The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman

The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman by David Boaz. Hardcover: 480 pages. (New York, NY: Free Press, 1998), Amazon.com $19.76.

Review by Ryan Setliff

The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman is a fascinating primer on libertarian thinking throughout the ages. I being of a classical conservative mind, hope to offer a fair critique of both this book and libertarianism in general. I acquired it during my pre-law days while studying political theory. Anyway, David Boaz has assembled an anthology of political and philosophical writings gleaned throughout history of what he deems to be libertarian thought. The introductory section entitled "Skepticism About Power" puts forward the crux of libertarian thought, namely skepticism of concentrated power and an affinity for the principle of subsidiarity and the widespread dispersal of power. Such skepticism is rooted in recognition of a fatal tendency in human nature for men to conspire to domineer one another — and many do so under the auspices of government itself. In sum, libertarians affirm Lord Acton's axiom that "power tends to corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Boaz tosses in a selection from the Scriptures, in 1 Samuel 8, which shows the consequences of the ancient Israelites insisting on a monarchy. Here, the prophet Samuel warned of the consequences of absolutism that would ensue, but they the people would not relent and God through his permissive will relented and gave them their monarchy. James Madison's poignant Federalist #10 is included and correlates the founder's reverence of liberty with libertarian thought.

Boaz infers the continuity of mainstream libertarianism with the 'classical' liberalism of yester-years.

Not surprisingly, advocates of free-markets and opponents of statism are among the cast of characters featured in his selections. Economists like Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises grace the pages. Bruce Leoni has opined that, "It seems to be the destiny of individual freedom at the present time to be defended mainly by economists rather than by lawyers or political scientists." This conviction is shared by many libertarians (and libertarian economists.) Frenchmen Bertrand de Jouvenal offers a poignant critique of redistribution, which was gathered from the pages of "The Ethics of Redistribution."

Some egalitarian levelers, anarchists, and other assorted radicals like Lysander Spooner and social Darwinist Herbert Spencer are featured as well.

With regards to foreign policy issues, the essays featured seem to acquiesce with the sentiments of the founding fathers, which may be summed up in the dictum of Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." These essays advocate strategic disengagement, a policy of strategic independence, which is commensurate with the prevailing foreign policy of armed neutrality espoused in the early years of the American republic. One essayist, namely Ted Galen Carpenter, works alongside Boaz at the Cato Institute, and offers a sensible assessment of our entanglement with the UN and its negative long-term consequences. However, libertarianism may be shallow in some respect on international affairs, hence their affinity for Richard Cobden whom Boaz featured. Cobden's fanciful screed entitled "Commerce is the Grand Panacea" acts as if free trade amongst the nations will whimsically do away with war. For political realists, this is a bit of well wishing that doesn't mesh too well with reality or history.

Thus far I've been dispassionate for the most part, but now let me toss in a monkey-wrench in regards to Boaz's selection of libertarian icons. Many contributors selected never identified themselves libertarians as such.

Moreover, some featured in the anthology were avowed opponents of libertarianism. In the 1950s, economist F.A. Hayek deplored those who would assign the libertarian appellation to him. He insisted that he was an "Old Whig, with emphasis on Old." Likewise, Ayn Rand too, had bad things to say about libertarians of her time, yet many in libertarian circles strangely have an affinity for her crude, materialistic objectivist philosophy.

Some of the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of libertarianism (visible in the schisms of 19th century classical liberalism) planted the seeds of what mutated into modern, permissive liberalism with its penchant for radical secularizing and egalitarian leveling. Some of these flaws are manifest in the nineteenth century selections featured in this book. Granted, some libertarians, specifically paleolibertarians, are openly appalled at these dark facets of modernity that I'm about to describe.

Generally, many libertarians have a dogmatic affinity for an abstract liberty, a tendency to reject a transcendent moral order, a penchant for crude utilitarian reductionism, and some even find all forms of coercion appalling, apparently even the social stigmatism of family, tradition and societal custom. (BTW If you think this is an overstatement than read Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.) Murray Rothbard was adamant that libertarians aren't libertines. However, as libertarian writers prattle off screeds like Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do and XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography advocating an unfettered market for drugs and sex, it seems the more libertine side of libertarianism is apparent. Those avowed libertarians that retort, "I'm against these things," probably favor Edmund Burke over Thomas Paine, and might as well rally to the conservative camp if they do an accurate self-assessment.

Furthermore, many libertarians devalue both community and the nation-state, and question the sovereignty of states to regulate immigration while they long for a borderless world of hyper-atomized individuals engaged in economic transactions. That "globalization" is a cousin of "internationalism" remains a fatal concession and they have to tacitly admit it. Some libertarians in their theorizing have a tendency to supplant the marketplace in place of civil society. In doing so, they adhere to a dictum that can be surmised as "everything inside the market and nothing outside the market," thus turning Mussolini's statist mantra on its nose. "Ideas have consequnces," as Richard Weaver observes, and naturally the liberalism of Paine, Spencer, Mill and yes even Locke gave way to modern liberalism and the perils of modernity.

I was once an avowed libertarian, but with a kick; I fancied myself as "a conservative with a libertarian bent." As conservative thinker Russell Kirk surmises, many nominal conservative youths flirt with libertarianism, but anyone who thinks seriously about politics falls away from the shallow philosophy. Nevertheless, there is much in libertarian thought to be admired, though they're not always the exclusive harbingers of all these good ideas they espouse. It's also real easy to maintain "ideological purity" on economic issues, for example, when you're not in power. Libertarians particularly those affiliated with the Cato Institute are aligned with the Old Right in an effort to unleash what we might characterize as a "devolution revolution." Such a move would effectively restore the 10th Amendment and federalism commensurate with original intent of the U.S. Constitution's framers. (Neoconservatives however are too apt to constitutional compromise.) Anyhow, for accomplishing his task of making an anthology offering a cross-section of libertarian thought, I'll give Boaz a thumbs up and a five-star rating despite my misgivings about libertarianism.