What do you think?
Rate this book
Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State
Political philosophy is dominated by a myth, the myth of the necessity of the state. The state is considered necessary for the provision of many things, but primarily for peace and security. In this provocative book, Gerard Casey argues that social order can be spontaneously generated, that such spontaneous order is the norm in human society and that deviations from the ordered norms can be dealt with without recourse to the coercive power of the state.
Casey presents a novel perspective on political philosophy, arguing against the conventional political philosophy pieties and defending a specific political position, which he identifies as 'libertarian anarchy'. The book includes a history of the concept of anarchy, an examination of the possibility of anarchic societies and an articulation of the nature of law and order within such societies. Casey presents his specific form of anarchy, undergirded by a theory of human action that prioritises liberty, as a philosophically and politically viable alternative to the standard positions in political theory.
Casey presents a novel perspective on political philosophy, arguing against the conventional political philosophy pieties and defending a specific political position, which he identifies as 'libertarian anarchy'. The book includes a history of the concept of anarchy, an examination of the possibility of anarchic societies and an articulation of the nature of law and order within such societies. Casey presents his specific form of anarchy, undergirded by a theory of human action that prioritises liberty, as a philosophically and politically viable alternative to the standard positions in political theory.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
29 people are currently reading
523 people want to read
About the author
Gerard Casey
23 books25 followersGerard Casey (born 1951) was a member of the School of Philosophy in University College Dublin (Head from 2001–2006) until he retired in December 2015. He is now a Professor Emeritus of the University. He holds law degrees from the University of London and University College Dublin as well as a primary degree in philosophy from University College Cork, an MA and PhD from the University of Notre Dame and the higher doctorate, DLitt, from the National University of Ireland. He was formerly Assistant Professor at The Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.), 1983-1986 and Adjunct Professor at the Pontifical Institute in Washington D.C., 1984-86. He is an Associated Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 6, 2013
Libertarian Anarchy will cause most rational people to question the necessity of government and will infuriate irrational people. Well reasoned arguments will destroy irrational arguments and this book is armed to the hilt with them. This book will arm the beginning anarcho-capitalist with great insight and help to mold their philosophy into a sound argument.
April 12, 2020
Casey is prophetic in tearing down perhaps the grandest, most entrenched, idol of the present age: The State.
Whilst making a calm and comprehensive argument for libertarian political philosophy.
He does not offer this as a panacea for all of the world's ills, or the highest good of life. Rather, this brilliant realist philosopher from UCD offers libertarianism as a prerequisite for a more fruitful society:
A society based on principles of non-aggression, tolerance, and a more balanced and realistic view of human nature.
Dr Casey clears up various misconceptions, which confuse libertarianism with libertinism. Plus, he targets the confused exceptions which the state is unjustly granted by true society, especially moral.
The professor of philosophy helps clear up the muddled political spectrum of left and right, from 'conservatives' on the right to 'liberals' on the left.
Even addressing the philosophical problems of determinist myths in philosophy, before dexterously remedying each ill one by one.
Casey's learned philosophical and practical mind makes complex arguments quite easy to understand throughout Libertarian Anarchy.
His critique of determinists is just one of a number of excellent examples of critical engagement in this book.
The purifying distinctions and differences he makes between libertarians and conservatives, liberals and classical liberals provide much needed clarity.
As a general pattern, Gerard presents libertarian philosophy in a welcoming step by step manner drawing us into an unfortunately misunderstood mindset in it's richest form.
He helpfully elevates the conversation to higher principles of profound importance.
This book is no diatribe, but a composed and necessary political lesson in both medium and message with flesh and bone consequences.
Casey's voice is vital, especially in an age when the state and it's gargantuan apparatus is infringing upon our deepest liberties- mind, body and soul.
Whilst making a calm and comprehensive argument for libertarian political philosophy.
He does not offer this as a panacea for all of the world's ills, or the highest good of life. Rather, this brilliant realist philosopher from UCD offers libertarianism as a prerequisite for a more fruitful society:
A society based on principles of non-aggression, tolerance, and a more balanced and realistic view of human nature.
Dr Casey clears up various misconceptions, which confuse libertarianism with libertinism. Plus, he targets the confused exceptions which the state is unjustly granted by true society, especially moral.
The professor of philosophy helps clear up the muddled political spectrum of left and right, from 'conservatives' on the right to 'liberals' on the left.
Even addressing the philosophical problems of determinist myths in philosophy, before dexterously remedying each ill one by one.
Casey's learned philosophical and practical mind makes complex arguments quite easy to understand throughout Libertarian Anarchy.
His critique of determinists is just one of a number of excellent examples of critical engagement in this book.
The purifying distinctions and differences he makes between libertarians and conservatives, liberals and classical liberals provide much needed clarity.
As a general pattern, Gerard presents libertarian philosophy in a welcoming step by step manner drawing us into an unfortunately misunderstood mindset in it's richest form.
He helpfully elevates the conversation to higher principles of profound importance.
This book is no diatribe, but a composed and necessary political lesson in both medium and message with flesh and bone consequences.
Casey's voice is vital, especially in an age when the state and it's gargantuan apparatus is infringing upon our deepest liberties- mind, body and soul.
October 8, 2016
This book attempts, and I believe succeeds, to show how libertarian anarchy will work, it's philosophic moral superiority, and finally why the former two are not all that relevant as the state is not a legitimate entity.
The book pulls from many sources and refrains from making to many baseless assumptions, it is one of my new favorite books and has done wonders for my more basic understanding. I had a good idea, and a lot of it I was familiar with (it sharpened these areas) and introduced me to some new ideas! (I will refrain from mentioning them here, no spoilers!)
After this rather, in my opinion, glowing review you may wonder why not 5 stars?
It isn't anything huge, I found the book to be a bit to complex in wording. Nothing you wouldn't be able to understand, but it is over technical in my opinion. This is not a book I would recommend to a new comer of anarchism, it is a basic overview of the philosophy and a great way to improve already existing knowledge but a person knew to politics, philosophy, and things of the sort may have more trouble grasping the ideas laid out. Perhaps the hook is not meant to be basic, perhaps it isn't intended to be introductory, but it almost had that feel in the actual meaning. It feels as though it is talking to, if not a new comer of politics, then one of libertarianism.
Criticism aside, it is a marvelous book.
The book pulls from many sources and refrains from making to many baseless assumptions, it is one of my new favorite books and has done wonders for my more basic understanding. I had a good idea, and a lot of it I was familiar with (it sharpened these areas) and introduced me to some new ideas! (I will refrain from mentioning them here, no spoilers!)
After this rather, in my opinion, glowing review you may wonder why not 5 stars?
It isn't anything huge, I found the book to be a bit to complex in wording. Nothing you wouldn't be able to understand, but it is over technical in my opinion. This is not a book I would recommend to a new comer of anarchism, it is a basic overview of the philosophy and a great way to improve already existing knowledge but a person knew to politics, philosophy, and things of the sort may have more trouble grasping the ideas laid out. Perhaps the hook is not meant to be basic, perhaps it isn't intended to be introductory, but it almost had that feel in the actual meaning. It feels as though it is talking to, if not a new comer of politics, then one of libertarianism.
Criticism aside, it is a marvelous book.
May 23, 2016
This was an fun fusion of libertarianism and anarchism. Casey rejects the minimal state of libertarian thinkers like Robert Nozick and instead proposes a spontaneously organized, and totally voluntary society based on a non-aggression principle. He also rejects the anti-property ideals of some anarchists, to propose a sort of anarcho-capitalism. The book was at its best when he waxed philosophical, like his thoughts on property and how ownership originates. The book was at its worst when he used many libertarian's favorite method of argument, the reductio ad absurdum (as seen in memes by all of our libertarian facebook friends). I would have liked to have seen a bit more anarchist history, like maybe the Spanish or Ukrainian failed anarchist states. Overall, this one alternated between being very interesting, and being boring.
April 24, 2025
The author attempts to make the case for Libertarian Anarchy and the illegitimacy of the state. First, a note on the title: why “Libertarian Anarchy” and not “Capitalist Anarchy”? The author argues that the term Capitalism has been polluted by association with state-backed and cronyist economic systems. In his view, true economic capitalism (based on voluntary exchange and property rights) doesn't exist today as state interference is universal. Since most people now associate “capitalism” with privilege and corporate welfare, the author chooses to step away from the label, not because he disagrees with its philosophy, but to distance himself from its negative baggage. So while he does agree with the principles of anarcho-capitalism, he prefers to label it libertarian anarchy.
The book is not a practical guide for building stateless societies, instead it’s a philosophical defense of them. It explores the nature and origins of the state, of taxation and war, and most importantly, a critique of the narratives used to justify the state’s legitimacy particularly representation and the social contract. The author, in my view, convincingly dismantles both.
Rather than focusing on questions like “who would build the roads?”, the author gives a theoretical sketch of how law and order could function in a libertarian anarchist society. He shows that law doesn’t require the state, and that it can emerge spontaneously and organically just like language or customs. These laws arise from customary practices, dispute resolution, and social norms, not centralized power.
One of the strongest threads in the book is the emphasis on the non-aggression principle, the idea that people are free to do what they want, so long as they don’t initiate force or violate the person or property of others. This is the moral core of the libertarian anarchist society he envisions. Importantly, “anarchy” here doesn't mean chaos or lawlessness it simply means the absence of a coercive state.
The author argues that even in stateless societies, rules, order, and legal principles arise. Different groups will develop their own norms, but across history and geography, societies tend to converge on basic prohibitions such as murder and theft. Even if each society defines “outsiders” and “insiders” differently, they all tend to ban murder of their own and theft from their own, and all have some concept of property.
What the author is really advocating is a system where law is grounded in justice, not morality. That means laws should set limits(don’t steal, don’t kill) not prescribe how people ought to live. Morality is expansive and often invasive; justice, in contrast, sets minimal boundaries for coexistence and cooperation. A truly free society should be built on justice-based rules, not morally driven laws that try to force virtue.
In this system, three major features stand out:
1. Only actions that harm others (through force or fraud) are prohibited.
2. Law grows organically, from people themselves, not from central authorities.
3. Coercion is unnecessary—even dispute resolution happens through voluntary means, like restitution, community judgment, or social exclusion, not state force.
I found some parts of the book beautifully written, especially the author’s take on property as mutual recognition of a pre-existing claim to ownership, in which a person uses a specific thing in a specific way that excludes others from its use, so ownership begins as latent and is actualized through reciprocal recognition. But in other parts, I found the writing dense and overly technical. the language used sometimes grew autocratic in it's technicality, something that might have sacrificed clarity and accessibility. For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend the book to newcomers for It gets quite technical.
More importantly, I remain personally unconvinced. One issue that sticks with me is the real-world viability of libertarian anarchism. In today’s world, voluntary communes or stateless communities would likely be invaded or crushed by existing state powers. For it to work, you’d need to press some magical button that instantly erases all states—and even then, there’s nothing stopping people from recreating the state out of fear, nostalgia, or nationalism. You’d not only need to remove the state, but erase all memory of the state in a miraculous feat of collective amnesia, a task which I find too fabulous to be considered realistic.
Even the historical examples the author uses (like Somalia, medieval Ireland, and others) come with major problems. While they illustrate some interesting aspects of customary law, they also lacked protections for things like women’s rights or universal justice. The author acknowledges this, and urges us to focus on the principles, not the flaws, but the flaws are real and can’t be brushed aside completely.
Final thoughts:
This is a challenging and provocative book. It makes strong philosophical arguments for a stateless society based on non-aggression, voluntary association, and spontaneous legal order. But it’s not light reading. At times, it’s brilliant. At others, it’s needlessly convoluted. And while I respect the logic of the argument, I remain skeptical about whether libertarian anarchism can ever function in practice, especially in a world dominated by aggressive states.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
The book is not a practical guide for building stateless societies, instead it’s a philosophical defense of them. It explores the nature and origins of the state, of taxation and war, and most importantly, a critique of the narratives used to justify the state’s legitimacy particularly representation and the social contract. The author, in my view, convincingly dismantles both.
Rather than focusing on questions like “who would build the roads?”, the author gives a theoretical sketch of how law and order could function in a libertarian anarchist society. He shows that law doesn’t require the state, and that it can emerge spontaneously and organically just like language or customs. These laws arise from customary practices, dispute resolution, and social norms, not centralized power.
One of the strongest threads in the book is the emphasis on the non-aggression principle, the idea that people are free to do what they want, so long as they don’t initiate force or violate the person or property of others. This is the moral core of the libertarian anarchist society he envisions. Importantly, “anarchy” here doesn't mean chaos or lawlessness it simply means the absence of a coercive state.
The author argues that even in stateless societies, rules, order, and legal principles arise. Different groups will develop their own norms, but across history and geography, societies tend to converge on basic prohibitions such as murder and theft. Even if each society defines “outsiders” and “insiders” differently, they all tend to ban murder of their own and theft from their own, and all have some concept of property.
What the author is really advocating is a system where law is grounded in justice, not morality. That means laws should set limits(don’t steal, don’t kill) not prescribe how people ought to live. Morality is expansive and often invasive; justice, in contrast, sets minimal boundaries for coexistence and cooperation. A truly free society should be built on justice-based rules, not morally driven laws that try to force virtue.
In this system, three major features stand out:
1. Only actions that harm others (through force or fraud) are prohibited.
2. Law grows organically, from people themselves, not from central authorities.
3. Coercion is unnecessary—even dispute resolution happens through voluntary means, like restitution, community judgment, or social exclusion, not state force.
I found some parts of the book beautifully written, especially the author’s take on property as mutual recognition of a pre-existing claim to ownership, in which a person uses a specific thing in a specific way that excludes others from its use, so ownership begins as latent and is actualized through reciprocal recognition. But in other parts, I found the writing dense and overly technical. the language used sometimes grew autocratic in it's technicality, something that might have sacrificed clarity and accessibility. For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend the book to newcomers for It gets quite technical.
More importantly, I remain personally unconvinced. One issue that sticks with me is the real-world viability of libertarian anarchism. In today’s world, voluntary communes or stateless communities would likely be invaded or crushed by existing state powers. For it to work, you’d need to press some magical button that instantly erases all states—and even then, there’s nothing stopping people from recreating the state out of fear, nostalgia, or nationalism. You’d not only need to remove the state, but erase all memory of the state in a miraculous feat of collective amnesia, a task which I find too fabulous to be considered realistic.
Even the historical examples the author uses (like Somalia, medieval Ireland, and others) come with major problems. While they illustrate some interesting aspects of customary law, they also lacked protections for things like women’s rights or universal justice. The author acknowledges this, and urges us to focus on the principles, not the flaws, but the flaws are real and can’t be brushed aside completely.
Final thoughts:
This is a challenging and provocative book. It makes strong philosophical arguments for a stateless society based on non-aggression, voluntary association, and spontaneous legal order. But it’s not light reading. At times, it’s brilliant. At others, it’s needlessly convoluted. And while I respect the logic of the argument, I remain skeptical about whether libertarian anarchism can ever function in practice, especially in a world dominated by aggressive states.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
June 18, 2013
nothing new under the sun
August 5, 2018
This is sort of Anarchy For Dummies. I good, quick review of the basic concepts. Good analysis. It's dry, and very serious, so it is not light reading. But it's quick. If you know the area well, this is a review. If you don't know the basics, this is a fine overview. It won't convince a skeptic, necessarily, but will reinforce the doubts of someone who is waking up, and direct them toward freedom.
May 20, 2021
This book is very systematically and rationally written. Casey makes excellent use of thought experiments, historical examples, and widely shared moral intuitions to develop his argument.
I gave this book four stars instead of five because I'm consequentialist, and simply can't get behind his natural rights version of libertarianism.
I gave this book four stars instead of five because I'm consequentialist, and simply can't get behind his natural rights version of libertarianism.
April 29, 2021
A splendid primer on the vision of society best exemplified by the work of Murray Rothbard.
All libertarians who aren't ancaps/Rothbardians would profit from reading this book, and all who are who do well to keep a copy in their library for lending to curious friends and relatives.
All libertarians who aren't ancaps/Rothbardians would profit from reading this book, and all who are who do well to keep a copy in their library for lending to curious friends and relatives.
September 29, 2013
I bought the book after seeing a speech given by the author on a mises institute video. His comments on the video both amused and engaged me, so I had high hopes for the book. The author need not feel embarrassed by the book, but I feel disappointed. I much prefer "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer, though they resemble each other in subject matter. I can remember Huemer's organization and some of his interesting points now, weeks after finishing that book. I can barely remember anything from Casey's book. The first page is excellent, and he makes some zingers after that, too, e.g. "state and society are not related as complementary modes of social organization but are in fact competitors." he takes some good shots at the idea of a social contract. I don't feel like arguing with him, I just can't get very excited about the book. If only the entire book had lived up to the standard of that first page, I'd buy copies for all my friends and make a nuisance of myself.
December 22, 2018
Excellent book. Concise and well written. Only someone who thinks cognitive dissonance is a normal state of being or one that solely wears bias confirming lenses can read this book and not be brought to a place where they at least notice some of the many contradictions of the statist paradigm.
Read
August 10, 2016Good stuff
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews