Customer Reviews

Anti-libertarianism: Markets, philosophy and myth

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In this book Alan Haworth tends to sneer at libertarians. However, there are, I believe, a few sound criticisms. I have always held similar opinions of Murray Rothbard's and Friedrich Hayek's definitions of liberty and coercion, Robert Nozick's account of natural rights, and Hayek's spontaneous-order arguments. I urge believers of these positions to read Haworth. But I don't personally know many libertarians who believe them (or who regard Hayek as a libertarian).

Perhaps the most useful response is to challenge some of Haworth's other views. He uses 'right-wing' to mean something like unregulated property matters. By analogy, I take 'left-wing' to mean unregulated personal matters. As libertarians want both areas unregulated they fit better on an unregulated-regulated axis, with extreme state regulation in both areas as an opposite. So the market is not the central tenet of libertarianism (contra p. 36). Libertarianism embraces all voluntary behaviour not imposing on others, including charity such as the Good Samaritan's (which example Haworth would twist to defend state intervention [pp. 100-103]).

Haworth denies that liberty is "'essentially" negative' (p. 47). But surely liberty is, analytically, about the absence of constraints. More precisely here, it is about people not being constrained by other people. To avoid confusion, I call this 'interpersonal liberty'. Hence falling into a pit does not reduce interpersonal liberty (contra p. 49) but being pushed in does, unless that is part of defence, restitution, or retribution (so it is false that 'coercion and [interpersonal] liberty stand opposed' [contra p. 46]).

Though sometimes bad at expressing it, libertarians have a good grasp of interpersonal liberty as 'persons not (proactively) imposing on each other'. Such an account of liberty does not mention private property, though normal observance entails it. The market restricts one's licence (to impose) rather than certain (interpersonal) liberties (contra p. 54). Haworth's unseen p trespassing child does impose (contra p. 97): by flouting the owner's choices, thus attacking liberty. By contrast, Haworth lacks any clear grasp of interpersonal liberty and hence libertarian acquisition, so cannot understand why state-expropriated utilities are illiberal (p. 10). He writes of 'liberalism' as though ignorant of classical liberalism (p. 27) (and of the 'true levellers' as though ignorant of the, libertarian, levellers [p. 10]). Perhaps that is why he sees no connection between liberty and the market.

Libertarians do not believe the market to be 'the perfect moral order' (contra p. 3), merely better than state aggression. And lack of libertarian rights does not entail lack of moral obligation (contra pp. 78-9). To accept a right to liberty is not, ipso facto, to 'confuse questions concerning rights with questions concerning freedom' (contra p. 11): following Karl Popper's epistemology, libertarians can simply conjecture the desirability of libertarian rights (viewing these as compatible with the market and utility, for conceptual and empirical reasons). Haworth writes nothing to refute this.

There are many completely unargued assertions. Exactly how does democracy respect choice better than the market (p. 17)? (If 'democratic' means to 'facilitate self-determination for autonomous beings' [p. 102], then I guess the market is 'democratic'.) How are 'huge capitalist corporations' not merely successful but 'coercive' (p. 101)? How does so-called 'equal opportunities legislation' protect 'the property women hold in their persons' (p. 142 n. 4) rather than being female privilege?

Typical libertarian views, whether right or wrong, are unknown or ignored on many issues. Libertarians typically think that: people command ever better market wages by selling only their labour (contra p. 21); unemployment is due to state benefits (contra p. 99) and depressions to inflated money and state profligacy (contra p. 100); the state undermines public goods (contra p. 92) and equality (contra p. 131); extorted transfers will harm the poorest in the long term (contra p. 109); state medicine (contra pp. 82-4) and state education (contra p. 132) not only violate liberty but are more expensive and inferior.

Haworth misunderstands how states impose pollution and merely ignores market-justice arguments (p. 113). Nuclear waste would not be in free-market lakes (contra p. 111) because damaged third parties could sue using contingency fees (though choosing some pollution, as city-dwellers do, is hardly intolerable).

He even scores some clear own goals: it recently took New York's state-licensing to curtail ethnic hairdressing (contra p. 87); and voluntary discrimination (i.e. freedom of association) is not state-imposed segregation, which is what killed Bessie Smith (contra p. 140, n. 9).

Overall, this book contains too many of Haworth's prejudices and too little careful consideration of the relevant arguments.

(...)

In this book Alan Haworth, of the University of North London, attempts to take on libertarianism. Some might say that this hardly needs further elaboration. But Haworth makes a good case that some of the libertarian tenets, such as the "invisible hand" theory of Adam Smith, are far more widespread and far too often considered self-evident than they deserve.

His criticism, however, is sorely lacking in understanding of his opponents. His dissection of Hayek's internal inconsistencies is excellent, but he never makes clear why Hayek's criticism of planned economies is necessarily relevant to libertarianism. Haworth also fails to properly understand the modern views of libertarian economic arguments, such as the necessity of "internalizing" things like pollution, instead ridiculing the libertarians for presumably forgetting all about this obvious rejoinder. Last but not least, his tone is condescending and childish, and this does not really help anyone's case, even if I feel (as one strongly opposed to libertarianism) that it might be deserved.

On the plus side, Alan Haworth's book is very useful for a memory refresher on the central tenets of libertarianism's conception of freedom (a conception too little attacked generally), and his destruction of Robert Nozick's mystifications of "innate rights" is well-done.

All in all, worthwhile, but certainly not the book you should get if you aren't familiar with libertarianism already, since there's a lot of straw in Haworth's version of it.

This is very informative book. After finishing this book you will learn that: Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defense associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed

With Nozik denying much of what was said earlier, one would think that the whole thing is put to rest. However, convictions die strong as is the case.

This book is not a complete refutation of all libertarian tenets, but it is a good start. Some people may also misunderstand many of the arguments, many of which are subtle. The book also carries some assumptions that are well-derived; however, if you do not understand the assumptions you will not understand the argument.

What is the best part of this book? Questioning ill-derived truths that many Libertarians take at face value. Haworth's book could be better, however, if it included less philosophy and more real-life examples from sociology, political science, anthropology, and history.

This is a great book. It tought me a lot about Libertarianism. Now, I know this is Libertarians' "philosophy" : 1. In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion. 2. Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand. 3. We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang. 4. Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government. 5. Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist. 6. Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion. 7. Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation. 8. Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights! 9. Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace! 10. The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

I can't believe I paid over twenty-five dollars for this book used. I am a registered libertarian that lives in one of the top ten socialist states in the U.S.A, Connecticut. Everything in this book was absolutely predictable from the socialist spin doctor Alan Haworth (I know many of you Anti-Libertarians won't believe me when I say this, but I read this book with an open mind). Perhaps Haworth should take a close look at what socialism has done to the poor in the U.K. Remember it was socialism and the U.K that put and kept the U.S.A in the great depression. While I advocate freedom of speech for all, (which of course Alan Haworth does not) this book is mind poison to our nation's youth. More than likely, Alan Haworth is a member of an elite cabal hell bent on enforcing socialism all around the globe. What I am saying here is true controversy. Alan Haworth's book is nothing but 100%, absolute, pure, unadulterated SOCIALIST SPIN!!!! This coming from a former SOCAILIST!!! I came from a hard working, middle income family, and SOCIALISM NEVER HELPED!!!!!! Mr. Haworth, please stop making any more printings of your book, your socialist philosophy only empowers the elite and rich even more, and will do nothing but crush the poor even more.