What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty and Property
Ludwig von Mises's Liberty and Property sets out a master narrative of global economic history, and the result is an essay for the ages. It is profound, visionary, and compelling beyond belief. Here Mises describes the revolutionary meaning of capitalism in human history and how it has been responsible for the most spectacular increases in the common man's standard of living.In 1956, with the Mont Pelerin Society entering a difficult period in which its intellectual lights were drifting away from old-school liberalism, Ludwig von Mises delivered a speech to explain why this was a terrible trend. He didn't rebuke anyone; he instead backed away from the events of the day to provide a sweeping reconstruction of economic history from the ancient world to the present. In this way he provided a model of how to avoid presentism in order to understand the really big issues of civilization and the moral and practical urgency of embracing total freedom. Liberty and Property is this clarion call in book form.Contemporary reports from the event at which Mises delivered his speech suggest that the people there were uninterested in his point of view, but this is much to their shame. For what he left us with is remarkable. High intelligence, vast historical understanding, and moral passion combined to produce one of the most dazzling presentations of the case for economic liberty ever written.To search for Mises Institute titles, enter a keyword and LvMI (short for Ludwig von Mises Institute); e.g., Depression LvMI
54 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
53 people are currently reading
411 people want to read
About the author
Ludwig von Mises
271 books1,244 followersLudwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the Austrian government's economic policies in the first third of the 20th century, the Austrian School of Economics, and the modern free-market libertarian movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 5, 2024
2022-01-29 Hard to believe that I had not reviewed this speech before, since I first heard it about 40+ years ago and have listened to &/or read it at least 15-20x since. It is absolutely the best recording of Mises I know of, out of the 8-10 total that I have heard. It is also a tour de force in weaving historical, logical, philosophical, economic, political, etc. ideas, facts and analysis into a clear statement of the importance of liberty and property for society.
For those who might not appreciate the fairly thick German accent, please just read the text. It is available free on the web or in at least one nicely bound pb. edition.
My favorite of Mises' funky English pronunciations is of the word "upstuckle" - that's his pronunciation that is. See if you can figure out what English word he was trying to say.
This recording also has a little glitch in that it did not start before Mises began his talk. So the listener will miss the first 1-3 minutes of what Mises said. Getting the text of the talk in the pb. or pdf version will fill you in... though it is not crucial.
The ending of the talk seemed a little melodramatic to me for the first 10-30 years that I listened or read it. But in the last decade, and especially in the last few years, the growth of the SJW movement, "cancel culture" on college and lower school campuses, in major media, entertainment and big tech social networks, in government contracts, regulations, pronouncements, laws and court decisions, the threats to free speech have become quite Orwellian in the US as well as a growing number of other countries. These closing words of this speech by Mises are a more important warning than ever:
"We are inaugurating tonight the ninth meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society. It is fitting to remember on this occasion that meetings of this kind in which opinions opposed to those of the majority of our contemporaries and to those of their governments are advanced and are possible only in the climate of liberty and freedom that is the most precious mark of Western civilization. Let us hope that this right to dissent will never disappear."
For those who might not appreciate the fairly thick German accent, please just read the text. It is available free on the web or in at least one nicely bound pb. edition.
My favorite of Mises' funky English pronunciations is of the word "upstuckle" - that's his pronunciation that is. See if you can figure out what English word he was trying to say.
This recording also has a little glitch in that it did not start before Mises began his talk. So the listener will miss the first 1-3 minutes of what Mises said. Getting the text of the talk in the pb. or pdf version will fill you in... though it is not crucial.
The ending of the talk seemed a little melodramatic to me for the first 10-30 years that I listened or read it. But in the last decade, and especially in the last few years, the growth of the SJW movement, "cancel culture" on college and lower school campuses, in major media, entertainment and big tech social networks, in government contracts, regulations, pronouncements, laws and court decisions, the threats to free speech have become quite Orwellian in the US as well as a growing number of other countries. These closing words of this speech by Mises are a more important warning than ever:
"We are inaugurating tonight the ninth meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society. It is fitting to remember on this occasion that meetings of this kind in which opinions opposed to those of the majority of our contemporaries and to those of their governments are advanced and are possible only in the climate of liberty and freedom that is the most precious mark of Western civilization. Let us hope that this right to dissent will never disappear."
April 30, 2021
Shortcut
Essentially a brief synthesis of ideas already developped in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis and Bureaucracy.
Quotes :
'The pre-capitalistic system of production was restrictive. Its historical basis was military conquest. The victorious kings had given the land to their paladins. these aristocrats were lords in the literal meaning of the word, as they did not depend on the patronage of consumers buying or abstaining from buying on a market. On the other hand, they themselves were the main customers of the processing industries which, under the guild system, were organized on a corporative scheme. This scheme was opposed to innovation. It forbade deviation from the traditional methods of production. The number of people for whom there were jobs even in agriculture or in the arts and crafts was limited. Under these conditions, many a man, to use the words of Malthus, had to discover that “at nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him” and that “she tells him to be gone.” But some of these outcasts nevertheless managed to survive, begot children, and made the number of destitute grow hopelessly more and more.'
'Liberty, says the Bolshevist, is a bourgeois prejudice. The common man does not have any ideas of his own, he does not write books, does not hatch heresies, and does not invent new methods of production. He just wants to enjoy life. He has no use for the class interests of the intellectuals who make a living as professional dissenters and innovators.
This is certainly the most arrogant disdain of the plain citizen ever devised. There is no need to argue this point. For the question is not whether or not the common man can himself take advantage of the liberty to think, to speak, and to write books. The question is whether or not the sluggish routinist profits from the freedom granted to those who eclipse him in intelligence and will power. The common man may look with indifference and even contempt upon the dealings of better people. But he is delighted to enjoy all the benefits which the endeavors of the innovators put at his disposal. He has no comprehension of what in his eyes is merely inane hair-splitting. But as soon as these thoughts and theories are utilized by enterprising businessmen for satisfying some of his latent wishes, he hurries to acquire the new products. The common man is without doubt the main beneficiary of all the accomplishments of modern science and technology.'
'Romantic philosophy labored under the illusion that in the early ages of history the individual was free and that the course of historical evolution deprived him of his primordial liberty. As Jean Jacques Rousseau saw it, nature accorded men freedom and society enslaved him. In fact, primeval man was at the mercy of every fellow who was stronger and therefore could snatch away from him the scarce means of subsistence. There is in nature nothing to which the name of liberty could be given. The concept of freedom always refers to social relations between men. True, society cannot realize the illusory concept of the individual’s absolute independence. Within society everyone depends on what other people are prepared to contribute to his well-being in return for his own contribution to their well-being. Society is essentially the mutual exchange of services. As far as individuals have the opportunity to choose, they are free; if they are forced by violence or threat of violence to surrender to the terms of an exchange, no matter how they feel about it, they lack freedom. This slave is unfree precisely because the master assigns him his tasks and determines what he has to receive if he fulfills it.
As regards the social apparatus of repression and coercion, the government, there cannot be any question of freedom. Government is essentially the negation of liberty. It is the recourse to violence or threat of violence in order to make all people obey the orders of the government, whether they like it or not. As far as the government’s jurisdiction extends, there is coercion, not freedom. Government is a necessary institution, the means to make the social system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin. Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables. If the government operates a school or a hospital, the funds required are collected by taxes, i.e., by payments exacted from the citizens.
If we take into account the fact that, as human nature is, there can neither be civilization nor peace without the functioning of the government apparatus of violent action, we may call government the most beneficial human institution. But the fact remains that government is repression not freedom. Freedom is to be found only in the sphere in which government does not interfere. Liberty is always freedom from the government. It is the restriction of the government’s interference. It prevails only in the fields in which the citizens have the opportunity to choose the way in which they want to proceed. Civil rights are the statutes that precisely circumscribe the sphere in which the men conducting the affairs of state are permitted to restrict the individuals’ freedom to act.'
'The distinctive principle of Western social philosophy is individualism. It aims at the creation of a sphere in which the individual is free to think, to choose, and to act without being restrained by the interference of the social apparatus of coercion and oppression, the State. All the spiritual and material achievements of Western civilization were the result of the operation of this idea of liberty.'
----
Link to the text:
Essentially a brief synthesis of ideas already developped in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis and Bureaucracy.
Quotes :
'The pre-capitalistic system of production was restrictive. Its historical basis was military conquest. The victorious kings had given the land to their paladins. these aristocrats were lords in the literal meaning of the word, as they did not depend on the patronage of consumers buying or abstaining from buying on a market. On the other hand, they themselves were the main customers of the processing industries which, under the guild system, were organized on a corporative scheme. This scheme was opposed to innovation. It forbade deviation from the traditional methods of production. The number of people for whom there were jobs even in agriculture or in the arts and crafts was limited. Under these conditions, many a man, to use the words of Malthus, had to discover that “at nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him” and that “she tells him to be gone.” But some of these outcasts nevertheless managed to survive, begot children, and made the number of destitute grow hopelessly more and more.'
'Liberty, says the Bolshevist, is a bourgeois prejudice. The common man does not have any ideas of his own, he does not write books, does not hatch heresies, and does not invent new methods of production. He just wants to enjoy life. He has no use for the class interests of the intellectuals who make a living as professional dissenters and innovators.
This is certainly the most arrogant disdain of the plain citizen ever devised. There is no need to argue this point. For the question is not whether or not the common man can himself take advantage of the liberty to think, to speak, and to write books. The question is whether or not the sluggish routinist profits from the freedom granted to those who eclipse him in intelligence and will power. The common man may look with indifference and even contempt upon the dealings of better people. But he is delighted to enjoy all the benefits which the endeavors of the innovators put at his disposal. He has no comprehension of what in his eyes is merely inane hair-splitting. But as soon as these thoughts and theories are utilized by enterprising businessmen for satisfying some of his latent wishes, he hurries to acquire the new products. The common man is without doubt the main beneficiary of all the accomplishments of modern science and technology.'
'Romantic philosophy labored under the illusion that in the early ages of history the individual was free and that the course of historical evolution deprived him of his primordial liberty. As Jean Jacques Rousseau saw it, nature accorded men freedom and society enslaved him. In fact, primeval man was at the mercy of every fellow who was stronger and therefore could snatch away from him the scarce means of subsistence. There is in nature nothing to which the name of liberty could be given. The concept of freedom always refers to social relations between men. True, society cannot realize the illusory concept of the individual’s absolute independence. Within society everyone depends on what other people are prepared to contribute to his well-being in return for his own contribution to their well-being. Society is essentially the mutual exchange of services. As far as individuals have the opportunity to choose, they are free; if they are forced by violence or threat of violence to surrender to the terms of an exchange, no matter how they feel about it, they lack freedom. This slave is unfree precisely because the master assigns him his tasks and determines what he has to receive if he fulfills it.
As regards the social apparatus of repression and coercion, the government, there cannot be any question of freedom. Government is essentially the negation of liberty. It is the recourse to violence or threat of violence in order to make all people obey the orders of the government, whether they like it or not. As far as the government’s jurisdiction extends, there is coercion, not freedom. Government is a necessary institution, the means to make the social system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin. Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables. If the government operates a school or a hospital, the funds required are collected by taxes, i.e., by payments exacted from the citizens.
If we take into account the fact that, as human nature is, there can neither be civilization nor peace without the functioning of the government apparatus of violent action, we may call government the most beneficial human institution. But the fact remains that government is repression not freedom. Freedom is to be found only in the sphere in which government does not interfere. Liberty is always freedom from the government. It is the restriction of the government’s interference. It prevails only in the fields in which the citizens have the opportunity to choose the way in which they want to proceed. Civil rights are the statutes that precisely circumscribe the sphere in which the men conducting the affairs of state are permitted to restrict the individuals’ freedom to act.'
'The distinctive principle of Western social philosophy is individualism. It aims at the creation of a sphere in which the individual is free to think, to choose, and to act without being restrained by the interference of the social apparatus of coercion and oppression, the State. All the spiritual and material achievements of Western civilization were the result of the operation of this idea of liberty.'
----
Link to the text:
December 24, 2017
This is a pretty straightforward defense of the free market, property, and individual liberty. I'm definitely philosophically aligned with Mises, but I think his basic pro-capitalist argument here is broadly accepted by the majority of people in the world, especially those in the West. It's not a particularly nuanced or detailed argument, just the basic case for the consumer as the beneficiary and judge of capitalism, and superiority of capitalism over central planning.
June 3, 2022
Não há fome no capitalismo e os trabalhadores decidem os rumos da sociedade: deve ser fácil defender o fim da história sob fortes drogas alucinógenas.
April 18, 2020
Short summary version. Good for introduction into the libertarian works.
October 31, 2020
Von Mises reviews three economic systems, namely feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. Under the feudal system, nearly all products that a person uses is either grown or made by one's own self. But under a a capitalistic system, nearly everything has to be bought from someone else, meaning the consumer has great power over the producer. Von Mises mentions that this is a point Marx missed completely. If no one wants a particular product, then that maker will be forced out of business. Therefore, captains of industry can only be created by the consumer, and the captains of capitalism must cater to the wants and needs of those consumers who are free to take their favor away the minute they discover a better product. This gives greater freedom and power to an individual living under capitalism than one living under feudalism.
By contrast, in a planned society like socialism, those in change of the planning don't have to care what the little people want and are free to ignore their needs and wishes. This means socialist societies are prone to making shabby and worthless products, and the planners wield great power over the masses, which historically has led to awful abuses.
The lack of freedom in socialism, in effect, is much more like that of feudalism, in which the masses have little say, and the hereditary nobles rule much the same way the planners rule under socialism. It's not terribly surprising that Europe, within a generation or two of throwing off the last remnants of feudalism, promptly adopted the neo-feudalism of socialism.
There really isn't much time between the expansion of the voting franchise in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the adoption of socialism, in which the masses gave up much of the power of their hard-earned vote to create an elite that did much of their thinking for them. Though this was not terribly abusive in the Western European countries, it was very abusive in the Eastern ones, Russia, and China. The main problem with socialism is that if the planners think something's good for you, you're getting it good and hard even if it's destructive to you.
Von Mises defines freedom as always having the freedom to choose. If you can't choose, then you're not free. Systems like communism, in which private property is actually owned only by the state, is even worse than feudalism. The ordinary person has nothing to call their own, and thus can wield no leverage inside the system at all, and so has zero freedom.
Von Mises would have hated eminent domain, that new creation in which property can be yanked away from private individuals supposedly for the public good, (but which nearly always turns out to enrich some corrupt politician's good buddy and doesn't do a thing for the actual public.)
Eminent domain is an attempt to declare that the centuries-old way of doing business, in which buyer and seller come to a mutually agree-on price that satisfies them both, is somehow no good anymore. Under the old-fashioned system, if the potential seller says no, the buyer must keep raising the price until the seller agrees. But under eminent domain, buyers have figured out a way to politician the price down and force it on the seller against his will. This is an attempt to subvert the capitalist system.
By contrast, in a planned society like socialism, those in change of the planning don't have to care what the little people want and are free to ignore their needs and wishes. This means socialist societies are prone to making shabby and worthless products, and the planners wield great power over the masses, which historically has led to awful abuses.
The lack of freedom in socialism, in effect, is much more like that of feudalism, in which the masses have little say, and the hereditary nobles rule much the same way the planners rule under socialism. It's not terribly surprising that Europe, within a generation or two of throwing off the last remnants of feudalism, promptly adopted the neo-feudalism of socialism.
There really isn't much time between the expansion of the voting franchise in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the adoption of socialism, in which the masses gave up much of the power of their hard-earned vote to create an elite that did much of their thinking for them. Though this was not terribly abusive in the Western European countries, it was very abusive in the Eastern ones, Russia, and China. The main problem with socialism is that if the planners think something's good for you, you're getting it good and hard even if it's destructive to you.
Von Mises defines freedom as always having the freedom to choose. If you can't choose, then you're not free. Systems like communism, in which private property is actually owned only by the state, is even worse than feudalism. The ordinary person has nothing to call their own, and thus can wield no leverage inside the system at all, and so has zero freedom.
Von Mises would have hated eminent domain, that new creation in which property can be yanked away from private individuals supposedly for the public good, (but which nearly always turns out to enrich some corrupt politician's good buddy and doesn't do a thing for the actual public.)
Eminent domain is an attempt to declare that the centuries-old way of doing business, in which buyer and seller come to a mutually agree-on price that satisfies them both, is somehow no good anymore. Under the old-fashioned system, if the potential seller says no, the buyer must keep raising the price until the seller agrees. But under eminent domain, buyers have figured out a way to politician the price down and force it on the seller against his will. This is an attempt to subvert the capitalist system.
December 21, 2010
Liberty and Property is a lecture given at Princeton University, October 1958, by Ludwig von Mises.
Mises explains, in very simple and clear terms, how in a capitalist economy, those that own the property or powers of production are the servants of the consumer. The consumer is supreme and can choose to buy or not buy any of the products available on the market. The producer in order to get the consumer's business, strives to make better, more affordable, and invents more products to serve the consumer. As a result of this control of personal property and liberty, the societies economy flourishes.
Isn't this the goal of most socialists? To have the consumer in control? Yet the system of socialism, destroys individual liberties and control of property, resulting in shortages, famines, and economic and scientific stagnation, and creates a ruling elite that manage the masses (who in their eyes are unable to manage themselves).
Will we ever live in a day of real liberty and free markets? One can only hope, but there is no chance when our public schools continue to crank out millions of socialists (democrates) or neo-con militants (Republicans)...both worshipers of the STATE.
Mises explains, in very simple and clear terms, how in a capitalist economy, those that own the property or powers of production are the servants of the consumer. The consumer is supreme and can choose to buy or not buy any of the products available on the market. The producer in order to get the consumer's business, strives to make better, more affordable, and invents more products to serve the consumer. As a result of this control of personal property and liberty, the societies economy flourishes.
Isn't this the goal of most socialists? To have the consumer in control? Yet the system of socialism, destroys individual liberties and control of property, resulting in shortages, famines, and economic and scientific stagnation, and creates a ruling elite that manage the masses (who in their eyes are unable to manage themselves).
Will we ever live in a day of real liberty and free markets? One can only hope, but there is no chance when our public schools continue to crank out millions of socialists (democrates) or neo-con militants (Republicans)...both worshipers of the STATE.
September 6, 2025
eBook here
“In order to be rich [under free-market capitalism], it is not sufficient to have once saved and accumulated capital. It is necessary to invest it again and again in those lines in which it best fills the wants of the consumers. The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite, and it ejects inevitably from the ranks of profitable people those who do not employ their property according to the orders given by the public.”
“The employees themselves are the customers consuming the much greater part of all goods produced. They are the sovereign customers who are “always right.” Their buying or abstention from buying determines what has to be produced, in what quantity, and of what quality. In buying what suits them best they make some enterprises profit and expand and make other enterprises lose money and shrink. Thereby they are continually shifting control of the factors of production into the hands of those businessmen who are most successful in filling their wants.”
“There is under capitalism one way to wealth: to serve the consumers better and cheaper than other people do.”
“If any of the socialist chiefs had tried to earn his living by selling hot dogs, he would have learned something about the sovereignty of the customers. But they were professional revolutionaries and their only job was to kindle civil war.”
“The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. For exoteric use they were forced to pay lip-service to the traditional appreciation of liberty.”
“We cannot pass over the fact that the standard of living was incomparably higher in the free countries of the West than in the communist East. In giving away liberty as the price to be paid for the acquisition of prosperity, the Russians made a poor bargain. They now have neither the one nor the other.”
“In order to be rich [under free-market capitalism], it is not sufficient to have once saved and accumulated capital. It is necessary to invest it again and again in those lines in which it best fills the wants of the consumers. The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite, and it ejects inevitably from the ranks of profitable people those who do not employ their property according to the orders given by the public.”
“The employees themselves are the customers consuming the much greater part of all goods produced. They are the sovereign customers who are “always right.” Their buying or abstention from buying determines what has to be produced, in what quantity, and of what quality. In buying what suits them best they make some enterprises profit and expand and make other enterprises lose money and shrink. Thereby they are continually shifting control of the factors of production into the hands of those businessmen who are most successful in filling their wants.”
“There is under capitalism one way to wealth: to serve the consumers better and cheaper than other people do.”
“If any of the socialist chiefs had tried to earn his living by selling hot dogs, he would have learned something about the sovereignty of the customers. But they were professional revolutionaries and their only job was to kindle civil war.”
“The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. For exoteric use they were forced to pay lip-service to the traditional appreciation of liberty.”
“We cannot pass over the fact that the standard of living was incomparably higher in the free countries of the West than in the communist East. In giving away liberty as the price to be paid for the acquisition of prosperity, the Russians made a poor bargain. They now have neither the one nor the other.”
February 13, 2024
"Liberty and Property" by Ludwig von Mises is an intellectual masterpiece that brilliantly articulates the principles of classical liberalism and the indispensable role of individual liberty in fostering prosperity. Mises presents a compelling case for the inseparable connection between liberty and property rights, offering profound insights into the foundations of a free and prosperous society.
Mises' defense of private property as a fundamental pillar of liberty is both persuasive and enlightening. He convincingly argues that a society built on respect for property rights fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. His emphasis on the importance of voluntary exchanges and the market mechanism as drivers of prosperity reflects a deep understanding of human nature and the dynamics of a free market economy.
Moreover, Mises addresses the moral and ethical dimensions of liberty and property, underscoring the moral imperative of respecting individual rights. This ethical foundation adds a profound dimension to his economic analysis, resonating with readers on a personal and societal level.
One of the book's most commendable aspects is Mises' lucid and accessible writing style, which makes complex economic concepts comprehensible to a wide audience. He navigates through the intricacies of economic theory with clarity, ensuring that readers of varying backgrounds can grasp the significance of individual freedom and property rights. The logical structure of the book enhances its readability, allowing readers to follow Mises' arguments seamlessly.
"Liberty and Property" is a timeless work that transcends its era, offering insights that remain relevant in any age. Mises' passionate defense of liberty and property rights serves as a beacon for those who value individual freedom and seek to understand the principles that underpin a flourishing society. This book is an essential read for anyone interested in economics, political philosophy, and the enduring pursuit of a just and prosperous world.
Mises' defense of private property as a fundamental pillar of liberty is both persuasive and enlightening. He convincingly argues that a society built on respect for property rights fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. His emphasis on the importance of voluntary exchanges and the market mechanism as drivers of prosperity reflects a deep understanding of human nature and the dynamics of a free market economy.
Moreover, Mises addresses the moral and ethical dimensions of liberty and property, underscoring the moral imperative of respecting individual rights. This ethical foundation adds a profound dimension to his economic analysis, resonating with readers on a personal and societal level.
One of the book's most commendable aspects is Mises' lucid and accessible writing style, which makes complex economic concepts comprehensible to a wide audience. He navigates through the intricacies of economic theory with clarity, ensuring that readers of varying backgrounds can grasp the significance of individual freedom and property rights. The logical structure of the book enhances its readability, allowing readers to follow Mises' arguments seamlessly.
"Liberty and Property" is a timeless work that transcends its era, offering insights that remain relevant in any age. Mises' passionate defense of liberty and property rights serves as a beacon for those who value individual freedom and seek to understand the principles that underpin a flourishing society. This book is an essential read for anyone interested in economics, political philosophy, and the enduring pursuit of a just and prosperous world.
May 9, 2018
Mises reminds us of the unique and prosperous current times. In only such a limited time of human existence has there been an increase in literacy and education, life expectancy, and human well-being; while at the same time there has been a decrease in wars, violence, hunger, and human suffering. The ideas of capitalism and liberty remains revolutionary--even today. Indeed it is radical to think of individual humans as best managed by themselves--autonomously--without rulers or coercion. The false notion that capitalism is the status quo and seeks to protect incumbent wealth is wholly unsupported. Capitalism encourages those who best serves consumers and society to find new and innovative ways to do so, and if they are unable, a new entrepreneur will take their place. It is not the present wealth we seek to defend, but the freedom for the unknown man or woman who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.
March 12, 2025
This was an a really good view point of freedom and what owning property is really like vs what it should be. We are never truly free because the ground beneath us is not 100% ours. Im not the highest level reader so my dumbass had to go online and review some sections he had, then reread it and then a lightbulb in my head went off. But I love learning more about how my freedom actually isn’t true and I am still controlled by elites.
June 3, 2018
gostei do livro
bem direto, preferi ele ao mentalidade anti capitalista.
O meu gosto por esse livro vem por sua obra ser mais aplicável e ser menos caminhando para deduções.
consegue agradar em diversos aspectos a todos os prismas políticos.
bem direto, preferi ele ao mentalidade anti capitalista.
O meu gosto por esse livro vem por sua obra ser mais aplicável e ser menos caminhando para deduções.
consegue agradar em diversos aspectos a todos os prismas políticos.
May 30, 2021
simple defence on free market ,etc. etc
as a hater free market is just a illusion , givvve me any example of free market without state intervention.
but capitalist should be think state-firm cooardination capitolism. To exploit poors
as a hater free market is just a illusion , givvve me any example of free market without state intervention.
but capitalist should be think state-firm cooardination capitolism. To exploit poors
June 28, 2021
Save the ability to make your own life.
von Mises has struck a chord that should resonate with all believers in freedom and liberty. First by clarifying, then by contrasting them to all other social orderers that govern from the top down, rather than the bottom up.
von Mises has struck a chord that should resonate with all believers in freedom and liberty. First by clarifying, then by contrasting them to all other social orderers that govern from the top down, rather than the bottom up.
June 23, 2017
An important read
A great discussion of capitalism versus socialism laying to waste the idea that socialism is superior. I highly recommend this short read.
A great discussion of capitalism versus socialism laying to waste the idea that socialism is superior. I highly recommend this short read.
December 30, 2020
Short essay, worth reading as a quick introduction into some of the key thoughts of economic libertarians. Written in 1958, this with a focus on soviet-style socialism as main antagonist to capitalism. Key claim: socialists ignore the power of consumers in capitalist society.
January 21, 2022
Great speech, compelling and precise.
May 10, 2022
Essas edições da LVM contam com textos de apoio muito bons
June 14, 2025
excellent book. added a new perspective to capitalism, though a bit dated, it's still relevant and excellent
August 22, 2025
One of my favorite economists. This is from a speech he gave. Makes the case for Private Property and its relation to Liberty.
October 2, 2015
This is a very easy to read defense of capitalism. It points out that the many misconceptions that socialists spout are pure nonsense. It is short and to the point.
Read this if you ever need to restore your faith in capitalism. You will instantly be reminded of all the wonderful things that we have due to entrepreneurs pursuing profit. What the consumers want is what will be produced. Companies can either bend to the will of the consumer or leave the market. You vote for what should be produced with every purchase.
The Mises Institute provides the digital version of this book for free: https://mises.org/library/liberty-and...
Read this if you ever need to restore your faith in capitalism. You will instantly be reminded of all the wonderful things that we have due to entrepreneurs pursuing profit. What the consumers want is what will be produced. Companies can either bend to the will of the consumer or leave the market. You vote for what should be produced with every purchase.
The Mises Institute provides the digital version of this book for free: https://mises.org/library/liberty-and...
November 23, 2014
"The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite" "Socialism substitutes the sovereignty of a dictator, or a committee of dictators, for the sovereignty of the consumers." "Government is essentially the negation of liberty." "Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible."
This is a delightful series of essays on the quandary of freedom versus government. It is a quick read.
This is a delightful series of essays on the quandary of freedom versus government. It is a quick read.
September 16, 2014
Von Mises Perspicacity
Blazes like an arc-lamp through the murk of contemporary social thought. I have never been able to understand the world of elite domination and public oppression that the'progressives' espouse. It would seem that any rational person would have noticed the quality of life in classical liberal societies, versus the struggle to subsist in statist climes. But then again, the murk does seem to be getting thicker...
Blazes like an arc-lamp through the murk of contemporary social thought. I have never been able to understand the world of elite domination and public oppression that the'progressives' espouse. It would seem that any rational person would have noticed the quality of life in classical liberal societies, versus the struggle to subsist in statist climes. But then again, the murk does seem to be getting thicker...
September 2, 2014
This was an excellent read...short and concise...and makes the case for, you guessed it, liberty and private property. It's not going to be very deep or academic...but enough meat to help a reader formulate some coherent thoughts on the principles.
July 16, 2013
Good book that is written about the free-market from a perspective of someone who had seen the Weimar rule, Nazism, great depression, and Russian revolution of 1917 during his time.
August 26, 2013
interesting!
September 23, 2013
Outstanding short thesis on strengths of capitalist free market system and weaknesses of socialism in regards to liberty, innovation, and economic prosperity.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews