What do you think?
Rate this book
What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation
"In the last quarter of the eighteenth century, the American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders' insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom, and freedom requires limited government. Limited government means a very small one, shorn of almost all of the apparatus we have come to take for granted during the last sixty years.
Most people are baffled by such views. Don't we realize that this is post-industrial America, not Jefferson's agrarian society? This book tries to explain how we can believe the less government, the better. It contains no footnotes. It has no tables and but a single graph. My purpose is to explain a way of looking at the world." --Charles Murray, from the Introduction
The twin pillars of the nation created by America's Founders were strict limits on the power of central government and strict protections of individual rights. Now, at the close of the twentieth century, that state is gone--and Charles Murray wants to bring it back. In What It Means to Be a Libertarian , he offers a radical blueprint for overhauling our dysfunctional government and replacing it with a system that fosters human happiness because it safeguards human freedom.
Most Americans, Murray argues, have reluctantly come to accept that a sprawling, costly, and intrusive government is an inevitable part of modern life . What It Means to Be a Libertarian encourages each of us to liberate ourselves from ingrained ideas of what government is and consider instead what it ought to be. Imagine, for example, a federal government that is not just smaller, but small , with an executive branch reduced to the White House and trimmed-down departments of state, defense, justice, and environmental protection. Imagine a federal code stripped of all but a handful of regulations and a Congress so limited in power that it spends only a few months of each year in session. Imagine a society in which the government's role is once again to prevent people from initiating the use of force, leaving them otherwise free, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
In this very personal book, Charles Murray paints a vivid portrait of life in a genuinely free society. He explains why limited government would lead to greater individual fulfillment, more vital communities, and a richer culture. He shows why such a society would have stronger families, fewer poor people, and would care for the less fortunate far better than does the society we havenow.
Writing in the tradition of the Revolutionary pamphleteers, Charles Murray has crafted a brilliant treatise that presents a clear, workable alternative to our
current government. Without footnotes, in plain language, What It Means to Be a Libertarian returns to the truths our Founders held to be self-evident
and applies them, justly and compassionately, to this country's most urgent social and political problems.
Most people are baffled by such views. Don't we realize that this is post-industrial America, not Jefferson's agrarian society? This book tries to explain how we can believe the less government, the better. It contains no footnotes. It has no tables and but a single graph. My purpose is to explain a way of looking at the world." --Charles Murray, from the Introduction
The twin pillars of the nation created by America's Founders were strict limits on the power of central government and strict protections of individual rights. Now, at the close of the twentieth century, that state is gone--and Charles Murray wants to bring it back. In What It Means to Be a Libertarian , he offers a radical blueprint for overhauling our dysfunctional government and replacing it with a system that fosters human happiness because it safeguards human freedom.
Most Americans, Murray argues, have reluctantly come to accept that a sprawling, costly, and intrusive government is an inevitable part of modern life . What It Means to Be a Libertarian encourages each of us to liberate ourselves from ingrained ideas of what government is and consider instead what it ought to be. Imagine, for example, a federal government that is not just smaller, but small , with an executive branch reduced to the White House and trimmed-down departments of state, defense, justice, and environmental protection. Imagine a federal code stripped of all but a handful of regulations and a Congress so limited in power that it spends only a few months of each year in session. Imagine a society in which the government's role is once again to prevent people from initiating the use of force, leaving them otherwise free, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
In this very personal book, Charles Murray paints a vivid portrait of life in a genuinely free society. He explains why limited government would lead to greater individual fulfillment, more vital communities, and a richer culture. He shows why such a society would have stronger families, fewer poor people, and would care for the less fortunate far better than does the society we havenow.
Writing in the tradition of the Revolutionary pamphleteers, Charles Murray has crafted a brilliant treatise that presents a clear, workable alternative to our
current government. Without footnotes, in plain language, What It Means to Be a Libertarian returns to the truths our Founders held to be self-evident
and applies them, justly and compassionately, to this country's most urgent social and political problems.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1996
55 people are currently reading
1115 people want to read
About the author
Charles Murray
85 books572 followersCharles Alan Murray is an American libertarian conservative political scientist, author, and columnist. His book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (1984), which discussed the American welfare system, was widely read and discussed, and influenced subsequent government policy. He became well-known for his controversial book The Bell Curve (1994), written with Richard Herrnstein, in which he argues that intelligence is a better predictor than parental socio-economic status or education level of many individual outcomes including income, job performance, pregnancy out of wedlock, and crime, and that social welfare programs and education efforts to improve social outcomes for the disadvantaged are largely wasted.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
November 25, 2008
Charles Murray of The Bell Curve fame (which I haven't read as of the writing of this review) offers his summary of what it means to be a Libertarian. In short, Libertarians want as small a government as possible with as much individual liberty as possible. This way, people are free to pursue their own paths and attempt to maximize their own happiness. The requirement of such freedom is that each person must assume full responsibility for his actions. E.g. you can consume all the drugs you want and you don't have to wear your seat belt or save for your retirement. In fact, you can do whatever you want except initiate force upon another person exercising his own freedom. But when you harm someone else, you will be punished severely, and no one else will be forced--they can always volunteer--to support you or help you in any way if your decisions turn out to be bad.
This work is a personal interpretation distilled from Murray's years of reading, writing, and thinking about the subject. He provides a helpful acknowledgement of the sources that influenced his thinking at the end of the book, thus providing a reading list for further study. "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" has no footnotes and is, therefore, more general in nature. It is about why he subscribes to the philosophy and the moral and practical aspects of Libertarianism.
This would be a solid first book for anyone unfamiliar with the Libertarian worldview. It is relatively short and straightforward without a lot of meandering or expansive expositions on esoteric topics. Rather, Murray explains the general principles of government that he believes in and why. He then applies those beliefs to a few of the bigger, more obvious issues facing America as of the turn of the century. The topics include education, regulation, taxation, the environment, drug use, social security, medicare, welfare in general, and others.
Murray acknowledges that there are legitimate functions of government. He also believes in subsidiarity or federalism, which is simply the idea that governing should be done as locally as possible. The government's role, at all levels, is basically to maintain the environment in which people can exercise their freedom. It's much like a referee at a sporting event: the players can do mostly what they like with a few exceptions. Because the government has a monopoly on force, it should be extremely limited and constrained so as not to trample on its citizenry's freedom. The government should provide for defense, a court system, environmental protection, and other forms of "public good". Murray believes that the court system can handle most cases of environmental issues, and that "public good" is the trickiest legitimate role and has the greatest potential for abuse. He says that public goods should be nonexclusive, jointly consumable, and equally funded by everyone. Murray is less extreme than some other Libertarians, like Ayn Rand, in his willingness to accept room for public goods, environmental protection, eminent domain, and the level of taxation. Many Libertarians would not be willing to compromise on some or any of these issues.
The problem is that the current Leviathan that is our federal government arose precisely because of incremental compromises. Everyone has at least some principles that they believe absolutely should not be compromised. Within the realm of Libertarians, Murray's principles are pretty moderate. His willingness to compromise seems to be based on practicality, assuming the goal is to move towards the form of government most Libertarians desire.
For example, many Libertarians want to abolish all regulations and let the market sort out the harmful and useless products from the beneficial ones that people will pay for. Murray alternatively suggests giving companies the option of being subject to regulations or not subject to them. Those wishing to not subject themselves to regulation must display this prominently on their products or pamphlets for services. This will give producers and consumers the option to decide for themselves whether the regulation is worth it. Murray's contention is that once people realize the true price of regulation (it costs money to comply with all the rules) most will be unwilling to pay for it. Therefore, prices will drop for some, yet those willing to pay for the added security of government regulation (even if it is only perceived security) will still be able to buy such products--and they will pay the cost. Economic efficiencies arise when the costs associated with benefits are directly linked and clearly evident. Too much of government intervention disguises the costs of that intervention. So what if a company harms a consumer or defrauds them? The court system will handle it, for this is a legitimate function of government.
Predictably, Murray supports school vouchers as the free-market solution to the education crisis. He also understands that incentives are crucial to behavior. Incentivizing or subsidizing anything will give you more of it. You must let people bear the full costs of their actions and not get the innocent to pay for it. This is the only way to change bad behavior.
Overall, a good book. The material is covered elsewhere by numerous authors, but Murray's synthesis and style allow for a quick dip into the kiddie pool of Libertarianism.
Memorable quotes:
"...what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"This is an example of the risk homeostasis I mentioned earlier, and it happens frequently. For example, seat belts can cause accidents because drivers become less cautious. In one sense the trade-off is a good one: The net number of injuires and deaths from auto accidents has gone down because of seat belts. Unfortunately, the net number of injuries among pedestrians and people in other cars--innocent bystanders--increases. It is a nice moral question: Is a regulation justified that saves net lives while protecting the negligent, if it also raises the number of nonnegligent people who are injured or killed?"
"Replay the kinescopes of newscasts and documentaries or read the civil-rights coverage in Time and Newsweek from the years just before 1964, and you will observe a nation run by whites coming to grips with the injustice of racial prejudice in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. America did not make progress against racism because Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the nation was so committed to make progress against racism."
"The question of whether people should be allowed to harm themselves is the simpler...They must. To think it is right to use force to override another person's preferences 'for his own good' is the essence of the totalitarian personality. If you have the right to do that to someone else, then someone else has the right to do it to you. That way lies the rationalization for every conceivable kind of coercion."
"For all libertarian solutions, this tension persists: Limited government could work if it were enacted. But it will not be enacted at one time, and partial solutions are often worse than the status quo...I propose a First Law of Libertarian Reform that reads: Every increase in freedom of action must be matched with a corresponding increase in responsibility for consequences."
"For 150 years American government limited itself to a few things that everyone agreed government ought to do, and government did them pretty well. The Post Office delivered the mail. The Army won its wars. Police caught criminals. Judges put them in jail. Fire departments put out fires. Since 1933, and accelerating after 1964, three things changed this state of affairs. The government began trying to do many more things. Government began to do almost everything less well. Private alternatives sprang up. The three events are not unrelated."
"The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly--and not to work. Things that private organizations do tend to be attractive, courteous, tidy--and to work. That is the way America really is."
"Free economies teach us that predictions are confounded by human ingenuity...Freedom regularly makes ridiculous anyone who thinks he has figured out the limits of what is possible."
This work is a personal interpretation distilled from Murray's years of reading, writing, and thinking about the subject. He provides a helpful acknowledgement of the sources that influenced his thinking at the end of the book, thus providing a reading list for further study. "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" has no footnotes and is, therefore, more general in nature. It is about why he subscribes to the philosophy and the moral and practical aspects of Libertarianism.
This would be a solid first book for anyone unfamiliar with the Libertarian worldview. It is relatively short and straightforward without a lot of meandering or expansive expositions on esoteric topics. Rather, Murray explains the general principles of government that he believes in and why. He then applies those beliefs to a few of the bigger, more obvious issues facing America as of the turn of the century. The topics include education, regulation, taxation, the environment, drug use, social security, medicare, welfare in general, and others.
Murray acknowledges that there are legitimate functions of government. He also believes in subsidiarity or federalism, which is simply the idea that governing should be done as locally as possible. The government's role, at all levels, is basically to maintain the environment in which people can exercise their freedom. It's much like a referee at a sporting event: the players can do mostly what they like with a few exceptions. Because the government has a monopoly on force, it should be extremely limited and constrained so as not to trample on its citizenry's freedom. The government should provide for defense, a court system, environmental protection, and other forms of "public good". Murray believes that the court system can handle most cases of environmental issues, and that "public good" is the trickiest legitimate role and has the greatest potential for abuse. He says that public goods should be nonexclusive, jointly consumable, and equally funded by everyone. Murray is less extreme than some other Libertarians, like Ayn Rand, in his willingness to accept room for public goods, environmental protection, eminent domain, and the level of taxation. Many Libertarians would not be willing to compromise on some or any of these issues.
The problem is that the current Leviathan that is our federal government arose precisely because of incremental compromises. Everyone has at least some principles that they believe absolutely should not be compromised. Within the realm of Libertarians, Murray's principles are pretty moderate. His willingness to compromise seems to be based on practicality, assuming the goal is to move towards the form of government most Libertarians desire.
For example, many Libertarians want to abolish all regulations and let the market sort out the harmful and useless products from the beneficial ones that people will pay for. Murray alternatively suggests giving companies the option of being subject to regulations or not subject to them. Those wishing to not subject themselves to regulation must display this prominently on their products or pamphlets for services. This will give producers and consumers the option to decide for themselves whether the regulation is worth it. Murray's contention is that once people realize the true price of regulation (it costs money to comply with all the rules) most will be unwilling to pay for it. Therefore, prices will drop for some, yet those willing to pay for the added security of government regulation (even if it is only perceived security) will still be able to buy such products--and they will pay the cost. Economic efficiencies arise when the costs associated with benefits are directly linked and clearly evident. Too much of government intervention disguises the costs of that intervention. So what if a company harms a consumer or defrauds them? The court system will handle it, for this is a legitimate function of government.
Predictably, Murray supports school vouchers as the free-market solution to the education crisis. He also understands that incentives are crucial to behavior. Incentivizing or subsidizing anything will give you more of it. You must let people bear the full costs of their actions and not get the innocent to pay for it. This is the only way to change bad behavior.
Overall, a good book. The material is covered elsewhere by numerous authors, but Murray's synthesis and style allow for a quick dip into the kiddie pool of Libertarianism.
Memorable quotes:
"...what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"This is an example of the risk homeostasis I mentioned earlier, and it happens frequently. For example, seat belts can cause accidents because drivers become less cautious. In one sense the trade-off is a good one: The net number of injuires and deaths from auto accidents has gone down because of seat belts. Unfortunately, the net number of injuries among pedestrians and people in other cars--innocent bystanders--increases. It is a nice moral question: Is a regulation justified that saves net lives while protecting the negligent, if it also raises the number of nonnegligent people who are injured or killed?"
"Replay the kinescopes of newscasts and documentaries or read the civil-rights coverage in Time and Newsweek from the years just before 1964, and you will observe a nation run by whites coming to grips with the injustice of racial prejudice in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. America did not make progress against racism because Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the nation was so committed to make progress against racism."
"The question of whether people should be allowed to harm themselves is the simpler...They must. To think it is right to use force to override another person's preferences 'for his own good' is the essence of the totalitarian personality. If you have the right to do that to someone else, then someone else has the right to do it to you. That way lies the rationalization for every conceivable kind of coercion."
"For all libertarian solutions, this tension persists: Limited government could work if it were enacted. But it will not be enacted at one time, and partial solutions are often worse than the status quo...I propose a First Law of Libertarian Reform that reads: Every increase in freedom of action must be matched with a corresponding increase in responsibility for consequences."
"For 150 years American government limited itself to a few things that everyone agreed government ought to do, and government did them pretty well. The Post Office delivered the mail. The Army won its wars. Police caught criminals. Judges put them in jail. Fire departments put out fires. Since 1933, and accelerating after 1964, three things changed this state of affairs. The government began trying to do many more things. Government began to do almost everything less well. Private alternatives sprang up. The three events are not unrelated."
"The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly--and not to work. Things that private organizations do tend to be attractive, courteous, tidy--and to work. That is the way America really is."
"Free economies teach us that predictions are confounded by human ingenuity...Freedom regularly makes ridiculous anyone who thinks he has figured out the limits of what is possible."
February 9, 2013
I liked this book for a few reasons, and was really turned off by it for a few others. I approached the book genuinely interested in learning more about the Libertarian perspective. Obviously this book is only one man's opinion, but in key places he is careful to describe how other self-identifying Libertarians, conservative or liberal, come down on the issues. Written almost 20 years ago, a number of the messages in the book -- for example, government does poorly what private industry does well -- resonate even more forcefully. I really appreciated his discussion of how Americans, left to their own devices, have in the past innovated, participated, and solved a number of social ills that the government now tries to manage so unsuccessfully. On the other hand, statistics can be made to say many things, so I'm not particularly impressed with his sweeping generalizations and claims that almost nothing has improved as a result of government intervention.
Other opinions in the book seem outdated and left this socially-liberal reader feeling uncomfortable and unconvinced. For example, even though he doesn't discuss in any detail his opinions on gay marriage and presumably he would be in support of it considering his policies of minimal government, it is clear that he envisions a return to a (largely imaginary)1950s America where dad made the money, mom took care of the two kids, and everyone participated in community building activities. He also argues that the only true responsibilities of government should be to protect the people from force and fraud. Considering the hotly debated topic of abortion, and the socially conservative view that it is a form of murder, I was left wondering how he would have come down on the issue. Is abortion considered a use of force against another human being? He didn't say what he thought, perhaps because it was not a question that demanded an answer in 1996. In 2013, however, I think a petition to sway others to join your political party, and more importantly to your world-view (which is exactly what this book attempts to do), would need to engage with this issue in some way. I say this because it speaks to the shortcomings of adopting such a system: what constitutes force and fraud are also ideological positions.
Overall, I think the book is good for someone who wants a very basic introduction to the opinions, justifications, and rhetoric that inform the Libertarian platform. Shortcomings: it's dated and some of the chapters reek of social conservatism, which seems to undermine his arguments for a completely free society. I think it's great to approach the book with an open mind because, in many ways, Murray's argument that having limited government doesn't lead to the abandonment of the poor or the elderly, but to a society where each individual has a significant and meaningful role to play, is fairly convincing, and also refreshing considering the other options for government currently on the table.
Other opinions in the book seem outdated and left this socially-liberal reader feeling uncomfortable and unconvinced. For example, even though he doesn't discuss in any detail his opinions on gay marriage and presumably he would be in support of it considering his policies of minimal government, it is clear that he envisions a return to a (largely imaginary)1950s America where dad made the money, mom took care of the two kids, and everyone participated in community building activities. He also argues that the only true responsibilities of government should be to protect the people from force and fraud. Considering the hotly debated topic of abortion, and the socially conservative view that it is a form of murder, I was left wondering how he would have come down on the issue. Is abortion considered a use of force against another human being? He didn't say what he thought, perhaps because it was not a question that demanded an answer in 1996. In 2013, however, I think a petition to sway others to join your political party, and more importantly to your world-view (which is exactly what this book attempts to do), would need to engage with this issue in some way. I say this because it speaks to the shortcomings of adopting such a system: what constitutes force and fraud are also ideological positions.
Overall, I think the book is good for someone who wants a very basic introduction to the opinions, justifications, and rhetoric that inform the Libertarian platform. Shortcomings: it's dated and some of the chapters reek of social conservatism, which seems to undermine his arguments for a completely free society. I think it's great to approach the book with an open mind because, in many ways, Murray's argument that having limited government doesn't lead to the abandonment of the poor or the elderly, but to a society where each individual has a significant and meaningful role to play, is fairly convincing, and also refreshing considering the other options for government currently on the table.
March 10, 2024
Murray’s classical liberalism is rooted in the Anglo-American tradition of liberty as expressed by Locke and Jefferson which makes Murray’s libertarianism conservative. Murray’s minarchist libertarianism is laid out by using common law concepts in which law exists to protect life, liberty, and property as found in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution guaranteeing due process which itself evolved out of Magna Carta.
For Murray the legitimate functions of government are national defense, courts, and police to protect against force, theft, and fraud to individuals. Domestically the task of government divides into criminal law which involves direct harm to others and civil law involving torts-costs imposed on one’s self and property by the otherwise lawful activity of others. Pollution and nuisances such as noise which are costs or externalities imposed on others warrant government involvement, either to negotiate torts through courts or to have the state set environmental pollution standards where transaction costs are too high. Public goods and natural monopolies are cases where government action can be justified but there shouldn’t be barriers to entry to competitors and should be limited in nature. Murray provides a trendline test for examining before and after laws are passed to assess whether they are effective or usually counterproductive, which means laws should not be in perpetuity.
Murray gives an outline of what his minimal federal government would look like in the United States. The departments of state, defense and justice would remain to perform the basic regal functions of government. So would the EPA to set environmental standards, which individuals and corporations would be free to find how to meet by markets in externalities rather than central planning. The department of education would be turned into a block grant to the states to fund education choice for parents to choose private or local public schools. Later on Murray wrote another book In Our Hands for a one time basic income at age 18 as a means to replace existing social programs.
This book should soften the reputation of Murray as a social Darwinist reactionary which The Bell Curve did in the public discourse. The Bell Curve’s message is that we should be troubled by the class stratification modern society has undergone by accelerating returns to IQ which correlates to social measures and is to a strong degree heritable but doesn’t diminish one’s right to one’s own.
For Murray the legitimate functions of government are national defense, courts, and police to protect against force, theft, and fraud to individuals. Domestically the task of government divides into criminal law which involves direct harm to others and civil law involving torts-costs imposed on one’s self and property by the otherwise lawful activity of others. Pollution and nuisances such as noise which are costs or externalities imposed on others warrant government involvement, either to negotiate torts through courts or to have the state set environmental pollution standards where transaction costs are too high. Public goods and natural monopolies are cases where government action can be justified but there shouldn’t be barriers to entry to competitors and should be limited in nature. Murray provides a trendline test for examining before and after laws are passed to assess whether they are effective or usually counterproductive, which means laws should not be in perpetuity.
Murray gives an outline of what his minimal federal government would look like in the United States. The departments of state, defense and justice would remain to perform the basic regal functions of government. So would the EPA to set environmental standards, which individuals and corporations would be free to find how to meet by markets in externalities rather than central planning. The department of education would be turned into a block grant to the states to fund education choice for parents to choose private or local public schools. Later on Murray wrote another book In Our Hands for a one time basic income at age 18 as a means to replace existing social programs.
This book should soften the reputation of Murray as a social Darwinist reactionary which The Bell Curve did in the public discourse. The Bell Curve’s message is that we should be troubled by the class stratification modern society has undergone by accelerating returns to IQ which correlates to social measures and is to a strong degree heritable but doesn’t diminish one’s right to one’s own.
July 31, 2011
Charles Murray's short book on libertarian is a personal synopsis or, better yet, a precis of the libertarian experience. It is divided into three sections: 1) "The Framework" where he describes the principles of limited government - its purposes and constituent make up; 2) "How Would It Work?" being a more practical commentary on how citizens could manage their personal and public affairs under limited government; and, 3)"Is It Possible?" considering the circumstances under which we might return to limited government. The last being a hopeful discussion of change that is necessary both in 1997 and now. As with all good short introductions to an important subject this book encourages the reader to explore further and deeper into the issues discussed and provides an excellent summary of sources both for principles and practical applications. Charles Murray is always worth reading and never has been more thoughtful than in this personal approach to the Libertarian life.
May 18, 2013
The arguments solidify my thinking sufficiently to persuade me to change my voter registration. In keeping with the spirit, the ideas are fully conveyed in less than 140 small pages. The only barrier for me previously was that of the drug-free attitude. However Murray shows proves the failure of the drug enforcement efforts and more importantly the inapplicability to any individual parent's goal of keeping THEIR child from the effects. I could write so much more, but why -- it is so well put in this text.
April 10, 2009
Libertarian principles explained and expounded. Has a blind spot for tax-funded school vouchers, though (but oddly not for healthcare).
July 22, 2016
Since the M. Douglas Meeks' book I just reviewed made an argument that classical liberalism was incompatible with Christian thought, I wanted to read a modern espousal of the philosophy of classical liberals and then use it as a springboard for general comparison of Christian views on political economy. (I could compare philosophies better if I had read these books in an e-book format where my notes could be saved in the cloud for all time. One book's binding fell apart while reading it.)
Murray makes it clear he's not a "capital l" Libertarian--he's a classical liberal. His primary heroes are Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein, Friedrich von Hayek, and Milton Friedman. He finds overlap with the work of the Austrian economists and the Ayn Rand-ites, but acknowledges that Rand's philosophy is "distinct from the classical liberal tradition and at outright odds with much of this book" (172).
(It's worth noting now that Chuck Colson has repeatedly warned Christians that Rand's "Objectivist" Libertarian philosophy is anti-biblical, important because certain Republicans may or may not be influenced by her writing.)
Murray is Harvard and MIT educated. I'm well aware that he is openly called a "cross-burner" by some on the left, and has been recently taken to task by other libertarians for some sloppy writing, and I remembering piling on as well at the time.
Classical liberals believe (Pgs 6-7):
"Each person owns himself" (italics the author's)
“In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”
Voluntary exchange benefits both parties so people in a free society may not be impeded from engaging in voluntary and informed transactions.
Everyone has the freedom to associate without whoever they would like, no exceptions.
Classical liberals (CLs, henceforth) ascribe the government three legitimate uses:
Restraining others from injuring each other.
Enforcement of contracts and property rights.
Provision of pure public goods and regulation of natural monopolies.
(National defense is given by Smith and others as a proper role, but Murray doesn't broach the subject. It basically falls under the first two categories above.)
So, the first quarter of the book reads like any Principles of Microeconomics text. Murray deals with the standard difficulties of defining pure public goods (which Austrians and capital L Libertarians deny exist) and problems of regulating natural monopolies.
CLs believe that “Mindful human beings require freedom and personal responsibility to live satisfying lives” (Pg. 18). This would seem to jive with Meeks and is almost a universal idea. God created us with active and creative minds, and gave Adam and Eve freedom of choice even in the absence of sin. Israel in the absence of a king had more freedom than when it submitted to a king. Individual liberty is a recurring theme in the NT. Love requires freedom for it to truly be love, and the Bible makes clear that we are all personally responsible-- no matter our lot.
Murray makes the argument that where freedom flourishes, so does personal responsibility, including the responsibility of taking care of the less fortunate:
"The genius of free human beings is that, given responsibility, they join together to take care of each other-- to be their brothers' keepers when their brother needs help" (Pg. 138)
Personal responsibility reaps satisfaction that endures. Progress only comes when government gets out of the way so that people are given the freedom to fulfill their own potential as individuals. "Responsibility is not the 'price' of freedom, but its reward" (Pg. 31).
Murray bemoans America's abandonment of that path. Rather than allowing our society to work out its issues over time, we have slowly built a government that we expect to solve our problems for us. We have created a government that crowds out private giving by providing for social needs itself. And it funds this activity by coercion--forcing the payment of taxes, and then limiting the freedom of how the recipients can use those funds (like food stamps). (Note: Murray does not say "all taxation is theft" like hard-core Libertarians and Austrians do.)
The government has engaged in these egalitarian efforts with good intentions but bad consequences: The data say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had no effect on the trend of minority employment. Lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph in 1974 correlated with a slowing of the decline of automobile deaths, while raising the limit correlated with a decline in deaths. Murray nicely discusses the problems of analyzing effects vis-a-vis univariate and multivariate regressions, his point is that it's not obvious that any Progressive policies have led to obviously better outcomes.
Murray gives his basic outline of an "ideal" government. The EPA, Justice Department, and State Department still exist but little else. The EPA would set emission limits and fines but it would be up to the companies to decide how to meet them. The Justice Department would perform a similar role to today, but there would be no prosecution of discrimination (freedom of association also means freedom to not associate). The U.S. would greatly increase education funding, but it would do so with a $3,000 (or more) voucher for every child to give to the school of his own choice. Schools could organize themselves independently or by community, whatever the locals prefer, but locals would no longer fund schools through property taxes. There would be no regulation of private monopolies unless they qualify as a natural monopoly. All efforts would be made to increase competition as a first resort.
Murray points to the 19th century as a time of great cultural richness in the U.S., with enclaves of all races and stripes, which he feels the modern welfare state has probably quelled by its laws encroaching on freedom of association (and disassociation). Drug use was common and legal then, but there was no national epidemic of concern. Private charities were perhaps more numerous and active than today given the size of the population and level of income. The government was small and not expected to do much, therefore economic progress and innovation was rapid.
Where Murray differs from Christian libertarians is where to draw the line at what is considered a harmful act against society. Murray contends that people "must" be allowed to harm, even kill, themselves (Pg. 102). To override another's preferences is "totalitarianism," because we do not know what is best for any other person. While some self-interested behavior is truly harmful to society, Murray says these can only be prevented in either a totalitarian or a completely free one, but since we live in the middle we're going to have some problems deciding on those behaviors.
The issue of freedom and assisted suicide came up recently in the media and blogosphere. Ross Douthat, a practicing Catholic, argued that a person who wants to die may suffer from a mental illness like clinical depression and not be thinking rationally. She might not always wish to die, and allowing her to die might be a serious mistake-- something she would have changed her mind on later. It also hurts society-- the mourning friends and family--so, government outlawing their option would be the same as government outlawing, say, battery. Douthat:
"Absent a totalitarian police state (and not really even then), a presumption against suicide doesn’t usually prevent people who really, really want to kill themselves from finding a way to do it. But neither does it empower any authority, whether public or private, to claim that they know the last word about any human heart."
This gets to an important crux of the matter-- libertarianism assumes that "mindful" adults are rational in their behavior and reach the correct conclusions. Even when I think someone else's behavior is irrational, I have no way of knowing for certain and therefore no right to tell them what they are doing is wrong. The assumption of responsible behavior follows closely to this. Can we assume that a free people will always be responsible to work together to build a better society?
As Meeks points out, the CLs also depend on perfect competition, and this is always in the background of Murray's book. Murray assumes workers will always be free to choose a new job of equal quality, and employers new employees if the government just gets out of the way. That only works in perfect competition, which we never see in real life, no matter the level of government. Monopolistic competition prevails and information asymmetries abound, therefore the level of output and the price may not necessarily be "right," even given freedom by all parties. People may not always be rational, so resources may not be allocated efficiently, wages may be slow to adjust to shocks, unemployment and other issues still exist...the libertarian world is still no economic utopia.
Murray explains recent financial crises as the result of partial deregulation. The government took away limits on what risks banks could take while also leaving in government-licensed deposit insurance, creating a moral hazard disaster. This conceivably could have been prevented if the government had gotten rid of both sides of the regulation-- the banks would have taken less risk because they would have properly aligned incentives to do so. But if you've seen the move "Inside Job," you know that many Wall Street execs are Type A and power-driven, pushing the limits of risk in their own lives with prostitution and cocaine in an ego-trip competition against competing executives. Rational behavior is a lot to ask of those types of people.
I give this book 3.5 stars out of 5. Succinct in its explanation, a pretty easy read.
Since this post went so long, I will do one last post comparing the differing Christian systems of political economy that have been presented at some point in the future.
Murray makes it clear he's not a "capital l" Libertarian--he's a classical liberal. His primary heroes are Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein, Friedrich von Hayek, and Milton Friedman. He finds overlap with the work of the Austrian economists and the Ayn Rand-ites, but acknowledges that Rand's philosophy is "distinct from the classical liberal tradition and at outright odds with much of this book" (172).
(It's worth noting now that Chuck Colson has repeatedly warned Christians that Rand's "Objectivist" Libertarian philosophy is anti-biblical, important because certain Republicans may or may not be influenced by her writing.)
Murray is Harvard and MIT educated. I'm well aware that he is openly called a "cross-burner" by some on the left, and has been recently taken to task by other libertarians for some sloppy writing, and I remembering piling on as well at the time.
Classical liberals believe (Pgs 6-7):
"Each person owns himself" (italics the author's)
“In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”
Voluntary exchange benefits both parties so people in a free society may not be impeded from engaging in voluntary and informed transactions.
Everyone has the freedom to associate without whoever they would like, no exceptions.
Classical liberals (CLs, henceforth) ascribe the government three legitimate uses:
Restraining others from injuring each other.
Enforcement of contracts and property rights.
Provision of pure public goods and regulation of natural monopolies.
(National defense is given by Smith and others as a proper role, but Murray doesn't broach the subject. It basically falls under the first two categories above.)
So, the first quarter of the book reads like any Principles of Microeconomics text. Murray deals with the standard difficulties of defining pure public goods (which Austrians and capital L Libertarians deny exist) and problems of regulating natural monopolies.
CLs believe that “Mindful human beings require freedom and personal responsibility to live satisfying lives” (Pg. 18). This would seem to jive with Meeks and is almost a universal idea. God created us with active and creative minds, and gave Adam and Eve freedom of choice even in the absence of sin. Israel in the absence of a king had more freedom than when it submitted to a king. Individual liberty is a recurring theme in the NT. Love requires freedom for it to truly be love, and the Bible makes clear that we are all personally responsible-- no matter our lot.
Murray makes the argument that where freedom flourishes, so does personal responsibility, including the responsibility of taking care of the less fortunate:
"The genius of free human beings is that, given responsibility, they join together to take care of each other-- to be their brothers' keepers when their brother needs help" (Pg. 138)
Personal responsibility reaps satisfaction that endures. Progress only comes when government gets out of the way so that people are given the freedom to fulfill their own potential as individuals. "Responsibility is not the 'price' of freedom, but its reward" (Pg. 31).
Murray bemoans America's abandonment of that path. Rather than allowing our society to work out its issues over time, we have slowly built a government that we expect to solve our problems for us. We have created a government that crowds out private giving by providing for social needs itself. And it funds this activity by coercion--forcing the payment of taxes, and then limiting the freedom of how the recipients can use those funds (like food stamps). (Note: Murray does not say "all taxation is theft" like hard-core Libertarians and Austrians do.)
The government has engaged in these egalitarian efforts with good intentions but bad consequences: The data say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had no effect on the trend of minority employment. Lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph in 1974 correlated with a slowing of the decline of automobile deaths, while raising the limit correlated with a decline in deaths. Murray nicely discusses the problems of analyzing effects vis-a-vis univariate and multivariate regressions, his point is that it's not obvious that any Progressive policies have led to obviously better outcomes.
Murray gives his basic outline of an "ideal" government. The EPA, Justice Department, and State Department still exist but little else. The EPA would set emission limits and fines but it would be up to the companies to decide how to meet them. The Justice Department would perform a similar role to today, but there would be no prosecution of discrimination (freedom of association also means freedom to not associate). The U.S. would greatly increase education funding, but it would do so with a $3,000 (or more) voucher for every child to give to the school of his own choice. Schools could organize themselves independently or by community, whatever the locals prefer, but locals would no longer fund schools through property taxes. There would be no regulation of private monopolies unless they qualify as a natural monopoly. All efforts would be made to increase competition as a first resort.
Murray points to the 19th century as a time of great cultural richness in the U.S., with enclaves of all races and stripes, which he feels the modern welfare state has probably quelled by its laws encroaching on freedom of association (and disassociation). Drug use was common and legal then, but there was no national epidemic of concern. Private charities were perhaps more numerous and active than today given the size of the population and level of income. The government was small and not expected to do much, therefore economic progress and innovation was rapid.
Where Murray differs from Christian libertarians is where to draw the line at what is considered a harmful act against society. Murray contends that people "must" be allowed to harm, even kill, themselves (Pg. 102). To override another's preferences is "totalitarianism," because we do not know what is best for any other person. While some self-interested behavior is truly harmful to society, Murray says these can only be prevented in either a totalitarian or a completely free one, but since we live in the middle we're going to have some problems deciding on those behaviors.
The issue of freedom and assisted suicide came up recently in the media and blogosphere. Ross Douthat, a practicing Catholic, argued that a person who wants to die may suffer from a mental illness like clinical depression and not be thinking rationally. She might not always wish to die, and allowing her to die might be a serious mistake-- something she would have changed her mind on later. It also hurts society-- the mourning friends and family--so, government outlawing their option would be the same as government outlawing, say, battery. Douthat:
"Absent a totalitarian police state (and not really even then), a presumption against suicide doesn’t usually prevent people who really, really want to kill themselves from finding a way to do it. But neither does it empower any authority, whether public or private, to claim that they know the last word about any human heart."
This gets to an important crux of the matter-- libertarianism assumes that "mindful" adults are rational in their behavior and reach the correct conclusions. Even when I think someone else's behavior is irrational, I have no way of knowing for certain and therefore no right to tell them what they are doing is wrong. The assumption of responsible behavior follows closely to this. Can we assume that a free people will always be responsible to work together to build a better society?
As Meeks points out, the CLs also depend on perfect competition, and this is always in the background of Murray's book. Murray assumes workers will always be free to choose a new job of equal quality, and employers new employees if the government just gets out of the way. That only works in perfect competition, which we never see in real life, no matter the level of government. Monopolistic competition prevails and information asymmetries abound, therefore the level of output and the price may not necessarily be "right," even given freedom by all parties. People may not always be rational, so resources may not be allocated efficiently, wages may be slow to adjust to shocks, unemployment and other issues still exist...the libertarian world is still no economic utopia.
Murray explains recent financial crises as the result of partial deregulation. The government took away limits on what risks banks could take while also leaving in government-licensed deposit insurance, creating a moral hazard disaster. This conceivably could have been prevented if the government had gotten rid of both sides of the regulation-- the banks would have taken less risk because they would have properly aligned incentives to do so. But if you've seen the move "Inside Job," you know that many Wall Street execs are Type A and power-driven, pushing the limits of risk in their own lives with prostitution and cocaine in an ego-trip competition against competing executives. Rational behavior is a lot to ask of those types of people.
I give this book 3.5 stars out of 5. Succinct in its explanation, a pretty easy read.
Since this post went so long, I will do one last post comparing the differing Christian systems of political economy that have been presented at some point in the future.
September 18, 2020
I really enjoyed Murray’s specific proposals for each libertarian plan to chip away at the size of government. Many libertarian manifestos are too vague and rely on grandiosity without reality. His proposals were some of the most interesting and unique aspects of the book.
The only thing I wasn’t too keen on is the emphasis on projecting desires onto the population. This also happens a lot in libertarian tomes. He kept suggesting toward the end, (not terribly, but noticeably) that we all just want to take care of our communities. This may be true for the majority of us, but as with most libertarian philosophy on the morals and ethics of others, it’s majorly assumptive.
However, this was a great sample of libertarian work and I’d recommend it to anyone.
The only thing I wasn’t too keen on is the emphasis on projecting desires onto the population. This also happens a lot in libertarian tomes. He kept suggesting toward the end, (not terribly, but noticeably) that we all just want to take care of our communities. This may be true for the majority of us, but as with most libertarian philosophy on the morals and ethics of others, it’s majorly assumptive.
However, this was a great sample of libertarian work and I’d recommend it to anyone.
October 20, 2020
What It Means to Be a Libertarian is a superb starter for anyone wanting to delve into what Libertarians genuinely stand for and their world perspective. I mention "starter" as the ideas are easy to follow and understand without frills or intellectual hoops through which to jump. Murray also provides a robust reading list for anyone who wants to further research the ideas of a limited government, an idea that is by no means novel.
September 19, 2021
a very good summary of libertarian principles.
depressing to read, when you consider all we've lost, how much government is entrenched and how it's resulted in deeply ingrained poverty that somehow is blamed on capitalism.
in a different world, this book would be a source of inspiration.
today, it just makes me feel sad and defeated.
depressing to read, when you consider all we've lost, how much government is entrenched and how it's resulted in deeply ingrained poverty that somehow is blamed on capitalism.
in a different world, this book would be a source of inspiration.
today, it just makes me feel sad and defeated.
July 8, 2022
A brief yet challenging read, What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation lays out core principles of libertarianism and invites the reader to a feast of intellectual meditation. I, for one, would certainly love to live in a society where my life is intervened in by the government as little as possible.
November 10, 2022
The problem with making a pariah out of someone like Charles Murray is that, upon reading him and discovering how eminently reasonable he is, it discredits those making the attempt more than it does him.
In his book length essay on the necessity of libertarianism, he is characteristically sober and convincing. This is a terrific, concise defense of the moral superiority of American liberty.
In his book length essay on the necessity of libertarianism, he is characteristically sober and convincing. This is a terrific, concise defense of the moral superiority of American liberty.
July 7, 2017
This book would've been helped by the addition of data and more in depth discussions of policy and trends. Nonetheless, it makes a stimulating read and presents a series of arguments one doesn't often see. Some of it can seem a bit pie-in-the-sky, but that's not a fault.
July 30, 2017
Especially during these confused partisan times, the emphasis by Murray on a political philosophy based on freedom is refreshing.
March 20, 2018
Well, it convinced me! Until I got to the part about the coming libertarian moment. Twenty years later and we're still waiting for it!
August 9, 2018
Great ideas that need to be revisited in this day of overspending and government overreach in daily life.
August 21, 2020
Recommended by a cousin
This was a page-turner. Very inspiring. Now the hard part: how to work for the limited government and responsible, fully human life Murray describes.
This was a page-turner. Very inspiring. Now the hard part: how to work for the limited government and responsible, fully human life Murray describes.
September 20, 2020
Mostly common sense
October 16, 2020
Quite possibly one of my favorite books that put a framework to the leanings I already held and helped me to reconcile the issues I had with the right or left.
July 5, 2021
Enjoyed this.
November 3, 2022
Decent read good to help you form your thoughts on libertarianism at least some forms of libertarianism would recommend to others
November 25, 2024
It's always a pleasure to read Murray.
September 4, 2014
I picked up this book because I knew that I was Libertarian, but wasn't sure what that really meant. I have taken tests in school to see where I fall in this political mess and got the same results. Libertarian. Ok. What the heck does that mean? Hence, why I picked up this seemingly dry-looking non-fiction, political book. I want to know what people are talking about. I want to be able to hold a "political" conversation. I want to be more present in what's going on around me. So I read.
Murray has a way with wording that allows me to understand. He doesn't use huge, impossible words. This book is accessible for all adult readers. He breaks down common ideals that Libertarians hold and interprets them according to how he sees them and how he lives by them. It was more enjoyable to read with the author inserted in the book, rather than reading a dry, textbookish prose. There are even a couple times when he breaks down wording in an ideal and tells what that really means. (I already returned my book to the library, so I can't give you an exact example. My apologies.) Something really cool that he did was recognize the use of the pronoun "he". Murray explained this is his choice because he's the author and he identifies as male and uses the pronoun "he". From a language perspective, I found this insanely interesting and awesome that he even mentioned the rhetoric. Pretty meta. Me likey meta.
This book basically solidified that I am, indeed, a Libertarian. I think I am more of a lower case libertarian, like Murray admittedly is. There are things that I absolutely agree with, but there are others where I could be lenient on. I'm not a full-force radical, by any means. I found this book to be crazy informative without shoving information down my throat. It wasn't trying to convince me to change my views either. I'm curious as to whether or not it reads the same if I subscribed to a different political party. Let me know in the comments if you've read this and feel that he's trying to lure others to join this revolution.
After Murray lays down all the atrocities and what should be happening, he goes to tell us things we can do and change for the future. I appreciate that his goals are realistic. He knows he won't be able to see the changes in his lifetime. This stuff takes time and people are stubborn.
My rating and why: I gave this book four stars! I read it and really enjoyed it. I felt that I benefited from reading it and would recommend this book to those searching for a political book. While I won't be able to win a debate about politics, I will definitely have a better grasp of my beliefs and how they translate. For a non-fiction book talking about politics, it was written in a tangible way that didn't scare me off.
Murray has a way with wording that allows me to understand. He doesn't use huge, impossible words. This book is accessible for all adult readers. He breaks down common ideals that Libertarians hold and interprets them according to how he sees them and how he lives by them. It was more enjoyable to read with the author inserted in the book, rather than reading a dry, textbookish prose. There are even a couple times when he breaks down wording in an ideal and tells what that really means. (I already returned my book to the library, so I can't give you an exact example. My apologies.) Something really cool that he did was recognize the use of the pronoun "he". Murray explained this is his choice because he's the author and he identifies as male and uses the pronoun "he". From a language perspective, I found this insanely interesting and awesome that he even mentioned the rhetoric. Pretty meta. Me likey meta.
This book basically solidified that I am, indeed, a Libertarian. I think I am more of a lower case libertarian, like Murray admittedly is. There are things that I absolutely agree with, but there are others where I could be lenient on. I'm not a full-force radical, by any means. I found this book to be crazy informative without shoving information down my throat. It wasn't trying to convince me to change my views either. I'm curious as to whether or not it reads the same if I subscribed to a different political party. Let me know in the comments if you've read this and feel that he's trying to lure others to join this revolution.
After Murray lays down all the atrocities and what should be happening, he goes to tell us things we can do and change for the future. I appreciate that his goals are realistic. He knows he won't be able to see the changes in his lifetime. This stuff takes time and people are stubborn.
My rating and why: I gave this book four stars! I read it and really enjoyed it. I felt that I benefited from reading it and would recommend this book to those searching for a political book. While I won't be able to win a debate about politics, I will definitely have a better grasp of my beliefs and how they translate. For a non-fiction book talking about politics, it was written in a tangible way that didn't scare me off.
July 4, 2008
Charles Murray is an unassuming man when you see him in public and if you did not know who he is you would never believe that it is he who started two of the great public policy debates of the past 15 years. First, he wrote Losing Ground and it was a wakeup call to all who believe in the gospel of social engineering. In his erudite and sober style he lay bare all the waste and fraud and pain caused by the social engineering of the past twenty years and showed so with ample, and sometimes laborious, documentation. He was called everything from a race-baiter to a far-right convservative with a fascist agenda for starving our children. Some ten plus years after that he co-wrote a book on intelligence and class structure that ignited a firestorm of controversy and derision. His co-author Richard Herrnstein passed away before the book was published and Mr. Murray was forced to brave the talk curcuit alone (it was really Dr. Herrnstein's pet project and the subject of his studies) defending The Bell Curve on all fronts. Out of the 845 pages there was one chapter on race but that is virtually all that was discussed during interviews.
Thankfully he then wrote a personal book about his libertarian beliefs (he was never a true conservative by his own admission) to explain what he believes. He chronicles his beliefs, from free market ideals, small government, and issues like drugs and prostitution. He is a self-styled "little-L" libertarian who doesn't have an axe to grind with public roads or the minutae of the Libertarian faithful. It is a practical book and full of common sense insights and highly influential on my political thought.
Thankfully he then wrote a personal book about his libertarian beliefs (he was never a true conservative by his own admission) to explain what he believes. He chronicles his beliefs, from free market ideals, small government, and issues like drugs and prostitution. He is a self-styled "little-L" libertarian who doesn't have an axe to grind with public roads or the minutae of the Libertarian faithful. It is a practical book and full of common sense insights and highly influential on my political thought.
June 13, 2009
This is a manifesto. It lays out a plan for returning to the kind of government we had for the first century of our country's existence, and makes the case for why that is the right thing to do.
Having recently read Murray's other work, I found this to be the logical next step in his thinking.
In "Losing Ground" he showed that the introduction of massive social programs in the mid sixties not only didn't work, but caused significant harm to the populations that were supposed to be helped.
In "Pursuit of Happiness... and Good Government" he addresses the question of what the goals of government should be, and how the government can create conditions that allow people opportunities for happiness.
In "The Bell Curve" he examines the causes behind unequal incidence of poverty and a host of correlated social problems in different demographic segments.
So after getting through "what we're doing isn't working", "what should our goals be", and "why are things so unequal", here he is finally getting down to the big question, "what should we do about it now?"
In contrast to his other works, which are deeply researched, and usually about a third notes, this one has no notes, and is very short. He lays out what he thinks we should do, and makes the case for it with brevity and clarity.
I have a few issues with some of his propositions, but I think it is probably the right direction. Of course, whether we as a country could ever actually do it is another question.
Overall, I think is the culmination of a life's work from one of our best thinkers. I recommend that everyone read it, and do so with an open mind, to allow them to truly consider what things would be like in the United States that Murray envisions.
Having recently read Murray's other work, I found this to be the logical next step in his thinking.
In "Losing Ground" he showed that the introduction of massive social programs in the mid sixties not only didn't work, but caused significant harm to the populations that were supposed to be helped.
In "Pursuit of Happiness... and Good Government" he addresses the question of what the goals of government should be, and how the government can create conditions that allow people opportunities for happiness.
In "The Bell Curve" he examines the causes behind unequal incidence of poverty and a host of correlated social problems in different demographic segments.
So after getting through "what we're doing isn't working", "what should our goals be", and "why are things so unequal", here he is finally getting down to the big question, "what should we do about it now?"
In contrast to his other works, which are deeply researched, and usually about a third notes, this one has no notes, and is very short. He lays out what he thinks we should do, and makes the case for it with brevity and clarity.
I have a few issues with some of his propositions, but I think it is probably the right direction. Of course, whether we as a country could ever actually do it is another question.
Overall, I think is the culmination of a life's work from one of our best thinkers. I recommend that everyone read it, and do so with an open mind, to allow them to truly consider what things would be like in the United States that Murray envisions.
June 8, 2009
Very good book about libertarianism. Throughout the book Murray goes through how he, and other libertarians, feel the government should be run as well as what has to be done to get government to this "Utopian" view, I guess you could say . He does not go into a few topics, the one I remember off the top of my head that he didn't, was national security. That kind of disappointed me because I would have liked to of known what Murray and other libertarians think about it, especially considering the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, I know the book was written in 1996, so, obviously he couldn't explain his position. It's just that from what I've read real libertarians didn't want to be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. But my opinion is that Murray would have been for these wars. The reason I think Murray would feel this way is because in his book he describes that the government should stay out of people's lives not take away their property etc., unless it is for the "public good". And I think that after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan, the "War on Terror", and invasion of Iraq, since they were thought thought to have Nukes at the time, and had in the past- that Murray would have agreed with this foreign policy/ national security issue/ war(s), because it served the "public good", by trying to protect the country and peoples from terror, and terrorism.
November 16, 2010
This concise explanation of Murray's personal view of Libertarianism shares a great deal of content with his later book on fixing the welfare state (the name of which escapes me). Having read the other book first, this book lost some of its impact. Like Murray's other writings, this book provides an introduction to a multitude of topics without addressing any particular issue in great detail. There were a number of ideas, new to me, that made this book interesting. Using trend lines over the past century, Murray argues that many landmark pieces of legislation widely viewed as successes were somewhat ceremonial in nature. He points out that society was already changing; whether in terms of civil rights, women's right, car safety, etc.; and that the laws did not change the speed at which progress occurred. He also points out that everyone who is able already removes themselves from interactions with the government; the wealthy demonstrate every day through their decisions that avoiding government improves daily life. Why, then, are the poor denied the same privilege? It is a quick, worthwhile read, although I found his positions in other books on education reform and a negative income tax more unique and engaging.
August 16, 2011
This book elegantly presents the argument for a Libertarian society.
Charles Murray argues that since government is the only entity that has police power, it is the only entity that achieves its end through force. Where a salesman or service provider has to persuade people to purchase products and competes for your business in an open market, the government forces people to comply with laws and punishes those that do not. Murray goes on from there to explain the essential tenants of libertarianism. But what you ultimately need to know is that libertarians believe that the ultimate goal of society is freedom - that government's role is to protect natural rights and individuals from harm and fraud by others. Any government that goes beyond this purpose is infringing upon the freedom it is instituted to protect.
This book is a must read for anyone who wants a serious look at libertarianism to understand that they are more than just a nutty group that wants to legalize drugs and prostitution. It is also a good read for conservatives and libertarians to reaffirm their principles.
Overall, this book presents a vision of a beautiful and free society that we would be wise to establish.
Charles Murray argues that since government is the only entity that has police power, it is the only entity that achieves its end through force. Where a salesman or service provider has to persuade people to purchase products and competes for your business in an open market, the government forces people to comply with laws and punishes those that do not. Murray goes on from there to explain the essential tenants of libertarianism. But what you ultimately need to know is that libertarians believe that the ultimate goal of society is freedom - that government's role is to protect natural rights and individuals from harm and fraud by others. Any government that goes beyond this purpose is infringing upon the freedom it is instituted to protect.
This book is a must read for anyone who wants a serious look at libertarianism to understand that they are more than just a nutty group that wants to legalize drugs and prostitution. It is also a good read for conservatives and libertarians to reaffirm their principles.
Overall, this book presents a vision of a beautiful and free society that we would be wise to establish.
March 10, 2009
I started the book started with high hopes on my part to understand a more efficient way to run our government as well as alternatives to the current mess. I was not disappointed until Mr. Murray could not help himself and started peppering the last 30 pages with his social point of view which honestly is completely irrelevant to the book. Much like he did in the Bell Curve, he used parts of the book to antagonize his critics which leaves the reader with a bitter taste in their mouth. Overall a good read, but next time leave out the views about single mothers and woman going back to the kitchen if our government shrinks in size. I am exaggerating his point of view, but he is blunt about his opinions.
Read
July 28, 2011Someone prone to hyperbole is almost brought to tears in reading the final chapters, which outline Murray's reasons for optimism that his framework for returning vast swaths of American life to the realm of the private individual and the freedom of association has even a prayer at being adopted in whole or in part. He published the book in 1996, and just 13 years later, there is less chance than ever--indeed, maybe even zero chance--that a return to limited government in America is possible, at least without bloodletting. Surely 9/11 intruded and derailed some of this progress, but one cannot help but look upon as accurate the view of the Bush years as a tremendous, monumental wasted opportunity. One is left only to mourn what might have been. A great read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews