What do you think?
Rate this book
The Market for Liberty
Some great books are the product of a lifetime of research, reflection, and labored discipline. But other classics are written in a white heat during the moment of discovery, with prose that shines forth like the sun pouring into the window of a time when a new understanding brings in the world into focus for the first time.
The Market for Liberty is that second type of classic, and what a treasure it is. Written by two authorsMorris and Linda Tannehilljust following a period of intense study of the writings of both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, it has the pace, energy, and rigor you would expect from an evening's discussion with either of these two giants.
More than that, these authors put pen to paper at precisely the right time in their intellectual development, that period rhapsodic freshness when a great truth had been revealed, and they had to share it with the world. Clearly, the authors fell in love with liberty and the free market, and wrote an engaging, book-length sonnet to these ideas.
This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and thenand here is the great surprisethey offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.
169 page softcover
169 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
61 people are currently reading
644 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
January 17, 2009
Like most people, I could not justify any sort of anarchist system. Like most people I never fully explored the idea or tried to debate the merits of an anarcho-capitalist system... I just accepted that the idea was irrational.
When I picked up this book I was expecting the typical "constitutional conservative" rhetoric. When the book made it clear that the authors advocated absolutely no government I figured I would continue reading just out of curiosity but figured I'd find some fatal flaw at some point.
This is one of those books where every argument you can concieve of is quickly rebuttled. I must admit, it converted me and showed me that really any arguement against an anarcho-capitalist system is an argument in favor of monopoly.
I expect this book to be illegal to own in the near future.
When I picked up this book I was expecting the typical "constitutional conservative" rhetoric. When the book made it clear that the authors advocated absolutely no government I figured I would continue reading just out of curiosity but figured I'd find some fatal flaw at some point.
This is one of those books where every argument you can concieve of is quickly rebuttled. I must admit, it converted me and showed me that really any arguement against an anarcho-capitalist system is an argument in favor of monopoly.
I expect this book to be illegal to own in the near future.
July 14, 2014
This is a through-and-through libertarian book. My inclination is to give this kind of book high marks because I completely agree with the sentiments contained therein. I only gave it two stars, however, because of the inflammatory language, philosophical inconsistencies, and Malthusian viewpoint. This book (written in 1970) is like listening to talk radio. You can only enjoy it if you already agree with what is being said, and are willing to overlook illogical and inflammatory language. That being said, I absolutely agree with the basic premise - that government (any government) is an UNnecessary evil. The book does a pretty good job of showing how a society without government could work. If you are curious about how a governmentless society could operate or have a deep down feeling that all is not right in our own society, then this book may be for you. If you decide to try it out, don't dismiss the basic premise just because of some inconsistencies in the book. They are there, but they don't affect the bottom line.
July 30, 2009
Where exactly do I want to begin? Well, essentially, the issue I had with giving the rating for this book wasn't if I agreed or disagreed with its premise (I don't for anyone who cares), but if I found the thesis complete, well thought out, and it's arguments well developed. It's not, and they aren't, respectively.
While the overall ideal that the manifesto tried to suede the reader to is compelling, it is an ideal, not a reality. Essentially, and accurately, the Tannehils are trying to sell anarchy, in its purist of definitions. No more need of government (anarchy does not equal chaos). They, however, never use the word anarchy. The veil it as laissez-faire, or a purely free market. Such a world, they claim, would be truly free—that people would be able to soar and achieve whatever they wanted or needed—without the oppression of the government. They say that all government is oppressive, and only businessmen unrestrained from regulation and market can provide people with what they want and need properly. Essentially, the are right. No government is an ideal to strive for: a system where all people are treated fairly, and are allowed to go/work/do want the wanted without rules and enforcers needed to be in place. A system where all people would use their common values and judgement to resolve differences and make the environment around us desirable. Ah, it would be like Disneyland everywhere.
L&M Tannehil's arguments are broad and over reaching. I found one specific example, no references to other's thoughts, no hard facts, and no data to suggest that they were in any way qualified to talk about this subject.
The book rests on several points:
1) People have been brainwashed to believe that sacrifice to and for others is good.
2) Government is a coercive monopoly.
3) The Free Market is the best way to establish anything good, because businessmen would not sell us a bad product.
4) People are rational The world must not condone unrational people.
To these ends (and I hate arguing points I don't fully believe in): helping others often does make society itself stronger; their argument of what government is is too narrow in scope; their belief in businessmen doing no wrong because of bad products is well-proven to be false; and most people are not rational.
The problem with this book is that it defends it's claims because they are the ones setting the definitions. They claim that anyone outside of these established definitions and standards that they themselves set is obviously not rational, and should be considered wrong and irrelevant. To that, it makes them hard to argue with.
While the overall ideal that the manifesto tried to suede the reader to is compelling, it is an ideal, not a reality. Essentially, and accurately, the Tannehils are trying to sell anarchy, in its purist of definitions. No more need of government (anarchy does not equal chaos). They, however, never use the word anarchy. The veil it as laissez-faire, or a purely free market. Such a world, they claim, would be truly free—that people would be able to soar and achieve whatever they wanted or needed—without the oppression of the government. They say that all government is oppressive, and only businessmen unrestrained from regulation and market can provide people with what they want and need properly. Essentially, the are right. No government is an ideal to strive for: a system where all people are treated fairly, and are allowed to go/work/do want the wanted without rules and enforcers needed to be in place. A system where all people would use their common values and judgement to resolve differences and make the environment around us desirable. Ah, it would be like Disneyland everywhere.
L&M Tannehil's arguments are broad and over reaching. I found one specific example, no references to other's thoughts, no hard facts, and no data to suggest that they were in any way qualified to talk about this subject.
The book rests on several points:
1) People have been brainwashed to believe that sacrifice to and for others is good.
2) Government is a coercive monopoly.
3) The Free Market is the best way to establish anything good, because businessmen would not sell us a bad product.
4) People are rational The world must not condone unrational people.
To these ends (and I hate arguing points I don't fully believe in): helping others often does make society itself stronger; their argument of what government is is too narrow in scope; their belief in businessmen doing no wrong because of bad products is well-proven to be false; and most people are not rational.
The problem with this book is that it defends it's claims because they are the ones setting the definitions. They claim that anyone outside of these established definitions and standards that they themselves set is obviously not rational, and should be considered wrong and irrelevant. To that, it makes them hard to argue with.
June 10, 2015
This work postulates how a "Stateless" society, one free of any sort of Government, could exist, addressing all (by my estimation) of the classic arguments FOR government (road building, National Defense, etc), why it should exist (classic Lockean Natural Rights theory as well as some novel philosophical tidbits, and how realistically such could and should best be achieved.
I have been on an intellectual journey for the past few years. As a "neo-con" I decided to do a little of my own thinking, and investigated that crazy old coot who talked about weed and that we shouldn't protect ourselves, and I read "End the Fed." Well, I obviously had a strong bias against it until I read it. From there I engaged many members of the so-called Austrian school of Economics, as well as many well known Libertarian scholars. I would say that the scholarship of the Tannehills is arguably on par. As one who has begun wrestling with the questions of Rights, Government, legal plunder, the initiation of aggression against nonviolent individuals, etc. I found this to be, at times, a gripping read. To the individual comfortably plugged into The Matrix of the ruling elite, I'd hope this could serve as a wake up call, though it shouldn't be considered a definite, as most of the solutions as to how a truly free society would work are supposition, postulated upon what IS known of society and markets. By the time this review is being read, I have loaned out my copy and forwarded the strong "Read This" recommendation to my long list of self proclaimed "small government," "fiscal conservative," "Constitutionalist, "liberty," and "anarchist" friends and acquaintances.
I have been on an intellectual journey for the past few years. As a "neo-con" I decided to do a little of my own thinking, and investigated that crazy old coot who talked about weed and that we shouldn't protect ourselves, and I read "End the Fed." Well, I obviously had a strong bias against it until I read it. From there I engaged many members of the so-called Austrian school of Economics, as well as many well known Libertarian scholars. I would say that the scholarship of the Tannehills is arguably on par. As one who has begun wrestling with the questions of Rights, Government, legal plunder, the initiation of aggression against nonviolent individuals, etc. I found this to be, at times, a gripping read. To the individual comfortably plugged into The Matrix of the ruling elite, I'd hope this could serve as a wake up call, though it shouldn't be considered a definite, as most of the solutions as to how a truly free society would work are supposition, postulated upon what IS known of society and markets. By the time this review is being read, I have loaned out my copy and forwarded the strong "Read This" recommendation to my long list of self proclaimed "small government," "fiscal conservative," "Constitutionalist, "liberty," and "anarchist" friends and acquaintances.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 21, 2016
This is my first one and half star review. Usually if I think this little of a book, I just delete it from my Kindle and never even bother to review. I plowed through because I am fond of the subject. As a disclaimer; I think of myself as Capitalist first, Patriot second, and Anarchist third. This book tries to sell to those ideals, but it misses horribly.
This reads like a poor CliffNote mash-up of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. I had an inkling of trouble in the first chapter when the authors try to sell sacrifice as being anti-life. Obviously they don't have children. They do try to justify this ridiculousness by saying sacrificing for ones children isn't sacrifice... . If I wanted double-plus-good-duck-speak I would listen to a primary speech or two. It gets a bit better after this opening debacle, but not enough to matter. In a world where anarchy works every day towards making peoples lives better, they lack concrete examples. This book offers nothing to the already initiated and even less to those who aren't.
This reads like a poor CliffNote mash-up of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. I had an inkling of trouble in the first chapter when the authors try to sell sacrifice as being anti-life. Obviously they don't have children. They do try to justify this ridiculousness by saying sacrificing for ones children isn't sacrifice... . If I wanted double-plus-good-duck-speak I would listen to a primary speech or two. It gets a bit better after this opening debacle, but not enough to matter. In a world where anarchy works every day towards making peoples lives better, they lack concrete examples. This book offers nothing to the already initiated and even less to those who aren't.
June 13, 2017
I like the more praxeological approach of "Spontaneous Order" for it's scientific approach but this book's philosophical approach uses some potent and colorful words.
March 9, 2015
Interesting Quotes:
"A laissez-faire society is not a Utopia in which the initiation of violence is impossible. Rather, it is a society which does not *institutionalize* the initiation of force and in which there are means for dealing with aggression justly when it does occur.
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Not only does government regulation prevent enterprising individuals from going into business for themselves, it also helps freeze many employees into an 8-to-5 grind unnecessarily. There are a large and increasing number of jobs in our automated world which require, not that a specified set of hours be put in at an office, but that a certain amount of work be accomplished, regardless of how long it takes or where it is done. As long as an employee in this kind of job gets his work done, it shouldn't matter to the company if he does it in one hour a day and works only in his own kitchen between the hours of 2 and 3 a.m. And yet, employers, caught in the fascism of government regulation and red tape, become increasingly inflexible and insist that employees put in an 8-hour day, even if five of those hours are spent sitting at a desk doing nothing but trying to look busy. Without government regulation, businesses would be freer to innovate and would have to compete harder for labor, due to the economic boom created by freedom. This would mean much less rigid working conditions for employees."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
My problem with this book is how its often so conclusory without giving reasons. This work week inflexibility is a very strong point if its conclusion is true, but what laws/regulations explain this conclusion?
"It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But such vigilance is a constant non-productive expenditure of energy, and it is grossly unreasonable to expect men to keep expending their energy non-productively out of 'unselfish idealism.' There is no area of the free market which requires the constant vigilance of the entire population to keep it from going awry. We would all be shocked and indignant if we were admonished to give such attentions to, say, the dairy industry in order to have our milk delivered unsour."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Government has always been a ball-and-chain holding back human progress and welfare. This shackle was bad enough in primitive times when life was relatively simple. In a complex society with a complex technology and nuclear weapons, it is suicidal idiocy. Government is simply inadequate to the complexities of modern
life, a fact which is becoming increasingly apparent in the blundering ineptitude of governmental "solutions" to social problems, the perennial confusion and contradictions in governmental policies, and the successive breakdown of governmental programs. Government, at best, is a primitive anachronism which the human race outgrew somewhere around the time when men moved out of their caves, and which we should have dispensed with long ago."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"It has been objected that a very large firm could afford to use force and fraud to at least a limited extent, because the breadth of its market would prevent the news of its aggressive actions from reaching enough of its customers and competitors to do it serious damage. This is to overlook the role of the news media in a laissez-faire society.
"As a test, take the front page of any metropolitan daily and count the headlines which have nothing at all to do with any government—national, state, or local. Unless there has just been some natural disaster, you will probably find no more than two or three, sometimes none. Newsmen must write about something, since that's how they make their living. If there were no government, they would have to shift their emphasis to the doings of outstanding individuals, business, and industry. Not only inventions and medical and scientific discoveries would be news, so would any aggression or fraud, especially when committed by large and well-known companies. Its very hard to hide things from hotly competing newspapermen looking for a 'scoop,' not to mention the representatives of radio, television, movies, magazines, and the wire services. In a laissez-faire society, where there was no government to claim the lion's share of the spotlight, it would be considerably more difficult to keep any departure from integrity hidden."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"[In a free market, b]usinesses whose products were potentially dangerous to consumers would be especially dependent on a good reputation. Drug manufacturers, for example, would know that if their products caused any illness or death through poor quality, insufficient research and preparation, or inadequate warnings on the labels they would lose customers by the thousands. The good reputation of a manufacturer's brand name would be its most precious asset, an asset which no firm would knowingly risk. Besides this, drug stores would strive for a reputation of stocking only products which were high quality, safe when properly used, and adequately labeled. In place of the present inflexible, cumbersome, and expensive prescription system, they might employ pharmacists for the sole purpose of advising customers who wanted to know which medicines to take (and not to take) and whether their ailments were serious enough to require the attention of a physician (a practice which would take a great load of minor complaints off the shoulders of overworked doctors and sharply reduce the cost of medical service).
"A good reputation would also be important to doctors in the absence of government-required licensing. Of course, any man would be free to hang out a shingle and call himself a doctor, but a man whose 'treatments' harmed his patients couldn't stay in business long. Besides, reputable physicians would probably form medical organizations which would only sanction competent doctors, thereby providing consumers with a guide. Insurance companies, who have a vested interest in keeping their policyholders alive and healthy, would provide another safeguard in the field of drugs and medical care. Insurance companies might well charge lower rates on life and health insurance to policyholders who contracted to use only those medicines and to patronize only those doctors sanctioned by a reputable medical association. This free-market system of consumer protection would end the doctor shortage and drastically reduce the cost of most medical care, since anyone could practice medicine in any area in which he was competent, regardless of the number of years he'd spend in college (or not spent in college, as the case might be). A brain surgeon might require 12 years of formal training, while a doctor who treated colds, flu, and ingrown toenails might need only 2—or none. The free-market system wouldn't commit the absurdity of requiring the same basic training for the colds-and-ingrowntoenails man as for the brain surgeon, thereby putting their fees on nearly the same level.
"The efficiency of these free-market safeguards contrasts sharply with the way the Food and Drug Administration 'protects' us. The FDA doesn't want anyone to be killed by *drugs* (that would look bad for the FDA's record). But they don't care how many people die of *diseases* because governmental restrictions prevented the development and sale of curative drugs . . . those deaths can't be blamed on the FDA, effectively (yet). Insurance companies, on the other hand, are deeply concerned with keeping their policyholders from dying for any reason at all. They would, therefore, not only discourage the use of harmful medications, but they would also encourage the discovery and development and sale of helpful ones."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Also, government investments are notably wasteful and counterproductive. For example, the U. S. Government once formed an Abaca Production and Sales bureau to take over the growing of hemp in four Central American countries, on the theory that hemp, which is used for the manufacture of rope, was vitally strategic. But this government-produced hemp was of such inferior quality that it couldn't be sold, even to the Government's own rope factory. To get out of its embarrassment, Abaca Production and Sales sold the worthless hemp to another Government agency, the Strategic Stockpile. The hemp was then stored, at taxpayers' expense, in specially built warehouses. Each year the previour year's crop was shoveled out and destroyed to make room to store the new crop. Total loss to the taxpayers averaged $3 million a year."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"A laissez-faire society is not a Utopia in which the initiation of violence is impossible. Rather, it is a society which does not *institutionalize* the initiation of force and in which there are means for dealing with aggression justly when it does occur.
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Not only does government regulation prevent enterprising individuals from going into business for themselves, it also helps freeze many employees into an 8-to-5 grind unnecessarily. There are a large and increasing number of jobs in our automated world which require, not that a specified set of hours be put in at an office, but that a certain amount of work be accomplished, regardless of how long it takes or where it is done. As long as an employee in this kind of job gets his work done, it shouldn't matter to the company if he does it in one hour a day and works only in his own kitchen between the hours of 2 and 3 a.m. And yet, employers, caught in the fascism of government regulation and red tape, become increasingly inflexible and insist that employees put in an 8-hour day, even if five of those hours are spent sitting at a desk doing nothing but trying to look busy. Without government regulation, businesses would be freer to innovate and would have to compete harder for labor, due to the economic boom created by freedom. This would mean much less rigid working conditions for employees."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
My problem with this book is how its often so conclusory without giving reasons. This work week inflexibility is a very strong point if its conclusion is true, but what laws/regulations explain this conclusion?
"It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But such vigilance is a constant non-productive expenditure of energy, and it is grossly unreasonable to expect men to keep expending their energy non-productively out of 'unselfish idealism.' There is no area of the free market which requires the constant vigilance of the entire population to keep it from going awry. We would all be shocked and indignant if we were admonished to give such attentions to, say, the dairy industry in order to have our milk delivered unsour."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Government has always been a ball-and-chain holding back human progress and welfare. This shackle was bad enough in primitive times when life was relatively simple. In a complex society with a complex technology and nuclear weapons, it is suicidal idiocy. Government is simply inadequate to the complexities of modern
life, a fact which is becoming increasingly apparent in the blundering ineptitude of governmental "solutions" to social problems, the perennial confusion and contradictions in governmental policies, and the successive breakdown of governmental programs. Government, at best, is a primitive anachronism which the human race outgrew somewhere around the time when men moved out of their caves, and which we should have dispensed with long ago."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"It has been objected that a very large firm could afford to use force and fraud to at least a limited extent, because the breadth of its market would prevent the news of its aggressive actions from reaching enough of its customers and competitors to do it serious damage. This is to overlook the role of the news media in a laissez-faire society.
"As a test, take the front page of any metropolitan daily and count the headlines which have nothing at all to do with any government—national, state, or local. Unless there has just been some natural disaster, you will probably find no more than two or three, sometimes none. Newsmen must write about something, since that's how they make their living. If there were no government, they would have to shift their emphasis to the doings of outstanding individuals, business, and industry. Not only inventions and medical and scientific discoveries would be news, so would any aggression or fraud, especially when committed by large and well-known companies. Its very hard to hide things from hotly competing newspapermen looking for a 'scoop,' not to mention the representatives of radio, television, movies, magazines, and the wire services. In a laissez-faire society, where there was no government to claim the lion's share of the spotlight, it would be considerably more difficult to keep any departure from integrity hidden."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"[In a free market, b]usinesses whose products were potentially dangerous to consumers would be especially dependent on a good reputation. Drug manufacturers, for example, would know that if their products caused any illness or death through poor quality, insufficient research and preparation, or inadequate warnings on the labels they would lose customers by the thousands. The good reputation of a manufacturer's brand name would be its most precious asset, an asset which no firm would knowingly risk. Besides this, drug stores would strive for a reputation of stocking only products which were high quality, safe when properly used, and adequately labeled. In place of the present inflexible, cumbersome, and expensive prescription system, they might employ pharmacists for the sole purpose of advising customers who wanted to know which medicines to take (and not to take) and whether their ailments were serious enough to require the attention of a physician (a practice which would take a great load of minor complaints off the shoulders of overworked doctors and sharply reduce the cost of medical service).
"A good reputation would also be important to doctors in the absence of government-required licensing. Of course, any man would be free to hang out a shingle and call himself a doctor, but a man whose 'treatments' harmed his patients couldn't stay in business long. Besides, reputable physicians would probably form medical organizations which would only sanction competent doctors, thereby providing consumers with a guide. Insurance companies, who have a vested interest in keeping their policyholders alive and healthy, would provide another safeguard in the field of drugs and medical care. Insurance companies might well charge lower rates on life and health insurance to policyholders who contracted to use only those medicines and to patronize only those doctors sanctioned by a reputable medical association. This free-market system of consumer protection would end the doctor shortage and drastically reduce the cost of most medical care, since anyone could practice medicine in any area in which he was competent, regardless of the number of years he'd spend in college (or not spent in college, as the case might be). A brain surgeon might require 12 years of formal training, while a doctor who treated colds, flu, and ingrown toenails might need only 2—or none. The free-market system wouldn't commit the absurdity of requiring the same basic training for the colds-and-ingrowntoenails man as for the brain surgeon, thereby putting their fees on nearly the same level.
"The efficiency of these free-market safeguards contrasts sharply with the way the Food and Drug Administration 'protects' us. The FDA doesn't want anyone to be killed by *drugs* (that would look bad for the FDA's record). But they don't care how many people die of *diseases* because governmental restrictions prevented the development and sale of curative drugs . . . those deaths can't be blamed on the FDA, effectively (yet). Insurance companies, on the other hand, are deeply concerned with keeping their policyholders from dying for any reason at all. They would, therefore, not only discourage the use of harmful medications, but they would also encourage the discovery and development and sale of helpful ones."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
"Also, government investments are notably wasteful and counterproductive. For example, the U. S. Government once formed an Abaca Production and Sales bureau to take over the growing of hemp in four Central American countries, on the theory that hemp, which is used for the manufacture of rope, was vitally strategic. But this government-produced hemp was of such inferior quality that it couldn't be sold, even to the Government's own rope factory. To get out of its embarrassment, Abaca Production and Sales sold the worthless hemp to another Government agency, the Strategic Stockpile. The hemp was then stored, at taxpayers' expense, in specially built warehouses. Each year the previour year's crop was shoveled out and destroyed to make room to store the new crop. Total loss to the taxpayers averaged $3 million a year."
-Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty
May 14, 2024
Excellent. A layman’s Rothbard before their time. 50+ years old and still as relevant as ever.
August 26, 2018
Though I am far from an anrchist, I am drawn to the ideas of economic liberty as a remedy to our largely unnecessary and gluttonous modern government. From socialist nations to our own crony capitalist nation, there is no doubt that the larger the government the fewer the freedoms of its people, and the fewer freedoms the larger the chances of poverty and oppression. This book nails this. It goes too far for my taste in the anarchist camp - much too far - but my minarchist sensibilities enjoyed this thought experiment very much. This should find its place beside any Hayek, Hazlitt, Paul, or Mises tome on economic prosperity.
August 3, 2022
Government is not a necessary evil, but an unnecessary one. There is absolutely no need for this group of trans-generational criminal gangs pretending to take care of us or have our best interest. I KNOW, (the word know emphasized), that when man is left alone he will make absolute best of his existence. I know this because when i was a child I never did anything to the best of my abilities when i was forced but rather I over-archieved when I did the same thing out of my own desire. My mom realized that and never forced me to do anything rather she either allowed me to do when i wanted to or she would use a requesting language instead of a commanding one.
When u hear person say that he/she doesn't like his/her country, if u ask the person that "is it your country that you don't like or do you dislike the leaders of the country?" Irrespective of wherever they come from they all said they hate the leaders. It's high time we got raid of governments by withdrawing our individual support from it and started our own individual journey towards self-reliance. I sincerely believe everything bad, evil and criminal is done by the government to put fear into the people who in tend demand for more governmenting.
When u hear person say that he/she doesn't like his/her country, if u ask the person that "is it your country that you don't like or do you dislike the leaders of the country?" Irrespective of wherever they come from they all said they hate the leaders. It's high time we got raid of governments by withdrawing our individual support from it and started our own individual journey towards self-reliance. I sincerely believe everything bad, evil and criminal is done by the government to put fear into the people who in tend demand for more governmenting.
January 26, 2019
The book explains why government is immoral and unnecessary and how a free society would function without it in different areas, especially focusing on those where most people considers it necessary (even if a necessary evil). It does this in a passionate way and my feeling is that it can win over minds that are open to being persuaded and lean towards liberty as a value.
I couldn't help but make the comparison with David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, the book that won me over to "the cause". Friedman's book is more pragmatic in the sense that it goes into more technical details (on how defense agencies would work, for example) while this book elaborates more on the philosophical and ethical case. At the same time it doesn't shy away from real-world examples and thinking about how state-funded institutions could be replaced or abolished and how the world would function without them.
It's definitely a very good first book to read for people interested in anarchism (though that word has unfortunately been tainted and is mostly associated with car-burning hoodlums) who want to be challenged in their belief in the necessity of the State.
I couldn't help but make the comparison with David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, the book that won me over to "the cause". Friedman's book is more pragmatic in the sense that it goes into more technical details (on how defense agencies would work, for example) while this book elaborates more on the philosophical and ethical case. At the same time it doesn't shy away from real-world examples and thinking about how state-funded institutions could be replaced or abolished and how the world would function without them.
It's definitely a very good first book to read for people interested in anarchism (though that word has unfortunately been tainted and is mostly associated with car-burning hoodlums) who want to be challenged in their belief in the necessity of the State.
October 19, 2020
Buen libro introductorio sobre anarcocapitalismo, lo recomendaría más que todo para iniciar a las ideas ya que explica muy bien y plantea cuál es el problema actual con respecto a la existencia del Estado y ofrece varios planteamientos y respuestas a cómo se podrían resolver varios problemas o cómo se sustituirían muchas de las funciones que actualmente se le asocian al Estado, una parte bastante interesantes es la propuesta de múltiples aseguradoras y agencias de seguridad para evitar conflictos y exista un resurgimiento del Estado.
Lo único flojo son las fuentes que usa de respaldo para las hipótesis que se plantean en este libro y por ese detalle no lo recomendaría como fuente para desarrollos más riguroso sobre la materia como libros como el de Bruce Benson sobre la justicia privada o Michael Huemer sobre el problema de la autoridad política, que ambos tienen muchísimas fuentes que sustentan argumentos similares a lo que ofrece el libro de los Tannehill.
Lo único flojo son las fuentes que usa de respaldo para las hipótesis que se plantean en este libro y por ese detalle no lo recomendaría como fuente para desarrollos más riguroso sobre la materia como libros como el de Bruce Benson sobre la justicia privada o Michael Huemer sobre el problema de la autoridad política, que ambos tienen muchísimas fuentes que sustentan argumentos similares a lo que ofrece el libro de los Tannehill.
December 25, 2022
It sounds like it preaches to the choir.
The defence against some of the objections to anarchocapitalism, such as who provides the security, or how to defend from monopolies, contain a fair share of handwaving.
Security would be provided by insurance companies and private protection agancies. What about those who cannot afford the insurance, because they are at high risk (eg. they live near the border of an hostile state, or in a neighborhood home of a Mafia family)?
They say that monopolies are impossible, because in a free market with unregulated entry there will always be competition. But in most industries the larger firms can lower the costs and outbit the smaller one, leading to more and more concentration. What happens when a protection agency reaches monopoly status?
The defence against some of the objections to anarchocapitalism, such as who provides the security, or how to defend from monopolies, contain a fair share of handwaving.
Security would be provided by insurance companies and private protection agancies. What about those who cannot afford the insurance, because they are at high risk (eg. they live near the border of an hostile state, or in a neighborhood home of a Mafia family)?
They say that monopolies are impossible, because in a free market with unregulated entry there will always be competition. But in most industries the larger firms can lower the costs and outbit the smaller one, leading to more and more concentration. What happens when a protection agency reaches monopoly status?
October 16, 2017
In the beginning of The Market for Liberty, I enjoyed reading the Anarcho-Capitalist response to the ethical criticisms that fall upon capitalism in its purest form in a philosophical manner. The book also cleared up some of the questions I have had about how such a society the Tannehills proposed.
Great read for those new to libertarian thought 9/10
Great read for those new to libertarian thought 9/10
November 1, 2017
Great book. But damn, I get it, you guys are atheists. Which I'm perfectly fine with. But the little jabs at religion? Made the authors sound arrogant.
April 24, 2019
I'm all for limiting government, but this author approaches the virtues of laissez faire society almost as a religion. Many of the concepts he proposes are nothing less than naive.
May 12, 2012
I had conflicting feelings about this book during my reading. It provides a framework for how society may function in the absence of government, which they describe as a laissez faire society. The concepts are not challenging for one who has already taken the time to consider how elements of society would function. There were some new ideas for me - specifically with regard to the role of insurance and private defense forces. They also venture into the hard-to-conceive realm of how society might evolve from its current state into a stateless one. I have two general complaints:
1. They are overly specific in how society would order itself. Perhaps this is necessary to give the reader possibilities and provide a mework for visualizing a stateless society. But it is important to note that none of us can model a stateless society for the same reason none of us can centrally plan society through the state.
2. The book is short, so I probably shouldn't expect this, but the difficult questions of a stateless society aren't addressed. In fact, they paint a picture that is a little too perfect for me. There are areas where libertarian philosophy is currently lacking. In my opinion, such issues as dispersed pollution (pollution that is inherently an external cost to the polluter, such as air pollution), animal rights and conservation, transmission of microbial toxins and virus'. These are difficult issues for which I have trouble visualizing natural market regulation, even though I don't think the state can provide anything better. However, for one who still can't get past the absence of public roads, armies, and fire departments, this book is for you.
The book is great, I think, for anyone who needs a little perspective to visualize how society can function without government - at least with regard to most societal functions. It is a good starting point to start conceptualizing various potential market mechanisms to address problems. It is amazing that this book was written, as far as I can tell, by seeming unknown authors, about whom I can find almost nothing, except a vague indication that they evolved from Nazi associations into libertarianism/anarchism, and thence to some sort of cult. This is even more amazing because I am certain, after reading this book, that is has influenced many authors I've read or listened to previously, including Molyneux, Jeffrey Tucker, and others. Who in the world were the Tannehills?
1. They are overly specific in how society would order itself. Perhaps this is necessary to give the reader possibilities and provide a mework for visualizing a stateless society. But it is important to note that none of us can model a stateless society for the same reason none of us can centrally plan society through the state.
2. The book is short, so I probably shouldn't expect this, but the difficult questions of a stateless society aren't addressed. In fact, they paint a picture that is a little too perfect for me. There are areas where libertarian philosophy is currently lacking. In my opinion, such issues as dispersed pollution (pollution that is inherently an external cost to the polluter, such as air pollution), animal rights and conservation, transmission of microbial toxins and virus'. These are difficult issues for which I have trouble visualizing natural market regulation, even though I don't think the state can provide anything better. However, for one who still can't get past the absence of public roads, armies, and fire departments, this book is for you.
The book is great, I think, for anyone who needs a little perspective to visualize how society can function without government - at least with regard to most societal functions. It is a good starting point to start conceptualizing various potential market mechanisms to address problems. It is amazing that this book was written, as far as I can tell, by seeming unknown authors, about whom I can find almost nothing, except a vague indication that they evolved from Nazi associations into libertarianism/anarchism, and thence to some sort of cult. This is even more amazing because I am certain, after reading this book, that is has influenced many authors I've read or listened to previously, including Molyneux, Jeffrey Tucker, and others. Who in the world were the Tannehills?
December 29, 2012
Originally I was going to rate this four stars for the sheer fact that it went into Randian ethics and the fact that it's speculation as to how an anarcho-capitalist society MIGHT work. However, reading it, I was very satisfied at the end. It provides some interesting alternative explanations than many other anarcho-capitalist books. The most interesting, and possibly my favorite, is how we would deal with getting rid of public property. Instead of leaving it up for all the rich and corporations, he offers a good alternative. Ha, you thought I was going to tell you?! No, read the book. It is a good read for an introduction to anarcho-capitalism and how it might work. The biggest difficulty in writing a book like this is trying to predict what the markets may bring but all things equal, I find this explanation very practical.
Edit: I have just finished The Problem of Political Authority by Professor Huemer. In light of the recent read, I've decided to knock this down two stars. It was a good book, but relative to its current competition, I must say, it does not come close to The Problem of Political Authority.
If you are interested in anarcho-capitalism, read The Problem of Political Authority. While the Tannehill's book is pretty good, it just does not contain the same effective arguments that Dr. Huemer has implemented in his book.
Edit: I have just finished The Problem of Political Authority by Professor Huemer. In light of the recent read, I've decided to knock this down two stars. It was a good book, but relative to its current competition, I must say, it does not come close to The Problem of Political Authority.
If you are interested in anarcho-capitalism, read The Problem of Political Authority. While the Tannehill's book is pretty good, it just does not contain the same effective arguments that Dr. Huemer has implemented in his book.
April 15, 2012
Wikipedia has links to online text and audio versions. I read this so long ago, but it did make an impression on me then. Basically, the state gets replaced by a hyper developed insurance industry. It's not obviously impossible, but not obviously practical, either. I think I had not read enough Hayek before reading this, so I didn't know he would probably compare it to the "constructivist rationalism" he criticized among the socialist thinkers of his time. I think the book predates Friedman's Machinery of Freedom and Rothbard's For a New Liberty, though the general ideas are probably older than any of these presentations.
December 22, 2015
Government, the unnecessary evil.
Based on Rand's ethics, while rejecting her politics, Tannehills paint a picture of a pure laissez-faire society. Piece by piece, they shows how government functions can be supplied by the free market - without any of the inefficiencies and injustices of imposed regulation. The chapter on how free markets cope with the free-rider problem by including insurance costs in broad prices is particularly insightful, and the book worth reading for it alone.
A concise, well written text, I think this is probably the best book to recommend to people hiding behind the "this would never work" argument.
Based on Rand's ethics, while rejecting her politics, Tannehills paint a picture of a pure laissez-faire society. Piece by piece, they shows how government functions can be supplied by the free market - without any of the inefficiencies and injustices of imposed regulation. The chapter on how free markets cope with the free-rider problem by including insurance costs in broad prices is particularly insightful, and the book worth reading for it alone.
A concise, well written text, I think this is probably the best book to recommend to people hiding behind the "this would never work" argument.
October 15, 2015
The Market for Liberty focuses on a laissez-faire society. The authors view government as an unnecessary evil, a coercive monopoly, that only reduces the quality of life for everyone. It reduces quality by misallocating resources. A free market society would be based on property rights and objective/natural law. This law is primarily the idea of not applying aggression to others.
Overall, an interesting read that makes you think and reevaluate our current governmental system.
Overall, an interesting read that makes you think and reevaluate our current governmental system.
January 6, 2009
This is my favorite in the genre of libertarian primers, strong on principle while sold on practical application as well.
January 5, 2011
This book laid out a very convincing case that a voluntary society could be possible.
June 29, 2009
This book is kind of interesting. It does do a good job in pointing out failures of government and offering alternatives.
Read
September 23, 2010Market for Liberty by Morris Tannehill (1993)
September 2, 2014
Ludzie wolni, sami regulują rynek dostosowując się do zasady moralnej: Nie czyń drugiemu co Tobie nie miłe.
June 14, 2020
It might theoretically work...
Read
March 6, 2019Certainly a thought-provoking read, especially when read now, 40 years later, with the promises of blockchain and crypto in mind.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews