Rating: 
Summary: Politics, philosophy and economics for yuppies
Review: David Boaz, director of the Cato Institute, has written a simple introduction to Libertarianism inteneded to appeal to disgruntled Democrats and Republicans everywhere. Written in 1997, we see problems very soon. He praises transitions in the Latin American economies of Chile and Argentina. Chile was ruled until 1989 by the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who instituted free-market "reforms" applauded by freedom lovers from the University of Chicago Economics department to the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. Argentina's monetary reforms were hailed by Libertarians everywhere as a step in the right direction; now the country is in ruins, unsuprisingly. The second chapter traces the "Roots of Libertarianism." Boaz, unsurprisingly, fails to mention the 18th century anarchists who have long been associated with the word. Oh well. Chapter three, ostenstibly addressing "What rights we have" is rather simple-minded. He summarizes arguments made by more sophisticated philosophers such as Robert Nozick (and unsophisticated non-philosophers such as Ayn Rand). The premises are stated, not defended. Presented as an Introduction, I didn't expect much more, so he doesn't get low marks. Of course, natural rights theory has gone out of favor in the last 200 years (turns out humans evolved from other organisms, and a benevolent God carefully overseeing the Universe -- or even responsible for its creation -- is unlikely at best.) So we turn to the economists' Utilitarian arguments. The rest of the book, especially chapter 10, "Contemporary Issues" gets into stastic mode, attempting to drown the reader in a sea of nonsense. None of the numbers are accounted for. The "For Further Reading" section, a slim five page substitute for a bibliography, "heartily recommends" two Cato Public Policy handbooks for all the figures prattled off in Chapter 10. If Boaz adopted a free-market oriented approach -- where statistics compete for book space -- maybe we'd get a diversity of sources; instead, we're left with a Cato monopoly -- a corporate sponsored public policy institute condemned by the National Academy of Sciences. Would anyone take an ideological book on liberalism supported *only* by statistics from the Center of Budget Policy and Priorities seriously?
Rating: 
Summary: Libertarianism is an education in politics and economics
Review: For those who feel as if their lives are increasingly being directed from above, this book is a vindication of such feelings, and an explanation of why it is true. The book disects the idea that proposes that a small ruling elite should manage the masses, and exposes it for its shortcomings on moral and practical grounds.
Rating: 
Summary: Caution: Anti-Statist Ideas
Review: Growing up, I never questioned whether the government should provide education or old age pensions. When America rebelled against Hillary Clinton's health care initiative, I slowly realized that other government services that I took for granted also began as a political proposal. I asked myself why it may be good for government to control education, but not health care. It was that kind of question that led me to read a whole host of books that ask the same question. The latest being, Libertarianism: A Primer. In this book, author David Boaz tackles many modern day issues from a Libertarian viewpoint. The main theme of the book is the importance of property rights. Boaz explains that the first property right is the ownership of self. Without ownership of self, the ownership of anything else is meaningless. If you are willing to accept his thesis and read further, you will find that private property is the basis of the free market, and the free market is what makes human freedom possible. Markets just naturally churn out what we want, because they are rewarded for doing so. An entrepreneur that provides a needed good or service can then provide his family a better life. Whereas the bureaucrat's motivation is to make his position and staff more powerful. His salary won't be tied into the success or failure of any given project. But the entrepreneur must live and die according to our fancy. The entrepreneur may be inept and fail to achieve what we want, but other venture capitalists will take his place until the thing is done right. When the government fouls up some needed service or good, they scream for a budget increase, as if our stinginess is the real culprit for their ineptitude. Some have argued that Libertarianism is inevitable, because the Internet and technology will render government powerless to control the mechanizations of society. I am not so optimistic. Most people think that the money coming from government is free. They tell me that they couldn't afford education if the government didn't step in and provide it. These are people who live in $100,000 houses, drive $20,000 cars and pay a mountain of taxes. Someday, maybe people will realize that they are paying for these things anyway, until then, the rest of us can enjoy reading books like Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz.
Rating:
Summary: Caution: Anti-Statist Ideas
Review: Growing up, I never questioned whether the government should provide education or old age pensions. When America rebelled against Hillary Clinton's health care initiative, I slowly realized that other government services that I took for granted also began as a political proposal. I asked myself why it may be good for government to control education, but not health care. It was that kind of question that led me to read a whole host of books that ask the same question. The latest being, Libertarianism: A Primer. In this book, author David Boaz tackles many modern day issues from a Libertarian viewpoint. The main theme of the book is the importance of property rights. Boaz explains that the first property right is the ownership of self. Without ownership of self, the ownership of anything else is meaningless. If you are willing to accept his thesis and read further, you will find that private property is the basis of the free market, and the free market is what makes human freedom possible. Markets just naturally churn out what we want, because they are rewarded for doing so. An entrepreneur that provides a needed good or service can then provide his family a better life. Whereas the bureaucrat's motivation is to make his position and staff more powerful. His salary won't be tied into the success or failure of any given project. But the entrepreneur must live and die according to our fancy. The entrepreneur may be inept and fail to achieve what we want, but other venture capitalists will take his place until the thing is done right. When the government fouls up some needed service or good, they scream for a budget increase, as if our stinginess is the real culprit for their ineptitude. Some have argued that Libertarianism is inevitable, because the Internet and technology will render government powerless to control the mechanizations of society. I am not so optimistic. Most people think that the money coming from government is free. They tell me that they couldn't afford education if the government didn't step in and provide it. These are people who live in $100,000 houses, drive $20,000 cars and pay a mountain of taxes. Someday, maybe people will realize that they are paying for these things anyway, until then, the rest of us can enjoy reading books like Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz.
Rating:
Summary: Great intro to libertarian principle, good outreach book.
Review: I enjoyed Boaz's book quite a bit. It is obviously intended as an outreach book, (rightfully) skipping over the more tendentious 'internal' debates that go on within the libertarian movement. If you want an introduction to an oft-ignored and wonderfully consistent political worldview, this should be your first stop. A word to the Amazon editor who cites various questions as 'unanswered'... try picking up the book again and thinking for yourself a bit, eh? Do you REALLY think that people drive on the right *solely* because they fear tickets? Or might self-interest (and the interests of one's fenders) play a small role in that decision? Do you REALLY think governments are needed to force us to patronize libraries and parks? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, people might be willing to voluntarily pay admissions or membership fees? The highway question is more complicated, naturally, but if one is intrigued by the libertarian philosophy there are further steps to take in answering the *very* hard questions (and Boaz recommends a few books for the skeptic).
Rating:
Summary: There are better choices
Review: I started reading this book but had to stop after disagreeing with the author on too many of his examples. In the opening pages he cites Argentina as a great example of how Freemarket reform brings success. This was true when the book was written but since then no-one can disagree that free markets in Argentina have imploded and have not been to the benefit of its citizens. Maybe I'll finish the book someday but for now its been relegated to the bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: A Stand for the Individual
Review: I was quite fed up with America's two party system, and the anti-American machine that went along with disagreeing with its politics. I was tired of seeing a trend of big government destroy the voice of the individual. I was sick of seeing the mob rule of democracy decide who would rule us for the next term. I knew what I believed but wanted a name for it. I've since found this name in many theories, one such theory is Libertarianism. David Boaz writes with phenomenal clarity on the basics and in depth look at what it means to be a libertarian. He takes many questions that might be asked in our two party system and applies them to libertarianism, and shows how libertarians would handle those questions. If you are looking for a new name to what you believe, and/or if you're a student of government I recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Reviewing the Amazon.com Review
Review: The book is great, clear, and well-written. The Amazon.com review is a bit confused and somewhat arrogant. First off, the only "unanswered questions" the reviewer could come up with dealt with government roads (excepting the last two items in the last question, which I'll deal with below.) The simple response to these questions is: they are unanswered in the reviewer's mind because he is not able to conceive of private ownership of roads. With private roads, the rules would be enforced privately, as the owner of the road saw fit. Thus one couldn't drive on the left and break speed limits, unless he/she wanted to see his/her use of that road revoked. Secondly, roads are among the last things most Libertarians would challenge. There are so many other abuses of power happening that arguing about the roads seems daft. Regarding public libraries and public parks, there is a great deal of trend heading away from public libraries, it's called Amazon.com and the Internet. People are more and more beginning to buy books (used) that they want to read, and sell them when they're done. It would be cheaper for all of us to subsidize the underprivileged (if we felt it necessary) to ensure their access to books than to maintain a crusty pre-Internet institution like the public library. Regarding parks, they are nice, when they are well-funded. When they are not, they are drug and crime havens, eyesores, and a maintenance challenge. Are we better off with them being public, or should they be privately run, maybe by neighborhood associations (at the local level) or the Sierra Club (at the National level?) I think I could make a case that either of those would do a better job... Onward!
Rating:
Summary: Reviewing the Amazon.com Review
Review: The book is great, clear, and well-written. The Amazon.com review is a bit confused and somewhat arrogant. First off, the only "unanswered questions" the reviewer could come up with dealt with government roads (excepting the last two items in the last question, which I'll deal with below.) The simple response to these questions is: they are unanswered in the reviewer's mind because he is not able to conceive of private ownership of roads. With private roads, the rules would be enforced privately, as the owner of the road saw fit. Thus one couldn't drive on the left and break speed limits, unless he/she wanted to see his/her use of that road revoked. Secondly, roads are among the last things most Libertarians would challenge. There are so many other abuses of power happening that arguing about the roads seems daft. Regarding public libraries and public parks, there is a great deal of trend heading away from public libraries, it's called Amazon.com and the Internet. People are more and more beginning to buy books (used) that they want to read, and sell them when they're done. It would be cheaper for all of us to subsidize the underprivileged (if we felt it necessary) to ensure their access to books than to maintain a crusty pre-Internet institution like the public library. Regarding parks, they are nice, when they are well-funded. When they are not, they are drug and crime havens, eyesores, and a maintenance challenge. Are we better off with them being public, or should they be privately run, maybe by neighborhood associations (at the local level) or the Sierra Club (at the National level?) I think I could make a case that either of those would do a better job... Onward!
Rating:
Summary: Con Job?
Review: The book is splattered with a few good or at least interesting ideas, but you get the feeling that Boaz is trying to peddle off a perpetual motion machine.
| 
