From tfharris@vespucci.iquest.com Tue Sep 27 06:32:10 1994
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:16:04 +0100
From: Thomas Harris 
Reply to: libernet-d@Dartmouth.EDU
To: Libernet 
Subject: The Philosophy of Liberty (Updated: 9/26/94)


The following is a list of books on libertarian philosophy -- or, more 
properly, philosophical defenses of libertarianism. It is not meant to be 
exhaustive, but, rather, is meant to reflect the best examples of 
philosophical libertarianism as defended by various philosophical 
standpoints: Aristotelianism, contractarianism, intuitionism, 
utilitarianism, etc. It is also limited (of course) by my own knowledge 
of the libertarian canon. For instance, I am largely unfamiliar with 
various Kantian defences of libertarianism, apart from the works of 
Hans-Hermann Hoppe included below.

I hope this list will help libertarians -- and, by extension, 
non-libertarians -- become more familiar with the moral basis for their 
beliefs and where that basis may or may not be lacking or in need of 
further thought. As Bastiat said, the worst thing that can happen to a 
good idea is, not to be skillfully attacked, but ineptly defended.

Note: I have taken the liberty of denoting works that have influenced my 
own thought with an "*".

T. Franklin Harris, Jr.
Critic-at-Large, _The Exchange: Culture, Reason, Style_

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Narveson, Jan, _The Libertarian Idea_ (Philadelphia: Temple University 
Press, 1988)

Narveson's book is one of the overlooked treasures of the libertarian 
canon. In this critic's opinion, his contractarian defense of liberty -- 
based largely on Hobbesian philosophy -- is the best defense of 
libertarianism currently available. Narveson utilizes game theory and 
value subjectivism to breath new life into the social contract.
   The one major flaw in the book is Narveson's section on health care in
which Narveson seems to claim that it is possible to defend a national
health care system within the confines of libertarian moral theory. 
(Narveson, it should be noted, no longer holds this view.) But,
nevertheless, ignore this one unfortunate section, and you will find
Narveson's account inspiring. 

--

*King, J. Charles, "Moral Theory and the Foundations of Social Order," in 
Tibor R. Machan (ed.) _The Libertarian Reader_ (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & 
Allanheld, 1982)

A shorter version of arguments similar to Narveson's.

--

Nozick, Robert, _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ (New York: Basic Books, 1974)

In professional philosophical circles, Nozick's work is regarded as *the* 
definitive defense of libertarianism. Other libertarians -- myself 
included -- find his intuitionist defense of liberty lacking to say the 
least. Still, because of the book's reputation, it is important for 
libertarians to be familiar with _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_.

--

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_ (Boston: 
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989)
and
_The Economics and Ethics of Private Property_ (Boston: Kluwer Academic 
Publishers, 1993)

Hoppe's Kantian defense of liberty rests upon the argument that it is 
illogical for one to argue against liberty as doing so places one with a 
logical contradiction. Hoppe argues that the ability to argue presupposes 
self-ownership, which presupposes an absolute right to private property. 
   So far, only Murray Rothbard has announced that he agrees with Hoppe. 
I remain unconvinced. Still, his work is useful and (depending upon your 
view) instructive in either how or how not to do logic.

--

Rothbard, Murray N., _For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto_ (New 
York: Libertarian Review Foundation, 1978)
and
_Power and Market: Government and the Economy_ (Kansas City: Sheed 
Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977)
and
_The Ethics of Liberty_ (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1982)

Half the time Rothbard sounds like Ayn Rand (and other Aristotelians 
listed below), while the rest of the time he sounds like Hoppe. The mix 
of Aristotelian and Kantian philosophy seems incoherent to me but not, it 
seems, to most other libertarians. Apart from Ayn Rand, Rothbard is the 
most infuential libertarian theorist, thus, his works are essential reading.

--

Merrill, Ronald E., _The Ideas of Ayn Rand_ (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 
1991)

Merrill provides the best critical introduction currently available to 
the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For my purpose here, his book is better than 
Rand's own, as Merrill provides a detailed discussion of how Rand's 
"Objectivist" philosophy relates to the modern libertarian movement.

--

Rand, Ayn, _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ (New York: New American 
Library, 1967)

Still, when it comes to Ayn Rand, one would be remiss to ignore primary 
sources. Her main political arguments are found in _Capitalism: The 
Unknown Ideal_. Most important are the essays "Man's Rights" and "The 
Nature of Government."
   While I once considered myself an "Objectivist," I have come to find 
Rand's defense of libertarian political institutions extremely flawed, as 
is, I think, much of her philosophy.

--

Tannehill, Morris and Linda, _The Market for Liberty_ (New York: 
Libertarian Review Foundation, 1984)

The Tannehill's near-classic book is the best introduction to the 
anarcho-Randian viewpoint -- that is, anarcho-capitalism as defended by 
the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand, however, disagreed violently with the 
anarcho-capitalist view.
   
--

*Friedman, David, _The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical 
Capitalism_ (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989)
   
David Friedman, son of economist Milton Friedman, presents the best
defense of the anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism available. 
Friedman never shys away from the hard questions -- including the one with
which anarcho-capitalists always have trouble:  national defense. 

--

Machan, Tibor R., _Individuals and Their Rights_ (La Salle, Ill.: Open 
Court, 1989)
and 
_The Virtue of Liberty_ (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic 
Education, Inc., 1994)
and 
_Human Rights and Human Liberties: A Radical Reconsideration of the 
American Political Tradition_ (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1975)

Machan presents the most scholarly and coherent case for the Randian
defense of liberty available. _The Virtue of Liberty_, in particular, is a
very good introduction to libertarianism. I think, however, that Machan's 
characterization of Hobbesian libertarian as "naughty" individualism is 
unjustified. 

--

Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl, _Liberty and Nature: An 
Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order_ (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1991)

This book seems to have replaced (if only in libertarian circles) 
Nozick's at *the* book of libertarian philosophy. It is, perhaps, the 
most technical of all the book's I've listed -- sometimes, I think, 
overly so. And while I don't agree that Aristotelianism is either right 
or of use in defending liberty, the book is still full of insight.
   Of particular note is the discussion of rights as "meta-normative" 
concepts -- a discussion that, I think, actually leads one to the 
conclusion that *any* teleological moral system (not just 
Aristotelianism) presupposes libertarian rights to life, liberty, and 
property. 

--

*Hayek, F. A., _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_ (Chicago: 
Univrersity of Chicago Press, 1988)

The late Austrian economist F. A. Hayek was -- and is -- the world's most
renowned defender of libertarianism. _The Fatal Conceit_ represents a
distillation of Hayek's thought on societal evolution and the proper role
of government. Hayek shows that socialists are guilty of the "fatal
conceit" of thinking the world can be shaped according to human reason. 
Socialists ignore their own lack of knowledge and the role of "spontaneous
order" -- Hayek's term for the ability of society to self-organize in the
best ways when undirected by the coercive forces of government. 


--------------------
end of list