Customer Reviews

What It Means to Be a Libertarian

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I haven't purchased this book, but I would like to address the Amazon.com review of it. Never have I seen such a biased, opinion-based review of a product from an authority that is supposed to present a summary. Shame on Amazon.com for discounting the potential of freedom, and discouraging people from encountering new ideas by saying the auther has "lost his common sense." I recommend buying this book from another online merchant, if you are a Libertarian, in an effort to vote with your dollars. Tell Amazon.com that their reviewers' statism will not be tolerated. The future of freedom has only just begun.

This is the best introduction to the resurgence of 19th century European liberal thought that Americans call libertarianism. Murray's book is clear and brief; a good read for busy professional people. It is also highly operational, in that he presents a detailed view of what the USA Federal government would look like if he could reshape it according to his ideals. The only aspect of government he does not address (but should have) is taxation. For a good idea of what the income tax would look like under a libertarian order, read The Flat Tax by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka.

But Murray is more than an enthusiastic libertarian; his thinking also draws on Burke and Tocqueville, with their emphasis on private voluntary endeavour, and the role of unconscious evolution in shaping man and society. In this respect, he appears to be a genuine intellectual son of the late Karl Hess.

A reviewer has written above:

"This book suffers from an uncritical take on the role of law and the transparency of language, a highly impressionistic and Whiggish reading of history,and a failure to distinguish sufficiently between political and economic liberty."

These criticisms have a germ of truth, but apply with equal or greater strength to many who strongly disagree with Murray. The pervasive importance of the common law as a fundamental economic and political institution is only beginning to be appreciated. Murray knows this, without going into detail. That language is an imperfect tool is something with which anyone working with the young becomes all too aware. But that imperfection afflicts all political doctrines. Murray is bit of a philistine in his reading of world history, but he is far from alone in this fault. And as for a strong positive correlation between economic and political liberty, belief in this lies at the very core of libertarian thinking. Richard Pipes's new book "Freedom and Property" bears out the truth of this correlation.

The appendix on Sources and References is a good guide to further reading.

Charles Murray has accomplished something with his little 170 page book that other authors have failed to do with more massive tomes -- explain the simple concept of liberty.

It should be noted that I am not another libertarian shilling for a book that parrots my position. I am a conservative (there IS a difference between conservatism and libertarianism, though modern liberals can't see it) who read the book to better understand the uneasy alliance that we often have with our libertarian brethren.

Mr. Murray's book is not written from a purist's point of view. He does classify his philosophy as being a bit toward the classical liberal side, but his "thought experiments" show that true classical liberalism is is inseperably intertwined with modern libertarianism.

Contrary to the Amazon reviewer's comment that Murray has "lost his common sense," this book is oozing common sense. Murray, in part due to his succint explanations, shows that it is the statist approach that often lacks common sense.

Murray's arguments grow and branch out from one root assertion: people must be free to make their own decisions, even if those decisions bring harm upon themselves.

If you automatically reject that premise, then you will most likely find his arguments unpersuasive. If you automatically accept that premise, then you likely already agree with everything that follows.

If you aren't certain, then read the book, and give Murray the chance to make his case. He does so convincingly.

Charles Murray has his own views of what the perfect Libertarian world would be. He isn't asking that the federal government privatize roads, or eliminate the EPA, but he would like to see them do their constitutional duties first and leave other tasks for the market place. His premise is that we should judge government actions not by intentions, but by outcome.

He makes a good case that New Deal and Great Society programs have been around long enough to quantify the benefits, but the numbers indicate no improvement. Also, Murray contends the government has been neglecting their real duties such as national defense and foreign policy to look after the welfare state.

Murray discusses education, the environment, drug policy, discrimination, economics, and responsibility from a fresh point of view. If you are tired of the same old ideas on the evening news, read this book.

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.

This book would be more accurately titled 'One Man's Argument for Libertarianism,' as Murray's particular brand of libertarianism is not necessarily that shared by either the Libertarian Party or the average libertarian. Nonetheless, the book makes a very good case for his brand of libertarianism and at least lays out the basics of what libertarianism is and is not.

The book presents libertarianism is two parts: descriptive and prescriptive, with the prescriptions building naturally from the description. Murray lays out his views on the proper role of government in society in the descriptive part of the book, providing a reasonably coherent explanation of how the basic theory of libertarianism applies in specific cases.

The second part of the book is where things get particularly interesting, as Murray starts prescribing how the government should be reshaped to form a libertarian government. He lays out an ambitious agenda and does a remarkably good job of defending it given his space limitations. His arguments for paring away a sizable chunk of the regulatory state will not be accepted by many readers, but his arguments are cogent and reasonable. As he notes in the text, there is no way to be certain that his prescriptions would result in better economic health for the nation. On the other hand, there's also no way to demonstrate that government regulation has provided more than a marginal benefit to the public (and certainly no way to demonstrate its benefits have outweighed its costs). It is unlikely Murray's arguments will win over many converts, as political affiliation is a very difficult thing for people to change, but most who dismiss his arguments will do so from emotion rather than logic.

Murray's writing is crisp and clean, making the already small book a very pleasant read. While the reader will not truly understand what it means to be a libertarian in this small volume, he will certainly understand the basics of the philosophy and how it can be applied to some of the political problems we face today. Well worth a look for anyone curious about libertarians and libertarianism.

Though Murray claims only to be a "small 'l' libertarian" and hasn't bought into the complete Libertarian way of thinking, I believe that he either doesn't have a true understanding of what Libertarians believe about government - or just plain neglected to rationalize his reasons for differing from those beliefs.

He deviates far from libertarian thought with his plan for education - the area he believes that the Federal government should play a major role in. I have to wonder if he *really* understands where money comes from when he talks about "government funded" schools. Hasn't he figured out that that's OUR money he wants the government spending - and spending badly?! He also is under the mistaken impression that the Federal government will be handing out this (our) money - yet not having a say in how it is spent.

I would still have bought this book if the price were right, though I was hoping for a book that contained what the title implied. Murray has quite a few Libertarian beliefs, but should not have passed his thoughts off under the title "What it means to be a Libertarian" - even if he does add the disclaimer "A personal interpretation." There is entirely too much of that in politics today.