Most Helpful Customer Reviews
36 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Classic defense of property rights; great new intro, format, September 12, 1998
This review is from: The Ethics of Liberty (Hardcover)
Murray Newton Rothbard's classic hard-hitting defense of property-rights-based libertarianism is deservedly back in print, with a valuable new introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe that alone is worth the price of the book even for those who already own the original. Prof. Hoppe helpfully locates Rothbard in libertarian scholarly tradition, explains why Rothbard's work was unjustly ignored while unsystematic but "tolerant" thinkers like Robert Nozick were unfairly elevated, refutes the major criticisms that have been offered of Rothbard's work since the original publication of _The Ethics of Liberty_, and effectively argues that for natural-law theorist Rothbard, libertarianism was not "libertinism" but socially quite conservative. Also helpful is the new format, in which the book's former end-notes are arranged in footnote style rather than collected at the end of each chapter.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
33 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
to answer some criticisms, October 3, 2003
Just about everything has been said about this book, so I'll simply answer some criticisms. "let us imagine a murder victim who has no heir or whose legacy is repudiated. Is his death to go unpunished? And what if the heir is the murderer? I'm sure that Rothbard had a answer for that, but it is not in this book." Well, Rothbard is no omniscient, nor is anyone else; furthermore, he can't answer every possible question in one book. In reality, no-one knows exactly how the free market would provide various services in the absence of any form of a State, but Rothbard makes likely predictions. In the case that a victim has no heirs, it is presumed that anyone who was close to the victim would be able to demand justice in a private court, on his behalf. Furthermore, the victim's insurance policy against crime might mandate that, should he be murdered, the murderer be found; his lawyer would be responsible for making sure that happens after his death. Finally, all crimes must occur in place. Rothbard says that various streets and buildings would have private police, employed by the owners. It would be in the owners best interest to see that crimes committed on his or her property go punished, so as to discourage that. Furthermore, another reviewer has remarked that it is possible to have a government of minimal function that does not inflate the money supply. This displays extreme ignorance of history, and naivete. That's exactly what our founding father's tried to do: and it was a failure from the start. The past 300 years have shown us that any government at all, no matter how small it starts, no matter the "constitutional restrictions", will grow and grow and grow until all liberty is crushed under the boot of tyranny. The very existence of a government, in and of itself, mandates that the non-aggression axiom be violated. For a government cannot possibly exist without taxes, and taxes are the initiation of aggression. What are taxes, but forcing indivudals to work 10-37.5% of the year for no compensation? And what is that, but slavery? Systematic, persistent, and regularized theft is slavery. Thus, it is impossible to adhere to libertarian principles and support any State.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Ethics of Anarchy, August 19, 2001
This review is from: The Ethics of Liberty (Hardcover)
Murray Rothbard was the leading libertarian thinker of the 20th century. In 1982, he published THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY, his central work on political theory and ethics. This work was republished recently with an excellent introduction by Hans-Hermann Hope (the endnotes have been converted into footnotes, a big improvement). This work is probably the best discussion of libertarian philosophy from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. In addition, Rothbard develops a theory based on natural law, thus distancing himself from other strands of libertarian thought. The book is particularly comprehensive. Starting with a discussion of natural law, Rothbard turns to practical issues such as voluntary exchange, contracts, and the rights of children. He then discusses the concept of the state. He ends the work with discussions of different approaches to rights and a strategy for advancing liberty. The comprehensive nature of the work is also its greatest weakness. Rothbard discusses too many subjects in too few pages. For example, the difficult question of the rights of children takes all of 15 pages. Yet there is no more difficult question for any theory of rights than that question. Rothbard's discussion of the rights of children is emblematic of the weakness and at times superficial nature of this work. Take Rothbard's discussion of when the parents' "jurisdiction" over a child ends. He states: "Surely, any particular age (21, 18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution to this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his FULL rights of self-ownership WHEN HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS THEM IN NATURE-in short when he leaves or `runs away' from home." [p. 103; emphasis in the original.] First of all, it may be arbitrary to establish the age of emancipation at 18 rather than 17, but such decisions are found in all areas of life and are not thereby rendered "completely arbitrary." In any event, is it "completely arbitrary" to set it at 18 rather than 5? Moreover, Rothbard's "solution" is in most respects even more arbitrary. For example, if Junior Jones runs away when he is 8 years old, does that mean his parents cannot force him to stay? What if Junior is 5 and wanders off his parents' property and stays at the Smiths' house, asserting that he would prefer to live with the Smiths. Has he then demonstrated a "right to self-ownership" in nature? Would it be wrong for the Joneses to take him back? Rothbard uses a similar argument against Laissez-faire advocates of limited government who believe the state may provided limited protection services. Supposedly their views fail because how much or little services such a government might provide can only be "purely arbitrary." [p. 181.] This type of argument leads Rothbard to advocate abortion-on-demand, a position with which I strongly disagree. For whatever flaws it contains, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY it is certainly one of the most provocative books you will ever read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
