What It Means to Be a Libertarian (Paperback)

~ Charles Murray (Author) "PUBLIC CELEBRATIONS OF FREEDOM used to be at the heart of America's pride in itself..." (more)
Key Phrases: Social Security, United States, Los Angeles (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Charles Murray first got famous for his book Losing Ground's argument that welfare programs actually hamper the progress of poor people. Then he got even more famous for saying (along with his co-author Richard Herrnstein) in The Bell Curve that genetically-based IQ deficits also hamper their progress. This little book is worth the read because we get to see what he thinks the government should really do about all this: not much. On the plus side, Murray is a very clear writer. So we get, for instance, a nicely drawn discussion of the nature of public goods. But although this book is offered in the spirit of the Revolutionary pamphleteers, when it gets down to cases, Murray comes across as a man who's lost his common sense. For example, he claims that if all businesses were allowed to opt out of the current government regulatory scheme, provided that they display prominent signs saying UNREGULATED, "just about every small business will want to be unregulated. ... No more building inspectors, elevator inspectors, or restaurant inspectors. Owners of unregulated small businesses will have to answer to no one but their customers." He doesn't seem to notice that those customers will be running at top speed away from those clearly marked buildings, elevators, and restaurants. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Publishers Weekly

Murray (coauthor of The Bell Curve) is a skilled polemicist, and his manifesto for a radically downsized government should both gather adherents and challenge opponents. He argues from two basic points: freedom (associated with responsibility) is our birthright; and in most cases, government intervention has been ineffectual. While Murray allows for some level of state and local government, he recommends scrapping most federal agencies that deal with domestic policies. Arguing that civil rights laws have actually retarded progress against racism, he cites evidence that discrimination against Jews and the Irish declined without legislation; but this ignores the special stigma of race. Murray advocates a $3000 education voucher for each child and suggests optimistically that medical patients paying full fees will subsidize the costs of the indigent; but this says nothing about those in between?the majority of the population. Welfare and Social Security payments should end, to be replaced by individual saving and community support from voluntary associations. Murray's proposals posit a more responsible populace?a worthy goal?yet they also assume a neighborly concern that may be lacking in our increasingly fragmented society. Moreover, his schema fails to address international comparisons (Canadian health care) and does not acknowledge how government has shaped an unequal status quo (e.g., mortgage interest deductions but little money for public housing). $100,000 ad/promo; author tour.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 196 pages
• Publisher: Broadway (December 29, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0767900391
• ISBN-13: 978-0767900393
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.6 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (45 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #107,102 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #68 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Political Parties

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

69 of 71 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An enchanting song I can't sing, October 3, 2005

By	Jeffrey Leach (Omaha, NE USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

29 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Elegant Vision, March 5, 2000

By	Stephen B. Cobb "Shameless Reductionist" (Reston, Virginia USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

43 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Amazon Bias, November 17, 2004

By	M. Finger "http://www.ny.lp.org/" - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.