100 of 104 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An enchanting song I can't sing, October 3, 2005
This review is from: What It Means to Be a Libertarian (Paperback)
What is this strange thing called Libertarianism? I thought I had a pretty good idea, but I decided to investigate further after reading Candace Jackson's "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," a book in which the author defined our former president's predilection for women against the larger themes of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. I dithered about for a few months deciding which course I wanted to take before settling on Charles Murray's "What It Means to Be a Libertarian." I was familiar with the author from the brouhaha his book "The Bell Curve" kicked off roughly a decade ago, but knew little else about him. The name recognition, however, coupled with the knowledge that "What It Takes to Be a Libertarian" runs a scant 178 pages (at least in my hardback copy) convinced me that this was the place to start. The author will have to make his points quickly if he can fit everything into a book less than 200 pages in length, I thought to myself, and I was right. Murray's book is a model of to the point writing. What is this strange thing called Libertarianism? It's what I thought it was all along.
Libertarians, as Murray points out very quickly, differ in their opinions on specific issues as much as members of other political persuasions. But it's possible to distill one core belief that all libertarians share: the individual's freedom is central to human existence. Society works best when the individual retains the right to make as many choices in their life as possible. The archenemy of individual freedom is local, state, and national governments and their handmaidens bureaucracy, regulation, and spurious laws. Government, according to Murray, does have some important functions. For example, ensuring basic liability protections for consumers and protecting the markets from natural monopolies are important government functions. Murray changes his tune when it comes to things like social welfare programs, anti-drug laws, housing programs, agricultural and energy regulations, education, and anti-discrimination laws. He wants all of these governmental functions, and quite a few others to boot, eliminated. The reader can practically hear the heads of liberals and conservatives exploding while reading the list of policies, laws, and regulations the author thinks should go the way of the dinosaur.
Interestingly enough, Murray makes it all sound like common sense. He introduces a concept called the Trendline Test to prove how, time and time again, the government mucks up anything it tries to do beyond its basic functions. Remember the introduction of seatbelt laws? Remember how many lives they saved with the help of millions upon millions of tax dollars? According to Murray, a trend line shows that deaths due to car accidents began a serious decline thanks to safer cars and better technologies long before government decided to play superhero. Once the bureaucracy came into the picture, they made little difference. The same pattern repeats for other scenarios. Government often works best when it stands aside and lets private concerns deal with complex problems. Any issues that do need an organized response in the form of government, argues Murray, should embrace the concept of subsidiarity, or the idea that the best response comes at a local level closest to the individual. Education is a place subsidiarity should dominate, but it's also one of the few areas in which Murray claims that the national government ought to play a role. Give every kid in America a three thousand dollar voucher, return control of the schools to the local level, and thus watch the educational system soar as it becomes part of the market system.
"What It Means to Be a Libertarian" contains a lot of meat, far too much to chew on in a short review. It's an excellent and easy read, however, and makes a lot of sense. The book reinforced the fact that I'm a conservative and not a libertarian, though. How so? Well, I definitely support a smaller government that translates into a lighter tax burden, but I can't go this far. Libertarianism seems to share much with secular humanism in that this belief system places man firmly at the center of the universe. It's obviously an outgrowth of Enlightenment ideas about rationality, and the fact that Murray continually cites the Founding Fathers convinces me of this fact. They were big believers in the Enlightenment too, at least on paper. Can you see the problems here? One, mankind is not rational. We're not, we never have been, and you need to look around if you can't see that. Libertarianism needs rational beings to function effectively. Two, the lack of laws restricting drug use, prostitution, and other morally objectionable behaviors will never fly. Any society that has ever normalized these sorts of behaviors has collapsed utterly and absolutely. Humans need some sort of moral compass around which they can organize a functioning society and civilization.
Despite the problems I had with the theory that drives the book, I'm giving it five stars because of its succinct treatment of a complex political ideology. Charles Murray provides plenty of illuminating information to make his points, cuts through complex arguments with ease, and will have you supporting the abolition of at least SOME of the federal bureaucracy by the time you set the book down. Moreover, I found the annotated bibliography extremely worthwhile if the reader plans on following up this book with further reading. I think I will delve deeper since I'm interested in finding a book that examines the historical underpinnings of libertarianism more than this treatment did. Ultimately, you will come away from Murray's treatise fully understanding what it means to be a libertarian, even if you decide not to join in the fun.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
37 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Elegant Vision, March 5, 2000
This review is from: What It Means to Be a Libertarian (Paperback)
As an introduction to libertarianism, Charles Murray's "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" is often compared to David Boaz's "Libertarianism: A Primer" which also came out in 1997. They are both excellent, but completely different in style and approach. Murray's book is shorter (roughly half the length), more theoretical and philosophical, and calm in tone. He conveys an elegant vision for how society ought to function, and argues convincingly why this is realistic rather than utopian. Liberals and conservatives should both agree with his vision of how things _ought_ to be, though they may remain unconvinced of the feasibility: sometimes relying on the invisible hand that guides the economy is as difficult as trusting the invisible hand that holds up an airplane. This is an elegantly written and extremely readable book, and an excellent introduction to what libertarians are _for_ as well as what they are against.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good but a Tad Misleading!, March 3, 2003
This review is from: What It Means to Be a Libertarian (Paperback)
When I was a libertarian who didn't realize I was a libertarian (I figured I was just a conservative who was smart), this was the book that gave me my diagnosis - "You might be a libertarian if...". This book does and does not serve that purpose.
Charles Murray, infamous co-author of The Bell Curve, writes with clarity, simplicity and understanding about libertarianism. He gives us a cost/benefit understanding of libertarianism, i.e., how much does the program cost vs. how much benefit (in relation to the program's non-existence) do we derive. The more centralization, the less benefit is generally derived and the more the cost is increased. As I said, clear, simple and insightful.
There's one problem - this is not always known as libertarianism. Murray tells us the libertarian rule of thumb is "The more local control, the bettter." No, that's anti-federalism, which tells us that government that is local is best. Libertarianism, by contrast, tells us that government that is minimal is best. A socialist town could please and anti-federalist but not a libertarian. By contrast, a large country with a small centralized government might do the opposite. I am both an anti-federalist AND a libertarian. Still, when reading Murray's book, beware of the difference as he doesn't explain it.
Despite that flaw, I highly reccomend this book to those who are not sure what libertarianism is, are curious whether they are libertarians themselves, or are new libertarians and want a good read with good clarification. A better read (in addition to or in place of) is "The Libertarian Reader" edited by David Boaz. A collection of essays, the reader accurately conveys the diversity of libertarian thinkers better than this book does.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
