Libertarianism: For and Against

by Craig Duncan, Tibor R. Machan

Libertarianism: For and Against offers dueling perspectives on the scope of legitimate government. Tibor R. Machan, a well-known political philosopher with libertarian convictions, argues for a minimal government devoted solely to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Stressing the sovereignty of each individual, Machan argues in favor of limiting democracy's scope and against the redistribution of wealth, or any other sort of taxation. In opposition to libertarianism, philosopher Craig Duncan defends democratic liberalism, which aims to ensure that all citizens have fair access to a life of dignity. This requires measures to protect equality of opportunity, as well as measures to ensure all have access to a decent minimum standard of living. In a dynamic exchange of arguments, critiques, and rebuttals, the two philosophers cut to the heart of this important debate, articulating and defending competing conceptions of such core values as political freedom and equality.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

190 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is a back-and-forth between a philosopher defending libertarianism and a philosopher defending democratic liberalism, but the pro-libertarian arguments are so weak that the book's potential is wasted.

[Marcus · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is satisfying, as well as disappointing for the same reason. Two authors describe why their political ideology - Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism - is the ideal (in a more or less American framework). Each writes their position independently, then exchanges their essay with the other, and counter each other with an essay in response. Then those responses are exchanged again, and each author is given one last opportunity to counter-argue. It's a great premise, as close to an honest and uncorrupted exchange of ideas as you could hope for. Unfortunately, the setup does not really provide for any type of moderation, so the authors are allowed to venture off on tangents, and at times fail to address key points in one another's arguments.

Classical Liberalism: "I think it's self-evident: apples are the tastiest fruit."
Libertarianism: "That's absurd, everyone knows that hammers are the simplest of household tools."

Huh? The beauty of the arrangement is that you get a chance to see how the arguments stand on their own, but without guiding moderation to keep each party on task and addressing the other's points, at times it wanders. Machan's defense is so weak at times that I actually felt bad for him; a lack of tangible examples constantly derails him, leaving himself wide open to attack. Duncan is clearly the more eloquent of the two, but tends to leave such glaring holes in his arguments that a high school debater could drive a bus through them. Holes which Machan seems to miss.

End notes are ridiculous for this format, and are a distraction within an already jumbled set of ideas (bordering on stream of consciousness). If the source or data could not be integrated into the text of the argument itself, it shouldn't be included. If the intent was to spur intellectual curiosity with these external references, then provide a bibliography or list for further reading at the very end of the book.

Still, I think that if given an unlimited amount of time in a live debate, they would certainly rise to the occasion. However, the book format can't support unlimited debates, so each author needs to keep that in mind, and gear their argument for optimum delivery via written word and a finite page count. As a primer for someone wholly unaccustomed to one or both political philosophies, it's an acceptable, if flawed, introduction.

[Jeffrey Howard · Rating 2 out of 5]

It begins with a clearly stated bias against libertarianism in the foreword by Martha Nussbaum, which sets a poor tone for the rest of the book. While it is useful to see the arguments for and against the freedom philosophy, both competing political philosophies are poorly defended and outdated.

Some important issues particular to libertarianism, as well as political philosophy in general, are raised: consent to be governed, taxation as theft, origins of private property, etc. More importantly, the book demonstrates the many shortcomings endemic to rights-based defenses of political philosophies, which tend toward slippery definitions and hard to nail principles. More consequentialist evidences would have buttressed both arguments.

Machan defends libertarianism from the Nozick-Randian school of thought, which may be the weakest tradition in the diverse liberty movement. The Chicago school, the Austrian school, Anarcho-capitalists, and Public Choice Theorists offer much better defenses of the free-market perspective for ordering society.

A similarly structured book on libertarianism with different thinkers, using more contemporary perspectives, would be very much appreciated.

[Maia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Better than the Boaz book...