the angle of the author and important thinkers will invariably be mixed with less important thinkers who are closer to the ideas of the author. If this author did so, he certainly did it without me noticing. It was fun to read what he had to say.
That said, he completely failed to change my mind on any of my prejudices. How do I know? Easy: on the back of the book there is a questionnaire that helps you decide if you are a libertarian or not. I don't think I'd have answered any of the questions differently before and after having read the book, and I indeed remain of the opinion that this is a philosophy of convenience for taxpaying Americans.
Which brings me to the first major benefit I gleaned from reading this book. I finally understood why libertarianism is big in America and nonexistent everywhere else:
As the author argues, and from having lived there I'd have to agree, in America people who are free-thinking about the economy tend to be conservative about personal liberties. They call themselves the "conservatives." And people who are free-thinking about personal liberties tend to be anti-market when it comes to the economy. They are, of course, the "liberals." What here in Europe you'd call normal (even if we don't necessarily practice as we preach) is difficult to find in America as an ideology. But Americans call it libertarian. Over here there's no point giving it a name. We may not truly practice this combination of free markets and personal freedom around here, but we all advocate it.
It's actually easy to see why things are different in America, and this is me talking now, not the book: in America, personal liberties are de facto significantly more circumscribed and under attack. Much as Americans are free to carry guns (or perhaps because they do) your life can be under threat if you perform abortions, for example. Some states will lock you up forever after the third petty crime. The percent of Americans in jail is a vast multiple of what it is in any European nation. A cop catches you speeding around here in the UK, you actually don't have to show him your driver's license. You have 48 hours to present it to the cop shop of your choice. No American believes me when I say that, he's thankful if he does not get splayed on the hood of his car. This week, French cops are refusing to police riots in Brittany because they're scared. Peaceful "occupy Wall St." protesters got pepper spray in their face. Better not to get into Wikileaks, drones etc. Meanwhile, the US government taxes much less than any European government (at 25% of GDP between state and federal, significantly less than half of French or Italian tax, for example, and two thirds as much as British or German) so the economy is vastly "to the right" of Europe, with many "natural monopolies" fully privatised. The most celebrated Democrat president of the last 50 years got rid of the Glass Steagall act, allowed pharmaceutical companies to advertise drugs on TV and on his last day in office pardoned the country's most famous tax dodger. So there is a distinct "losing side" in America: the "liberals." It's game set and match, really.
As a result, the axis along which the friction occurs is between the losing "liberals" and the winning free-market / lower personal liberties "conservatives."
The a la carte fellows who don't want either package and want low government involvement in the economy and more personal freedoms have a name in America, they call themselves the "libertarians." They tend to be rich, because the poor are too busy, of course. That's the first thing I learned from this book and it makes good sense, much as it is very obviously a sweeping generalisation. But it explains a lot.
The other idea I found appealing in this book is the idea of "natural rights." Yes, I'm revealing that I know diddlysquat about philosophy, but that probably makes me the target reader. As a young student I was told that the mathematics is out there and all we humans have to do is go discover the theorems. We're not making them, we merely go find them. So we now have proofs that you can pack spheres particularly well in 24 dimensions, that you can color a map with 4 colors, that there are 52 types of finite groups and no more. The book argues that we have natural rights and all we have to do is go find them. We set up courts and we grope toward the truth. Sounds awesome to me. Don't know if it's wrong or right, on the other hand. Maybe it's fanciful. David Boaz states it as an axiom, but God knows he needs to do better than that.
Similarly, the author argues that in a free economy every time I transact with you by definition we must both be winners, otherwise the transaction would not occur. So a market economy works via billions of such win-win transactions and gets us to a place where a planned economy could never go. Yes, agreed, but a second year course in Economics in every single university in the world has a few weeks dedicated to stuff that people cannot achieve in this manner. Dunno, air traffic control. The author is rather pathetic when he goes looking for examples that defy this theory. Yeah, congratulations, there's a country where people got together and built lighthouses, but it was the country that controlled the seven seas for a few centuries.
More to the point, yes, I see where the author is coming from. But he has not made me move from where I started. He states that restaurant owners should be allowed to admit smokers. I have not met anybody who is not extremely happy about the smoking ban. Maybe not at first, but pretty much everybody I know has turned on this issue. The state got involved and stopped people from harming themselves in public places. It was necessary for somebody to nudge us that way (and I'm sorry I'm borrowing the hyper-popular term) but now car companies don't fit an ashtray as standard anymore, and that's because this small nudge (there I go again) has moved us all to a better place.
I'm a mathematician, that's proof by counterexample. QED, baby.
Regardless, I enjoyed the book. It's far too prosaic for me to award it more than three stars, but it informed me, it entertained me and it made me think. Bring on Nozick! He won't be as easy to dismiss.
September 28, 2024
For individuals new to politics or new to libertarianism, this is probably one of the better overviews/introductions you could read. However, there isn’t much new here if you already currently identify as a libertarian, and the book contains very little that would convince skeptics.
February 15, 2017
Boy oh boy did I get some colorful commentary while reading this book. The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom by David Boaz is book that shouts "Look at me! I have things to say!" and does a pretty good job of conveying the message. Boaz uses fairly simple language and peppers the text with constant references to both past and contemporary people, events and ideas which makes it much more exciting and readable as a result. One of the issues I did have with the book was a lack of sources for some of the statistics and quotes that he utilized; while these were not crucial put-offs for me, this may be a sticking point for some and may damage the finer ideas he articulates. Without delving too far into my own political opinions I can say that while Boaz tries to be pragmatic in most of his scenarios, I feel that in some scenarios (like his claim that licensing doctors has contributed to a decline in the free market for healthcare) are a little too hyper-idealistic or ignore some conventional common sense; maybe Boaz would be happy waiting for the free market to determine whether his unlicensed doctor was good, but I would rather know that my doctor has met some standards of professionalism. Anyways, I would give one star for style, one star for clarity, .5 star for reliability, .5 star for learning something new and one star for being entertained. Bottom line - If you do not feel that one of the two dominant ideologies completely fits your personal convictions, give this book a shot. You may or may not agree, or only agree with parts of it, but at the very least you may find solace in knowing there are so-called "third ways"
October 16, 2015
Libertarianism isn't just a political philosophy, it was the philosophy upon which the Founding Fathers battled for. It is the philosophy for lower taxes to increase economic growth; it is the philosophy that let's individuals determine their own decisions as long as it does not interfere with the individual rights of others; it is the philosophy that advocates against big, coercive, government, which keeps expanding day by day. Liberals reject economic freedom while conservatives reject social freedom, but Libertarianism rejects both rejections. I aspire to be alive the day that a Libertarian candidate becomes the president of the United States; for now, it'll be a herd of uninformed citizens voting red or blue (which is basically the same thing nowadays).
February 27, 2015
The Libertarian Mind is a basic examination of what the Libertarian political beliefs are and what they stand for. It compares freedom against restrictive government. This free advance review proof is any excellent read for anyone interested in political theory or liberty.
February 4, 2012
If you're looking for a well-written introduction to libertarianism this is your book.
January 23, 2018
This is a great introductory read on libertarianism. Not difficult to read or abstract at all, the author goes through the history of liberty and the rise of classical liberalism. He explains thoroughly the rights of individuals, the current state of political parties, civil society, free market, and big government in a true libertarian nature. He proposes that a lot of libertarian ideas can be the solution to the complex, contemporary issues that societies are facing. I would highly recommend this, it was a great read.
May 18, 2013
A must-read for any libertarian or anyone who describes themself as "conservative on economic issues, but against social control." Quite different from Murray's book (released also in 1997), Boaz concentrates on the development of the libertarian thought and then on practical issues. Boaz does a great job of tearing apart anyone's claim that we should all be equal, showing that the equality would unbalance itself very quickly. With the exception of equality of rights, libertarians realize that equality is not going to happen because we all desire and assess differently. Perhaps the most prominent problem with our present government involves the understanding of "rights." The Founders indicated that all rights not expressly given the federal government are not given at all. Today, people claim all sorts of false constitutional rights and judges grant them. Boaz shows many examples where judges and legislators defend additional rights and take property wrongfully. The critics of the Bill of Rights claimed that it might be interpreted as an exhaustive list. Indeed, judges tend to look there rather than to the express powers when deciding constitutional authority. An interesting argument is that all rights are actually property rights, whether as self-ownership, by rightful acquisition, or based on being the first to add one's labor to something (i.e. create, discover, or homestead). Under this definition, a right of free speech becomes a right of use of means of distribution. Boaz outlines additional separations beyond that of church and state, including family and state, and art and state. Boaz points out the difference between law and legislation and how the latter is used to achieve so many deleterious effects. He addresses the variety of property takings by the government, ranging from taxation to inflation. Boaz finishes his work with a number of policy stances: against the draft, against being the world's police force (and showing that we are not needed in most situations), for the value of charity, against the evils of price controls (rent control, farm subsidies, and minimum wages), against taxation, and against regulation. He makes a concise argument about the benefits of foreign trade and debunks the myth of the trade balance. He also points out that there has been no intellectual debate about this for a long time -- it's the special interests that make ludicrous claims. Finally, Boaz ends by pointing out that new information technology and the global economy are bringing about much of what Smith and others would want. In other words, some things are beyond government control.
January 10, 2021
This review is of The Libertarian Mind which is Boaz’s updated and retitled edition of Libertarianism: A Primer. This version (which doesn’t have its own separate page) was updated in 2015 and so takes into account and discusses policies enacted in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis but doesn’t touch on the rise of Trumpism Nationalist Populism (which itself demands a new, new update if not a book of its own). At any rate, addressing what is in the book is the task of this review and it gets too marks. Boaz isn’t breaking ground with philosophy here but what he is doing, and what he does exceedingly well, is to simplify and present the most important and common foundations of libertarianism and the thoughts of its most influential thinkers into easily understood and digestible portions by broad subjects. There is no other single book that I would suggest to someone who wants to understand the basics and then move onto the other deeper more specific works referenced in the further reading section but it’s also a good refresher for those of us who have already read much of the deeper materials and want to step back and reassess the landscape as a whole. His writing is clear and lucid with enough humor sprinkled liberally about to not bog down even some of the drier concepts. On the whole this is an important introductory and foundational work and I would expect nothing less from the Cato Institute’s Boaz.
June 6, 2017
Pretty much an introduction to "libertarian" ideas, which was nothing new to me. And when I say "libertarian," I should note the common usage of the phrase as it's come to be known. I was very frustrated that little talk was given to the original meaning of the term, and although origins were discussed, (classical liberals Adam Smith and John Locke were mentioned) the libertarian socialists of the 19th century were not. The first time the word was used was in a work published by a libertarian communist. Yes, that's right. I found discussions about the historical usage conveniently lacking, making it hard to enjoy what little the book had to offer from then on. Which was more of the same.
February 19, 2017
Boaz is the Executive Vice President for the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. The most important thing I can say about this book, is that if you are interested in Libertarianism - read this book. It is a clear, easy-to-understand articulation of the Libertarian philosophy. If you are reading about Libertarianism and you don't start with this book, you should at least add it as next up on your reading list.
May 22, 2019
This was an excellent book! I really wish there was a book like this for each political party/ affiliation. I would listen to them all! As I listened to it through audible, I did grow tired of the readers voice at times. But it fit the tone of the book.
February 22, 2025
What can I say? I bought this book by the late David Boaz when it came out back in 1998. And only now did it work its way to the top of my non-fiction to-be-read pile. Kept cyber-piling more recent, more interesting, books ahead of it.
And it's good! At least it was 27 years ago. If you are shopping for a good intro to libertarian philosophy and practice, written by a not-particularly-critical activist, I recommend you buy Boaz's updated version The Libertarian Mind, which came out in 2015.
I must confess: in my case, Boaz was pushing on an open door. And I didn't learn much I hadn't already managed to pick up as a decades-long Reason magazine, and occasional reader of Sowell, Hayek, Rothbard, Rand, Nozick, Caplan, Friedmans (Milton and David), …
Lest anyone doubt that libertarianism has an ancient pedigree, Boaz quotes 1 Samuel 11-18, where Sam relays the word of the Lord to the Israelites demanding a king to rule over them (I'll quote the New Revised Standard Version Updated, verse numbers elided):
… These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots, and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves and the best of your cattle and donkeys and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And on that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you on that day.
Yeah. You can't say you weren't warned about this, by God Himself.
Boaz was optimistic about libertarianism's long-term prospects, and he may have been right, given a term long enough. But our post-1997 road has been rocky, at best. For example, he quotes the recommendations of Jacob Weisberg in a 1996 book, In Defense of Government:
(1) accept that life is risky and stop trying to legislate risk out of existence; (2) stop promising more than government can deliver; (3) be willing to abolish failed, outdated, or low-priority programs; (4) stop delegating Congress's lawmaking authority to the bureaucracy; (5) promise that government won't get any bigger than it is now, in therms of government share of GNP.
Reader, Weisberg was, at one time, editor-in-chief of Slate. Not exactly a hotbed of rabid anarchists, now or even then.
As far as the "promise" in item 5 above: the USA's FY1996 Federal Net Outlays were 19.3% of its GDP. Compared with 23.1% in FY2024. Getting back to 19.3% would require (by my math) a 16.5% cut across-the-board in overall spending.
(But that "across-the-board" figure includes debt service. Adjust my math appropriately.)
All in all, it's a very good primer, and an interesting look at the state of liberty back in 1997 compared to now.
January 2, 2021
A perfectly written introduction to the libertarian or classic liberal philosophy. It does a good covering both political and economic issues, current and historical, and does it without mathematical formulas or charts.
August 29, 2017
I definitely like this book. It addresses a lot of interesting questions about personal choices and individual liberty as well as the emphasis on personal responsibility and the role of voluntarism in a free society. Some of the information was general but I appreciate the author pursuing the course of big picture ideas and covering many of them instead of writing a lot about few subjects. This is a good read for people who do not know much about Libertarianism and want to understand it better. Although I am not a total complete Libertarian, there are certainly many things about Libertarianism that I appreciate and gravitate towards. This book certainly helped me identity and stick to them.
May 29, 2020
As promised by author- he did manage to come up with just a "primer", as would the Greeks say: "Pan metron ariston." As a libertarian myself, I do find for imperative to we all refresh the ideology we've chosen to live according to, from time to time. What is the better way to do it, if not reading books. So, do I that too, although I rather delve into physics or cosmology.
Here we go:
I'll stick to the Orator's principle and gonna make an attempt I never did, to write my review based on those Cicero's fundamentals. So, allow me to start with:
"DOCERE" - It's full of "stars" from Hayek, the entire Libertarian theory is relaying on - I'd say. What I was missing is a reflection on roots of political ideology that will remind the reader that his determination yields back into the deep past of eternal dichotomy of stability vs. change! The political ego of the human individual is a result of hers/his general neural state. I'm convinced on some stage of basic education, kids should have insight into evolutionary psychology behind the politics. The "primer" should have come around with these basics in brief before starting to disclose and prove the theory. I don't say this has prevented the author in writing a good book, I just believe that body of knowledge is crucial for an individual to phatom the world of politics. What is proven for sure according to my opinion is that in this rapidly changing world, having the laws of our world, the common sense and the emotions in equilibrium is utterly crucial.
Did I found all the theses definitively proven? The worst nightmare for us, libertarians, is that we have a theory that is working along intervening laws and common sense, yet we're facing that we lack the proper "fabric" for it. And by this I mean the quality of humanity in global to live in a libertarian majority lead community.
"DELECTARE" - I did really have fun in learning about all those facts that actually knocking down the socialist-liberal and conservative thoughts by disclosing facts and gradually rendering them ridiculous and obsolete. You know the "tyranny of the status quo (or the tyranny of bureaucrats), the being equal and all those meaningless emotional concepts of "we hate gravity, because it kills, so lets jump from the roof to defeat it" !
It's not just the content that the author has decided to enroll , but the style he deployed to beautifully across the book.
"MOVERE" - been I touched emotionally? Been I moved? Actually, I've been experienced a pretty of "A-HA''s rediscovering more and more how much important is for our future to rethink our education systems, and our priorities and to put back bureaucrats-politicians in their "protect and serve" role!!!!
Thanks for the nice book! Sometimes, I wished for the author to possess more "laconic" traits, but actually it was an excellent read. Cheers!
Here we go:
I'll stick to the Orator's principle and gonna make an attempt I never did, to write my review based on those Cicero's fundamentals. So, allow me to start with:
"DOCERE" - It's full of "stars" from Hayek, the entire Libertarian theory is relaying on - I'd say. What I was missing is a reflection on roots of political ideology that will remind the reader that his determination yields back into the deep past of eternal dichotomy of stability vs. change! The political ego of the human individual is a result of hers/his general neural state. I'm convinced on some stage of basic education, kids should have insight into evolutionary psychology behind the politics. The "primer" should have come around with these basics in brief before starting to disclose and prove the theory. I don't say this has prevented the author in writing a good book, I just believe that body of knowledge is crucial for an individual to phatom the world of politics. What is proven for sure according to my opinion is that in this rapidly changing world, having the laws of our world, the common sense and the emotions in equilibrium is utterly crucial.
Did I found all the theses definitively proven? The worst nightmare for us, libertarians, is that we have a theory that is working along intervening laws and common sense, yet we're facing that we lack the proper "fabric" for it. And by this I mean the quality of humanity in global to live in a libertarian majority lead community.
"DELECTARE" - I did really have fun in learning about all those facts that actually knocking down the socialist-liberal and conservative thoughts by disclosing facts and gradually rendering them ridiculous and obsolete. You know the "tyranny of the status quo (or the tyranny of bureaucrats), the being equal and all those meaningless emotional concepts of "we hate gravity, because it kills, so lets jump from the roof to defeat it" !
It's not just the content that the author has decided to enroll , but the style he deployed to beautifully across the book.
"MOVERE" - been I touched emotionally? Been I moved? Actually, I've been experienced a pretty of "A-HA''s rediscovering more and more how much important is for our future to rethink our education systems, and our priorities and to put back bureaucrats-politicians in their "protect and serve" role!!!!
Thanks for the nice book! Sometimes, I wished for the author to possess more "laconic" traits, but actually it was an excellent read. Cheers!
September 10, 2016
This book is Mr. Boaz's love letter to the free market, and a fairly amusing one at that. I say this despite the fact that I don't agree with a lot of his points and some even made me laugh out loud out in astonishment: my favourites were the offhand remark that the child laborers of the Dickensian era were better off because at least they had jobs or the suggestion that laissez-faire traffic planning works much better than a designed one (which got me thinking about rush hour in Los Angeles v. Coopenhagen).
The strongest parts were sections 3 through 8 that covered the libertarian approach to the most important aspects of life and by far the weakest was Chapter 10, titled "Contemporary Issues", where the author compared the libertarian answers to different challenges to the conservative or social democratic ones and kept missing the point by completely ignoring the ratinale behind the thinking of the other parties. Maybe playing dumb was part of the rhetoric but it would've made a much more interesting book if the author took the time to actually argue about questions like the societal benefits of a having common baseline of education across the society or not having to even think about whether health problems would leave someone bankrupt or the ethical problems of leaving the safety net to private charities with an ideological agenda that could cherry-pick those they consider to be worthy of saving and leave the rest to fall down. Instead of that, he just repeats the mantra of how unethical it is for the government to force us to spend money on things we wouldn't want to spend on and how much better a free market solves the same issues anyhow. It might even be true -- but there are gains associated with the other approaches as well and it would've been great to at least try to weight them against the percieved or true loss of freedom that go with them.
But regardless of whether you agree with any of the points made in this book, it is a great and powerful summary of the libertarian thinking.
The strongest parts were sections 3 through 8 that covered the libertarian approach to the most important aspects of life and by far the weakest was Chapter 10, titled "Contemporary Issues", where the author compared the libertarian answers to different challenges to the conservative or social democratic ones and kept missing the point by completely ignoring the ratinale behind the thinking of the other parties. Maybe playing dumb was part of the rhetoric but it would've made a much more interesting book if the author took the time to actually argue about questions like the societal benefits of a having common baseline of education across the society or not having to even think about whether health problems would leave someone bankrupt or the ethical problems of leaving the safety net to private charities with an ideological agenda that could cherry-pick those they consider to be worthy of saving and leave the rest to fall down. Instead of that, he just repeats the mantra of how unethical it is for the government to force us to spend money on things we wouldn't want to spend on and how much better a free market solves the same issues anyhow. It might even be true -- but there are gains associated with the other approaches as well and it would've been great to at least try to weight them against the percieved or true loss of freedom that go with them.
But regardless of whether you agree with any of the points made in this book, it is a great and powerful summary of the libertarian thinking.
July 7, 2020
Bitirdim ama nasıl bitirdim. Bu kadar banal, bu kadar aynı sözleri tekrar eden, bir kitaba rastlamadım. Elimden geldiğince her "Liberalizme Giriş" minvalinde kitapları okurum, aralarındaki en kötüsü bu idi sanırım. Liberalizm şöyle iyidir, bireye şöyle önem veririz deyip duran sanki özel dershane pazarlayıcısı edasıyla anlatan sıkıcı, fakat iyi further reading kısmına sahip olan. Arada geçen kısa dipnotlar ile neşelendiğiniz kitap. Eğer yaşamınız normal ve zevkli ise bu kitabı okumayın, liberalizmin sadece sosyal yanlarına değinen ve 11 chapter boyunca hep aynı şeyleri anlatan kitap. Bir chapterda Hazretleri lütfedip serbest piyasayı anlatmış, çok teşekkürler. Aynı şeyleri 12 chapter boyunca söylemesi büyük bir başarı gerçekten. Eğer gecenen 2.30 sularında yalnız ve sessizse etraf, yapacak daha iyi işiniz yoksa, hafif zom iseniz açın okuyun. Pek bir şey kaybetmezsiniz. Ha tabi, bunu okumak yerine Eric Mack'in "Liberalism" kitabı daha kayda değer ve okunması daha yararlı olabilir.
December 9, 2015
Boaz puts forward a refreshingly positive vision for Classical Liberalism / Libertarianism, one that says "yes" to human potential, creativity, and even society. This is a nice contrast to most "libertarian" commentary that I find that seems to just not like other people.
Boaz argues that other people, communities, and society are inherently creative, and that by allowing that know-how to grow and get connected with others, communities can solve their problems and change the world for the better. There is a fair amount of anti-government rhetoric, which is fine, its a political book, I'm just not interested.
I do wish that he spent a little longer talking about the non-aggression principal (something that along with emphasis on community draws me to more libertarian politics), and more on this theory of labor and property (something that sounded like it would resonate well with my state-skeptical progressive friends, it could help build common ground).
All in all, its a good book, I'd recommend it for anyone interested in reading political philosophy of any stripe.
Boaz argues that other people, communities, and society are inherently creative, and that by allowing that know-how to grow and get connected with others, communities can solve their problems and change the world for the better. There is a fair amount of anti-government rhetoric, which is fine, its a political book, I'm just not interested.
I do wish that he spent a little longer talking about the non-aggression principal (something that along with emphasis on community draws me to more libertarian politics), and more on this theory of labor and property (something that sounded like it would resonate well with my state-skeptical progressive friends, it could help build common ground).
All in all, its a good book, I'd recommend it for anyone interested in reading political philosophy of any stripe.
June 11, 2017
I read this book bits at a time because there's a lot of detail to consider. I am grateful I read this book because of the questions it raised about how I view the political system and my freedoms as an American citizen. I found things that resonated with views I already held, other things that challenged my views, and several things I can honestly say I'll be thinking about differently from now on. I would recommend this book to "possible" libertarians and to anyone who wishes to read things that are different from their current viewpoints. The book is, of course, biased in favor of Libertarianism, but the author asks some very thought provoking questions about the way the American political system currently functions and I am thankful to have my thinking both challenged and clarified.
January 30, 2021
Dated but still good introduction.
September 30, 2012
I give Libertarianism the book 3 stars. It wasn't nearly as entertaining as hearing Dr. Ron Paul go on about the nasty Federal Reserve, shutting down the Dept of Education, or going back on the gold standard, legalizing pornography and marijuana, or how building a fence in Texas is dangerous because it might be keeping American's in. We will leave it up to the straw poll and the people of Iowa to decide...
April 12, 2016
Fantastic Overview of The Love of Liberty
This book is a great overview of Libertarianism and how this view improves everyone's lives. Hitting almost every issue and topic you can think of, the author clearly articulated the arguments, logic, pragmatism and benefits of a Libertarian viewpoint of individual liberty and respect for others. Great read, learned a lot, and am now better equipped to defend and advocate for the Liberty movement.
This book is a great overview of Libertarianism and how this view improves everyone's lives. Hitting almost every issue and topic you can think of, the author clearly articulated the arguments, logic, pragmatism and benefits of a Libertarian viewpoint of individual liberty and respect for others. Great read, learned a lot, and am now better equipped to defend and advocate for the Liberty movement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews