Customer Reviews

The Libertarian Idea (Ethics and Action Series)

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

 

 

Drawing on the recent work of David Gauthier, Jan Narveson has set out to provide libertarianism the foundations missing from Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_.

In Part I, Narveson sets out to clarify the libertarian thesis, and in doing so, rescue it from charges of incoherence. This mainly involves a detailed refutation of the idea that by acquiring unowned property, one is infringing on the liberties of everyone else. Narveson also probes the negative / positive rights distinction and takes on the task of defining "liberty." This section is, of necessity, somewhat technical and nit-picky.

In Part II, Narveson examines the idea of moral foundations. He offers arguments against the stripe of intuitionism involving weird non-natural properties, utilitarianism, and any moral theory wherein moral facts are somehow perceived by intuition. In contrast, Narveson appeals to a social contract theory of morality, wherein moral principles are necessarily such that they would be agreed to by anyone in an amoral world. This is pretty strict Hobbesian stuff, minus the Sovereign solution to social problems. Narveson uses the rigorous work of Gauthier and a smattering of game theory to explain and clarify contractarianism and defend it against counterarguments. Finally, he offers general grounds for the plausibility of the libertarian thesis as an agreeable normative theory.

In Part III, Narveson examines all sorts of reasons for expanding the state past that size and function which the libertarian will accept (if, indeed, any state at all will be justified). Public goods theory, egalitarian "social justice" concerns, insurance "guaranteed minimum" arguments, etc. This section is less technical than the others, as Narveson is able to draw on a variety of reasons for supposing a state solution to be a poor one.

Overall, _The Libertarian Idea_ is a thorough and interesting read (made all the more so by Narveson's engaging prose and sense of humor). I would recommend it highly to anyone seeking a philosophical examination and justification of libertarianism.

Jan Narveson's "Libertarian Idea," is the best book on libertarianism ever written. Narveson's goal is to lay the ethical foundations for libertarianism that seem absent in Robert Nozick's more famous libertarian book, "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Starting with the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and throwing in a bit of game theory, Narveson succeeds quite well, avoiding some of the naturalistic pitfalls of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and other libertarians who follow Aristotle's philosophical tradition. Put simply, Narveson asks, what kind of ethical rules would we invent to keep from killing ourselves in an amoral state of nature? Since we all have different goals and desires, the only way for us all to live in peace -- and have the best chance at obtaining our individual visions of happiness -- is to adopt the most pluralistic rules possible. Thus, libertarianism, which insists only that we respect each others lives, liberty and property, is the minimal moral standard necessary for a civil society. No one else has said it so well. Hopefully, this book will soon find its way back into print.

Jan Narveson's "The Libertarian Idea" is truly a modern classic of political philosophy at the level of John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Where Nozick just *assumes* that the individual has a set of moral rights, Narveson attempts to provide a *foundation* of such rights by drawing on David Gauthier's ground-breaking work in contractarian moral theory (Morals By Agreement).

In "The Libertarian Idea", as well as in his many other books and articles on moral and political theory, Narveson elegantly manages not only to make the controversial and radical political doctrine of libertarianism, but also the equally controversial and radical ethical doctrine of contractarianism, appear as the natural and common-sense ideas they really are. These theories have a lot going for them, and their combination is indeed very natural and grounds a powerful argument.

This book is very highly recommended both to those who want to get to know what libertarianism is about and to those who are already convinced libertarians, but would like to look into the contractarian foundation into which Narveson convincingly frames the libertarian idea.

Useful companions: Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice: Essays on Moral and Political Philosophy (a collection of papers by Narveson himself on ethical and political theory), Morals By Agreement (David Gauthier), Liberty, Games and Contracts (an anthology compiled by Malcolm Murray that brings together various critique of Narveson's ideas by a number of philosophers as well as replies by Narveson himself).

Fritz- Anton Fritzson
Lund University,
Sweden

Except for the part about abortion.

The woman may own the body, but that does not mean that body the child doesn't own its body. Seems like body ownership would be a clearly self defeating argument when invoked to justify abortion rights.

Think about this scenario. You're crossing a tiny wooden plank bridge. A nutcase runs up to you and places an infant on your shoulders and runs away.

Now the infant obviously has no right to rest upon your shoulders. But if you shake the child off, you are 100% certain it will fall through the planks in the bridge and die.

Does that give it a right to rest upon your shoulders? No. Do you have an obligation to carry the child to safety? No.

But I believe it does prevent you from taking action which would result in harm to the child.

Anyhow, beside that, it's an awesome treatise.

Narvesons book on the moral foundations of libertarianism is needed because freedom has been to highly connected to utilitarian philosophy, a connection that viewed in isolation I think is bad for the libertarian cause. His arguments are largely good, although there is a problem with all contractual thinking that he does not avoid. What you get out of the contactual situation is already implied in the premisses. His arguments for self- ownership should not be dependent upon the outcome of the contractual situation, but be based on an independent moral argument. I think that is possible, and if so than you can deduce the libertarian etics, the nonaggression axiom

Narvesons book on the moral foundations of libertarianism is needed because freedom has been to highly connected to utilitarian philosophy, a connection that viewed in isolation I think is bad for the libertarian cause. His arguments are largely good, although there is a problem with all contractual thinking that he does not avoid. What you get out of the contactual situation is already implied in the premisses. His arguments for self- ownership should not be dependent upon the outcome of the contractual situation, but be based on an independent moral argument. I think that is possible, and if so than you can deduce the libertarian etics, the nonaggression axiom