Libertarianism, by Jason Brennan

I'll start with full disclosure.  I am a libertarian.  I have little patience for the statism coming from the Rs and Ds.  I have run for office as a Libertarian a couple of times.  So I was predisposed to like Jason Brennan's Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know.  But, subjectivity aside, I think Brennan provides a terrific, accessible guide to modern libertarian political thought.

The structure of Brennan's book, a series of questions grouped by topic, make it a very useful reference.  It's worth reading straight through, but each short chapter can also stand alone, particularly the latter chapters addressing specific contemporary issues.  Covering libertarian foundations, political theory, economics, and modern problems, Brennan lays out the basics of libertarianism.

Starting with the basics, Brennan gives the core of what libertarianism is about: individual liberty, mutual consent, cooperation, tolerance, mutual respect, volunteerism, equality, responsibility, and radical freedom.  Answering the criticism that libertarians are too reliant on market solutions without acknowledging market failure, he points out that government also fail, and that while market failures eventually self-correct, government failure becomes entrenched.  Although markets and governments both fail, we should favor free markets and not government intervention, as governments stifle freedom and exercise their monopoly on coercive power.  Whether the issue is civil rights, poverty, the environment, crime, or international trade, government intervention, Brennan argues, is always the wrong choice.  He lays out the arguments in deceptively simple terms, but in such a way that demands further study and response.

If I have a quibble with Brennan, it is his tendency to homogenize the libertarian movement.  He does draw distinctions between some different types of libertarians, and occasionally notes alternative views, but most of the time it's "Libertarians believe. . . ."  I only bring this up because he fails to acknowledge that many libertarians are pro-life.  He writes, "Libertarians advocate women's reproductive freedom, including the rights to have an abortion, use birth control, . . ."  While it's true that many, probably most, libertarians do so, I wish he would acknowledge the view of some libertarians that an unborn child warrants the same protections as a newborn or an adult.

Libertarianism deserves a spot on the shelf of any libertarian or libertarian leaning reader, but it should also be on the shelf of Ds and Rs.  Pick it up, select a question, and be honest enough to compare your ideas with Brennan's on a given issue.  At the very least, you will come to appreciate the libertarian position.  If you're not careful, though, you may find that you agree with him.

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary review copy.

No, They Can't, by John Stossel

The title of John Stossel's new book, No, They Can't: Why Government Fails--but Individuals Succeed, sums up Stossel's philosophy and the message of the book succinctly.  If you have seen his work on television (the "Give Me a Break" segments on 20/20, his one-hour specials on ABC, and, most recently, his show on Fox Business), you won't be surprised to hear that he is in favor of smaller government, free markets, and individual liberty.  In short, he is a libertarian.

Stossel's 20/20 segments were a breath of fresh air,
but he became too libertarian for them; they showed him the door.

No, They Can't reads like a series of his pieces on T.V.  As he addresses a particular issue, Stossel presents both anecdotal evidence and the research and opinions of experts to describe and defend the libertarian position.  The chapters cover policy areas you might expect from any book on public policy, such as health care, education, environmentalism, and the war on drugs.  I particularly like a device he uses throughout the book to shift to a new idea within the chapter, a statement of "What intuition tempts us to believe," versus "What reality taught me."  For example, intuition: "Disabled people need governmental protection."  Reality: "Such protection hurts the disabled."  Like a segment of his T.V. show, each section boils down an idea to its essence, giving a brief but solid defense.

If there is a weakness here, it is that: he doesn't leave a lot of space for the full development of an argument, much less a complete rebuttal.  But that's not his intention.  He does include plenty of references to get you started with your own rebuttal, or to do your own reading to confirm his point.  I think he accomplishes what he set out to do, that is to provide an alternative to Obama's "Yes, we can" attitude.  When Obama and his followers say "Yes, we can!" what they're really is saying is "Yes, the government can."  Stossel demonstrates the futility and destructiveness of relying on government for solutions to the needs of society.

It may be bad form to give away the ending of a book, but I do love the way Stossel closes No, They Can't.  "There is nothing that government can do that we cannot do better as free individuals--and as groups of individuals, working together voluntarily, not at the point of a gun or under threat of a fine.  Without big government, our possibilities are limitless."  A good word that I wish would be heeded by politicians in both major parties (but I'm not holding my breath!).

The Declaration of Independents, by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch

During the 1996 budget battles in Congress, when the "Contract with America" was beginning to show its worthlessness, and the Ds and Rs fought over who can spend money faster, I received a solicitation in the mail to join the Libertarian Party.  It seemed like they were the only political voice supporting limited government, free markets, and personal freedom.  The Ds and Rs get bits and pieces, but inevitably increase government power, constrain the market, and limit freedom.  Alas, the Ls have not made any no significant inroads in national politics.  The D/R duopoly has reigned for decades.

In the meantime, Reason, one of my favorite magazines, has been promoting "free minds and free markets."  Editors in chief Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have teamed up, with their characteristic good humor, solid insight, and strong libertarian perspective, to give a breath of fresh air and a challenge to conventional two-party thinking in American politics.

The Rs squandered the opportunity, with a majority in congress and a popular president, to bring real change to the way the U.S. government works.  Instead of cutting spending and reducing government programs, they increased federal involvement in education, added an enormously expensive drug entitlement for seniors, and spent billions on war and everything else.  To top it off, they gave millions away to failed business at the end of Bush's term.  Obama has only made things worse.  Gillespie and Welch write:

Americans have watched, with a growing sense of alarm and alienation, as first a Republican, then a Democratic administration has flouted public opinion by bailing out banks, nationalizing the auto industry, expanding war in Central Asia, throwing yet more good money after bad to keep housing prices artificially high, and prosecuting a drug war no one outside federal government pretends is comprehensible, let along winnable.  It is easy to look upon this well-worn rut of political affairs and despair. (6)

There doesn't seem to be much hope that either party has anything to offer, and fact share the goal of centralized power.  "It's time to stop pretending that the two parties are actually in conflict with one another (as opposed to colluding in a power-sharing agreement at the expense of the rest of us)." (14)

Knowing that we cannot look to government for serious reform--"Looking to Democrats and Republicans for the next big thing is like asking General Motors and Ford circa 1975 to map out the future for the auto industry." (37)--the authors look at the airline industry, trends in the business world, and the media for direction.  Whether we're talking about travel, corporate structures, or how we get our news and entertainment, choices are better and freer than ever before.  We should embrace that same sense of independence and choice in the world of politics.

Unfortunately, in three important areas, health care, K-12 education, and retirement, the government has such a stranglehold that innovation is near impossible.  The authors point out that "we are so out of money," and to expect government to bring real reform to these areas may well be delusional.

This is a terrific read, and will be sure to challenge Rs and Ds alike.  If you are familiar with libertarian thinking, and/or are a reader of Reason, not much here will surprise you.  More power to Welch and Gillespie as they try to get Americans to both be independents in politics and to declare independence from politics.

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

OK, there's just no way I can sufficiently treat one of the twentieth century's greatest (and longest!) novels in the usual space of a Reading Glutton review.  So I'll just give some highlights and personal thoughts.  But you wouldn't expect anything more of a shallow book consumer like me, would you?

I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1987, just after I graduated from high school.  (Thanks, Chelli, for turning me on to Rand!)  I still have that paperback, and have read it a couple of times since then, but not in years.  With the movie coming out (still haven't seen it) I thought I'd revisit it.  I have to admit, I did it the lazy way: I got the CDs from the library.  (In case you're wondering, it's 45 CDs, 50-something hours, I think.)

I had forgotten what a great read this is.  Yes, it's long--my edition, a trade paperback, is 1084 pages of teeny tiny print--but Rand does not write fluff.  Her descriptions are memorable, the dialogue is tight, and the story line moves briskly.  One criticism often made is that the speeches are too long.  She does have a few long expository passages, where the characters flesh out their ideas, but they're all naturally part of the story and do not detract.  The one exception is John Galt's major radio speech late in the book.  It goes on for 57 pages in my edition.  On CD it's 3 hours.  In the book, they refer to it as a 2 hour speech.  In any case it's long, and one certainly has to suspend disbelief to think the whole nation would listen to the entire speech, much less take it all to heart.  Maybe I'm too jaded by our media saturation; in the days of radio, I guess it's possible.  I could just see a modern audience tuning out within 5 minutes to see what's on ESPN.

As great a novelist as Rand was, she is more remembered for her ideas.  She unabashedly promoted the virtue of selfishness, especially from the perspective of business.  I am a Christian, and I know that we are to follow Christ's example of selflessness, but I do not believe Rand's conception of selfishness conflicts with the Christian life.  Business is all about serving the needs of others; a businessman who does not do so finds himself out of business.  Adam Smith captured this idea in his line: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

One of Rand's heroes, Hank Rearden, made a similar point at a speech when he was put on trial for violating the restrictions placed on industry by the government.

I work for nothing but my own profit--which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it.  I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage--and I am proud of every penny I own.  I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with. . . . I refuse to apologize for my ability--I refuse to apologize for my success--I refuse to apologize for my money. . . . I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish--but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist.

The villains in Atlas Shrugged (not to mention the current administration) never seem to get the point that by making money, a good businessman does vastly greater good for society and his fellow man than he ever can by giving money away.

Speaking of the current administration, Wesley Mouch's description of the John Galt Plan (which had nothing to do with Galt's ideas, he simply attempted to conscript Galt's name into government service) sounds suspiciously like something Barack Obama would say.  As you read this, please picture BO and his Teleprompter:

The John Galt Plan will reconcile all conflicts.  It will protect the property of the rich and give a greater share to the poor.  It will cut down the burden of your taxes and provide you with more government benefits.  It will lower prices and raise wages.  It will give more freedom to the individual and strengthen the bonds of collective obligations.  It will combine the efficiency of free enterprise with the generosity of a planned economy.

This is the kind of doublespeak I have come to expect from Washington.  Sometimes it seems Washington is taking its cues from Atlas Shrugged.  Rand talks about the "aristocracy of pull," which rewards the well-connected at the cost of successful enterprises.  What other explanation is there behind the bank bailouts?  Washington rewarded failure by bailing out the failed banks, costing the economy and the country, and penalizing successful banks.  I am in awe of the idiocy of our federal government's economic policies, but they would not have surprised Rand at all.

In many ways, Rand was an offensive figure, and she was certainly no friend of the Christian faith.  But I long to have someone like her making sense of the world today.  If you have never read Atlas Shrugged, you owe it to yourself to take a look.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

In the mid-1990s, with the Republicans in full control of Congress, Gingrich's Contract with America in full swing, and a batch of new, reform-minded members of the U.S. House, I thought we might see some real change in Washington.  Maybe we will finally see smaller government that Reagan used to talk about. No such luck.  In the middle of some budget debates where the two major parties argued over who could spend more taxpayer money, I received a solicitation to join the Libertarian Party.  I was already familiar with libertarianism, but finally decided to capitalize the L.

For someone who is a big l or a little l libertarian, it gets difficult to find sources of right thinking.  So much of the media and commentary leans hard left or hard right.  Both left and right have elements of libertarian thinking, but neither provide an intellectual core for the libertarian to cling to.  Murray Rothbard gives us that core.

Starting with a libertarian take on the American Revolution, Rothbard gives a reasoned defense of libertarian thought.  The most fundamental idea is the right to self ownership.  Every person has a right to his or her own body and the right to the fruits of his or her labor.  To the extent that the state makes demands on people against their will, involuntary servitude emerges.

Rothbard applies these ideas to several area of policy.  I was with him at almost every point, until he came to the passage on abortion:

What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body.

I don't know how the absurdity of this can be missed by Rothbard and others.  Consider this: you come home to find that a helpless child has been deposited in your living room.  You have the right to eject the child from your home, but do you have the right to kill it?  I think not.  I point this out because so many libertarians are vehemently pro-choice, and use this type of argument, but in my view it conflicts with the greater idea of self sovereignty.

This passage aside, Rothbard brilliantly defends and applies the ideas of liberty.  He cogently rebuts those who say that courts, roads, defense, etc. must always be the realm of the state.  He provides a framework for market responses to environmental and social issues.  (On the environment, for instance, he points out that the biggest polluters are government bodies who stifle market responses to environmental concerns.)  There are places where his anecdotes and data are dated--the book was originally published in 1973--but the principles have not grown stale.  This will continue to be a resource for me as I consider and reconsider my own thinking in matters political.

The Mises Institute has provided the full text online (here), either on the web site or as a PDF file.  You may also download the mp3 version or purchase the actual book or CDs with the mp3 file.  I downloaded the whole book as a series of podcasts on itunes.  And of course you can buy it from amazon.com.