"IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM" AND RELATED ESSAYS (Hardcover)

~ FRANK MEYER (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

First published in 1962, "In Defense of Freedom" examines the tension between the freedom of the person and the power of social institutions. In Frank Meyer's view, both the dominant liberalism and the "New Conservatism" of the American tradition place undue emphasis on the claims of social order at the expense of the individual person and liberty. In addition, Meyer insists that liberty is essential to the pursuit of virtue. Therefore, to Meyer, the proper end of political thought and action is the establishment and preservation of freedom. This edition also includes nine related essays, among them "Libertarianism or Libertinism?", "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism" and "In Defense of John Stuart Mill".

About the Author

Frank S Meyer

Product Details

• Hardcover: 261 pages
• Publisher: Liberty Fund Inc. (May 1, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0865971390
• ISBN-13: 978-0865971394
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.8 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,005,476 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Valiant Attempt to Fuse Natural and Libertarian Conservatism, November 13, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: "IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM" AND RELATED ESSAYS (Paperback)

In this book, Frank Meyer attempts to consolidate two threads of conservative tradition (later referred to as fusionism) - that of libertarian conservatism (stressing individual rights and economic freedom); and that of natural or traditional conservatism (stressing virtue and order). Meyer makes the case (persuasively I believe) that while many in the conservative movement tend to stress one tradition over the other, there is no inherent mutual exclusion between them. In short, there ought not to be a rift between those that focus on different elements of the conservative tradition. Essentially, Meyer presents the individual (not community, not "society", and not the state) as the atomic unit. And from that unit radiates out all other constituent beliefs about the individual - the right to life, liberty, and property - including the freedom to pursue virtue as well as vice. Yet despite this valiant effort made by Meyer, the tension between the two traditions of conservatism still exist to this day. Those wishing to understand that tension in a historical context would certainly do well by reading this book. In any case, whether one agrees with Meyer's attempted fusion, In Defense of Freedom is a wonderful read in conservative expression.

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars One of the 25 most important conservative books, August 5, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: "IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM" AND RELATED ESSAYS (Paperback)

Meyer was a former Communist, but he atoned for this by the many contributions he made to the anti-communist cause and to the conservative movement. The latter, I believe, owes an incalculable debt to him. Before 1960, Meyer, who was at the time a senior editor of National Review, began arguing that there was no inherent contradiction between the two major streams of the Right in America, free-market principles and traditional values.

        He further argued that if the conservative movement was going to succeed, adherents of both lines of thought, natural allies on most issues, must be fused together. Supporters of a conservative economic policy, he taught, couldn't expect their policies to be enacted without the backing of social-issue conservatives. And it was equally true, he continued, that social-issue conservatives couldn't expect their policies to be enacted unless they allied with economic conservatives.

         The presidential elections of 1980, 1984 and 1988, as well as the congressional elections of 1994 and 1996, were manifestations of the wisdom of Frank Meyer.

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Influential, July 30, 2007

By	The Doctor (The TARDIS) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

Meyer was an influential thinker in the neoconservative movement. He basically argues that American Conservatism is the fusion of two lines of thought or ideas that are in Europe thought contradictory (and maybe this is part of the reason why Europeans have such a big problem with American conservatism). These two ideas are the importance of individual freedom and the importance of tradition or a code of ethics needed to civilize an otherwise naturally savage species.

This is what Thomas Sowell calls the "constrained vision" of human nature. Liberals tend to embrace the "unconstrained vision," which assumes that people are just naturally good and that ignorant policies are the only thing keeping us back from developing the utopia we could easily create. Liberals believe that if high-minded third-party decision makers tell the public how they should live their lives and impose their values on everyone else that utopia would only be a few years away.

The problems with this thinking, according to the constrained vision, is that first, in order for the government to have the power to create such a utopia a totalitarian regime must first be established, and second, even if a totalitarian leader managed to force his (or her as may soon happen) vision on everyone else, according to the constrained vision this will likely only make things worse, not better. Most social "programs" have unexpected consequences, and have historically only tended to make the problem in question worse than it already was.

According to the constrained vision we should focus on process and incentives, not lofty outcomes. Welfare might have a lofty outcome for example (to lift people out of poverty), but when one focuses on incentives created one sees that welfare will only create more poverty. People with the unconstrained vision in the sixties saw this before it even happened. When Barry Goldwater heard about welfare he said all this will do is create a caste system in America. Paying people to not help themselves is about as strong a reinforcer to NOT help yourself as could possibly be created.

So instead of people preempting your decisions and telling you how to live your life, conservatives emphasize individual freedom combined with an emphasis on classical virtues such as stoicism, reticence and honor. This is a recipe for fuller, more self-actualized citizens who create more and together, through good competition, make society a better place for all who live in it, including the poorest. (There really are no "poor" people in America after all. The average person who lives below the poverty line works 16 hours a week and spends $2.50 for every $1 earned. This is a behavioral problem, not a societal problem!) Liberals instead focus on instant gratification, getting in touch with "feelings," and the destruction of personal responsibility, which creates a society of dependent complainers who have been conditioned out of helping themselves. This removes the incentives to succeed by destroying meritocracy and in the end pulls everyone down to the mean. Society as a result will suffer.

Conservatives emphasize fairness in process; liberals emphasize fairness in outcome, which necessitates the creation of unfair processes in order to force the preconceived "fair" outcome. This unfair process typically punishes success and resourcefulness and rewards laziness and sloth. Thus we can see that conservatism is not so much a religious movement (this is a HUGE misconception), as it was actually spearheaded largely by completely secular thinkers whose common feature was an opposition to all forms of fascism, which includes all forms of socialism.

Meyer thought that liberals tended to be relativists who deny the existence of right and wrong. Their relativism, which they think makes them "enlightened," really only makes them gullible and susceptible to naïve social planners who want to rush in and "fix" everyone else's life. Frank S. Meyer, along with William Buckley, were the fathers of "fusionism," which is the stance much of modern conservatism is based on.