Read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard Online


A classic that for over two decades has been hailed as the best general work on libertarianism available. Rothbard begins with a quick overview of its historical roots, and then goes on to define libertarianism as resting "upon one single axiom: that no man or group of men shall aggress upon the person or property of anyone else." He writes a withering critique of the chieA classic that for over two decades has been hailed as the best general work on libertarianism available. Rothbard begins with a quick overview of its historical roots, and then goes on to define libertarianism as resting "upon one single axiom: that no man or group of men shall aggress upon the person or property of anyone else." He writes a withering critique of the chief violator of liberty: the State. Rothbard then provides penetrating libertarian solutions for many of today's most pressing problems, including poverty, war, threats to civil liberties, the education crisis, and more....

Title : For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780020746904
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 338 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto Reviews

  • 0spinboson
    2019-01-16 23:12

    A facile argument that attempts to borrow authority from Locke and the natural rights tradition.Interestingly, what is wrong about this book is fairly easily summarized. On p.38, he quotes from one of Locke's treatises on government:. . . every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to.Now, what is interesting is not that he is quoting Locke (or the natural rights tradition, flawed as it is, more generally), or what he is quoting from Locke, but rather what Rothbard is omitting. Consider the full paragraph, which runs as follows:Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.See what is left out? It is basically because of this omission that Rothbard can make his case at all (ignoring the fact that the rest of the book is filled to the brim with false dichotomies and other kinds of sloppy argumentation). Because most if not all of the rest of his argument rests on the twin assumptions that a. a society is just only if there exist private property rights, and b. these rights are necessarily absolute, which these omissions -- concerning the absolute nature of this status, and property rights as an organizing principle more generally -- are explicitly meant as checks against.

  • Robert Taylor
    2018-12-31 22:49

    The level of radical thought in this book is so exciting, I literally read all 419 pages in a personal record of 5 days. In the book, Rothbard hones in all the pieces connecting the modern Libertarian movement (as of 1972 when the book was first published at least) and the most striking thing was the consistency of the logic. It's solid. That's not to say that it shouldn't open to scrutiny, but that's precisely what Rothbard expects, and it gets me eager to catch up on the 35+ years of scholarship that's followed his manifesto, as well as specific predecessors that he used as examples.The most important and most amazing parts of his book are how he explains most of the aggression and economic woes that we're experiencing today. It's not that he's a magician with a window into the future. It's that he understands the ultimate unattainable utopianism of supporters of stateism. From government bailouts to war quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan, Rothbard not only predicts them, but explains why they are occurring, and the inevitable failure that can come from them, because it's the only logical conclusion.The concepts espoused in For a New Liberty are gathered and encapsulated in virtual perfection by Rothbard, to expose a new generation of the world that could be. It is so fierce, unapologetic and unrelenting in its logic, that this book, more than any I've ever read, makes me want to hold it as tight to my breast as possible, while raising my other arm and proclaiming Vive La Liberte!

  • Jakub Maly
    2018-12-24 18:56

    Words like liberal, conservative, left and right were twisted, distorted and deformed in such a manner that their meaning is kind of lost. Rothbard explains the values of libertarianism - so in this book you will find not only Rothbard's views on money, banking, FED and gold standard - which are leading topics of the majority of his work - but also on many other fields of the organization of a human society. Rothbard defends liberty, property rights and gives a thorough description of functioning of a society built upon few simple principles. This kind of an "axiomatic" way is innovative and refreshing compared to that of main stream politicians, whose claims and policies contradict the common sense and sometimes even themselves. The book can be downloaded for free at Ludvig von Mises Institute's website ( in PDF and also as audiobook in MP3 - I strongly recommend reading it to everyone.

  • Clinton
    2019-01-03 19:15

    For A New Liberty systematically exemplifies the philosophical theory of libertarianism while categorically denouncing the destructive violent and coercive nature of government. The existence of government is preposterous given it is the only entity that enjoys the monopolistic legal use of violence and coercion and obtain revenue without voluntary exchange by some arbitrary decree. Rothbard brilliantly chronicles the nascent of libertarianism while in addition to explaining the philosophy of the libertarian creed in establishing free markets, personal liberty and property rights, yet government intervention continually disrupts voluntary action and exchange thus acting as a combative to individualism. All societal problems originate from government intervention, so Rothbard applies the libertarian creed as a remedy.The American Revolution sparked the greatest event to libertarianism but commenced by the French and English Revolutionaries before it. The fundamental axiom to the libertarian creed is “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” The non aggression axiom is naturally amended to property rights for individual ownership. The most important aspect of the market economy is voluntary exchange for mutual benefit; thus, any exchange not agreed upon by means of violence or coercion violates the libertarian creed, so the state is the eternally superior and most organized aggressor of all persons and property. It's rulers and operators are held above moral law where criminal activity is cloaked by rhetoric. For centuries murder has been called war, and slavery has been called conscription, and theft has been called taxation.Every problem of society inscribes the failure of government, for every application of the libertarian creed would bring increased social and economic cooperation, and each solution is as important as the next, but there were some standouts. The chapter on inflation and the business cycle is the crowning jewel of the book, for without the power to inflate the money supply, government is powerless if expenditures are not expanding particularly by war. Honorable mention goes to the chapters on war and foreign policy along with police protection, the law and courts. For A New Liberty naturally stimulates discussion for the prospect of absolute freedom and the abolition of government. Rothbard unequivocally postulates logical and rational arguments supplemented by an plethora of examples. For A New Liberty describes an alternative means how individuals could interact in an completely non aggression society. Lastly, Rothbard was known as the "State’s Greatest Living Enemy,” for this manifesto leaves no doubt as to why.

  • Scott Templeman
    2019-01-09 23:01

    Had been debating a foray into this book for a while, as I have saturated myself thoroughly with Libertarian reading the past few years and really wondered if I wasn't going to just rehash ideas I am well familiar with. That being said I was floored by this book. While I was certainly part of the choir being preached to, Rothbard has an incredible ability to make you reanalyze seemingly mundane standards and precedents and recognize now-glaring inconsistencies in logic/philosophy. His rhetoric is among the best I have read in recent times, and his arguments all come packed with preemptive counterarguments and relevant history. Rothbard is extremely unique, and indeed prophetic in many elements highlighting the issues in this country. One could read through this book and disagree with his entire philosophy the whole way, but if you didn't learn anything that made you question the value of the status quo, you didn't actually read it (particularly when you note the further decline since the writing of this book and his key criticisms of the US's direction). While this book is often recommended as a first step in exploring Libertarian philosophy, I would recommend reading some of the previous thought leaders & economists and then reaching this book (as I did). You will appreciate just how unique it shines from others, while admiring how it synthesizes the key elements that bind a highly diverse political philosophy

  • Void lon iXaarii
    2019-01-17 21:10

    Though I was familiar with some of the libertarian views before starting the book, I had doubts about the feasibility of others... doubts which this book managed to address, and much more than that. The author describes in a rigorous and logical way a world which is even more amazing than I could imagine. I was very very impressed by this book. I also liked that the focus was not on complaining on how twisted our present state is, but on presenting the solution... and a fantastic one at that. One of individual freedom, social peace and prosperity. I must admit I'm often tempted to the more utilitarian side of the argument, but I can't help but wholly admire and be drawn to the authors more principled view, who puts freedom and right of personal ownership way above any other social principles... and yet manages to prove that a world like that would be beneficial to us all and not the anarchic dangerous wild west that many imagine. We need more people like this! For myself I must admit I often am amazed at how blessed we are to be living in a world in which the utilitarian and principled/moral views lead to the same optimal solution. It didn't have to be like that (and indeed many tragedies in history have been caused by reasonable hypothesizing that it isn't)... and yet it is! What an amazing world we live in!

  • Sean Rosenthal
    2019-01-01 21:08

    Interesting Quotes:"The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes . . . The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the 'democratic' State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"Take, for example, the liberal socialist who advocates government ownership of all the 'means of production' while upholding the 'human' right of freedom of speech or press. How is this “human” right to be exercised if the individuals constituting the public are denied their right to ownership of property? If, for example, the government owns all the newsprint and all the printing shops, how is the right to a free press to be exercised? If the government owns all the newsprint, it then necessarily has the right and the power to allocate that newsprint, and someone’s 'right to a free press' becomes a mockery if the government decides not to allocate newsprint in his direction. And since the government must allocate scarce newsprint in some way, the right to a free press of, say, minorities or 'subversive' antisocialists will get short shrift indeed. The same is true for the 'right to free speech' if the government owns all the assembly halls, and therefore allocates those halls as it sees fit. Or, for example, if the government of Soviet Russia, being atheistic, decides not to allocate many scarce resources to the production of matzohs, for Orthodox Jews the 'freedom of religion' becomes a mockery; but again, the Soviet government can always rebut that Orthodox Jews are a small minority and that capital equipment should not be diverted to matzoh production . . ."Property rights *are* human rights, and are essential to the human rights which liberals attempt to maintain. The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government’s own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government"-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"The law of libel, of course, discriminates in this way against the poor, since a person with few financial resources is scarcely as ready to carry on a costly libel suit as a person of affluent means. Furthermore, wealthy people can now use the libel laws as a club against poorer persons, restricting perfectly legitimate charges and utterances under the threat of sueing their poorer enemies for libel. Paradoxically, then, a person of limited resources is more apt to suffer from libel—and to have his own speech restricted—in the present system than he would in a world without any laws against libel or defamation."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"Every station is grievously restricted, and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates of the Federal Communications Commission. So every station must have 'balanced' programming, broadcast a certain amount of “public service” announcements, grant equal time to every political candidate for the same office and to expressions of political opinion, censor 'controversial' lyrics in the records it plays, etc. For many years, no station was allowed to broadcast any editorial opinion at all; now, every opinion must be balanced by 'responsible' editorial rebuttals . . ."The public has only put up with this situation because it has existed since the beginning of large-scale commercial radio. But what would we think, for example, if all newspapers were licensed, the licenses to be renewable by a Federal Press Commission, and with newspapers losing their licenses if they dare express an 'unfair' editorial opinion, or if they don’t give full weight to public service announcements? Would not this be an intolerable, not to say unconstitutional, destruction of the right to a free press? Or consider if all book publishers had to be licensed, and their licenses were not renewable if their book lists failed to suit a Federal Book Commission? Yet what we would all consider intolerable and totalitarian for the press and the book publishers is taken for granted in a medium which is now the most popular vehicle for expression and education: radio and television. Yet the principles in both cases are exactly the same."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty[Note: The Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine in 1969, but it was administratively repealed in 1987 and is no longer in effect.]---------------------------------------------------------------"The irony, of course, is that by forcing men to be 'moral'—i.e., to act morally—the conservative or liberal jailkeepers would in reality deprive men of the very possibility of being moral. The concept of 'morality' makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen. Suppose, for example, that someone is a devout Muslim who is anxious to have as many people as possible bow to Mecca three times a day; to him let us suppose this is the highest moral act. But if he wields coercion to force everyone to bow to Mecca, he is thereby depriving everyone of the opportunity to be moral—to choose freely to bow to Mecca. Coercion deprives a man of the freedom to choose and, therefore, of the possibility of choosing morally. The libertarian, in contrast to so many conservatives and liberals, does not want to place man in any cage. What he wants for everyone is freedom, the freedom to act morally or immorally, as each man shall decide."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"Violent acts such as rape, of course, are to be classed as crimes in the same way as any other act of violence against persons. Oddly enough, while voluntary sexual activities have often been rendered illegal and prosecuted by the State, accused rapists have been treated far more gently by the authorities than accused perpetrators of other forms of bodily assault. In many instances, in fact, the rape victim has been virtually treated as the guilty party by the law enforcement agencies—an attitude which is almost never taken toward victims of other crimes. Clearly, an impermissible sexual double standard has been at work . . ."The double standard imposed by government can be remedied by removing rape as a special category of legal and judicial treatment, and of subsuming it under the general law of bodily assault. Whatever standards are used for judges’ instructions to the jury, or for the admissibility of evidence, should be applied similarly in all these cases." -Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"There is no right more personal, no freedom more precious, than for any woman to decide to have, or not to have, a baby, and it is totalitarian in the extreme for any government to presume to deny her that right."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"There are few laws more absurd and iniquitous than the laws against gambling. In the first place, the law, in its broadest sense, is clearly unenforceable. If every time Jim and Jack made a quiet bet on a football game, or on an election, or on virtually anything else, this were illegal, an enormous multimillion-man gestapo would be required to enforce such a law and to spy on everyone and ferret out every bet. Another large super-espionage force would then be needed to spy on the spies to make sure that they have not been bought off. Conservatives like to retort to such arguments—used against laws outlawing sexual practices, pornography, drugs, etc.—that the prohibition against murder is not fully enforceable either, but this is no argument for repeal of that law. This argument, however, ignores a crucial point: the mass of the public, making an instinctive libertarian distinction, abhors and condemns murder and does not engage in it; hence, the prohibition becomes broadly enforceable. But the mass of the public is not as convinced of the criminality of gambling, hence continues to engage in it, and the law—properly—becomes unenforceable."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"The most ambitious attempt by the public school partisans to maximize their control over the nation’s children came in Oregon during the early 1920s. The state of Oregon, unhappy even with allowing private schools certified by the state, passed a law on November 7,1922, outlawing private schools and compelling all children to attend public school. Here was the culmination of the educationists’ dream. At last, all children were to be forced into the 'democratizing' mould of uniform education by the state authorities. The law, happily, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925). The Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State,' and asserted that the Oregon law clashed with the 'fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose.' "The public school fanatics never tried to go that far again. But it is instructive to realize what the forces were that attempted to outlaw all competing private education in the state of Oregon. For the spearheads of the law were not, as we might expect, liberal or progressive educators or intellectuals; the spearhead was the Ku Klux Klan, then strong in the northern states, which was eager to crush the Catholic parochial school system, and to force all Catholic and immigrant children into the neo-Protestantizing and 'Americanizing' force of the public school. The Klan, it is interesting to note, opined that such a law was necessary for the 'preservation of free institutions.' It is well to ponder that the much-vaunted 'progressive' and 'democratic' public school system had its most ardent supporters in the most bigoted byways of American life, among people anxious to stamp out diversity and variety in America."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"There is, in short, a break-even point of the price of a house beyond which a new family in a new house will more than pay for its children’s education in its property taxes. Families in homes below that cost level will not pay enough in property taxes to finance their children’s education and hence will throw a greater tax burden on the existing population of the suburb. Realizing this, suburbs have generally adopted rigorous zoning laws which prohibit the erection of housing below a minimum cost level—and thereby freeze out any inflow of poorer citizens. Since the proportion of Negro poor is far greater than white poor, this effectively also bars Negroes from joining the move to the suburbs. And since in recent years there has been an increasing shift of jobs and industry from the central city to the suburbs as well, the result is an increasing pressure of unemployment on the Negroes—a pressure which is bound to intensify as the job shift accelerates. The abolition of the public schools, and therefore of the school burden–property tax linkage, would go a long way toward removing zoning restrictions and ending the suburb as an upper middle-class-white preserve."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"New York City, for example, has suffered periodically from a water 'shortage.' Here is a situation where, for many years, the city government has had a compulsory monopoly of the supply of water to its citizens. Failing to supply enough water, and failing to price that water in such a way as to clear the market, to equate supply and demand (which private enterprise does automatically), New York’s response to water shortages has always been to blame not itself, but the consumer, whose sin has been to use 'too much' water. The city administration could only react by outlawing the sprinkling of lawns, restricting use of water, and demanding that people drink less water. In this way, government transfers its own failings to the scapegoat user, who is threatened and bludgeoned instead of being served well and efficiently . . . "In short, while the long-held motto of private enterprise is that 'the customer is always right,' the implicit maxim of government operation is that the customer is always to be blamed."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"In England before the eighteenth century, for example, roads, invariably owned and operated by local governments, were badly constructed and even more badly maintained. These public roads could never have supported the mighty Industrial Revolution that England experienced in the eighteenth century, the 'revolution' that ushered in the modern age. The vital task of improving the almost impassable English roads was performed by private turnpike companies, which, beginning in 1706, organized and established the great network of roads which made England the envy of the world. The owners of these private turnpike companies were generally landowners, merchants, and industrialists in the area being served by the road, and they recouped their costs by charging tolls at selected tollgates. Often the collection of tolls was leased out for a year or more to individuals selected by competitive bids at auction. It was these private roads that developed an internal market in England, and that greatly lowered the costs of transport of coal and other bulky material. And since it was mutually beneficial for them to do so, the turnpike companies linked up with each other to form an interconnected road network throughout the land—all a result of private enterprise in action."As in England, so in the United States a little later in time. Faced again with virtually impassable roads built by local governmental units, private companies built and financed a great turnpike network throughout the northeastern states, from approximately 1800 to 1830. Once again, private enterprise proved superior in road building and ownership to the backward operations of government. The roads were built and operated by private turnpike corporations, and tolls were charged to the users. Again, the turnpike companies were largely financed by merchants and property owners along the routes, and they voluntarily linked themselves into an interconnected network of roads. And these turnpikes constituted the first really good roads in the United States."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"[T]he entire law merchant was developed, not by the State or in State courts, but by private merchant courts. It was only much later that government took over mercantile law from its development in merchants’ courts. The same occurred with admiralty law, the entire structure of the law of the sea, shipping, salvages, etc. Here again, the State was not interested, and its jurisdiction did not apply to the high seas; so the shippers themselves took on the task of not only applying, but working out the whole structure of admiralty law in their own private courts. Again, it was only later that the government appropriated admiralty law into its own courts."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"It is particularly ironic that conservatives, at least in rhetoric supporters of a free-market economy, should be so complacent and even admiring of our vast military-industrial complex. There is no greater single distortion of the free market in present-day America. The bulk of our scientists and engineers has been diverted from basic research for civilian ends, from increasing productivity and the standard of living of consumers, into wasteful, inefficient, and nonproductive military and space boondoggles. These boondoggles are every bit as wasteful but infinitely more destructive than the vast pyramid building of the Pharaoh."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty---------------------------------------------------------------"I am convinced that the dark night of tyranny is ending, and that a new dawn of liberty is now at hand."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty------------------------------------------------------------------"Perhaps the best sign of all, the most favorable indication of the break-down down of the mystique of the American State, of its moral groundwork, was the Watergate exposures of 1973–1974. It is Watergate that gives us the greatest single hope for the short-run victory of liberty in America. For Watergate, as politicians have been warning us ever since, destroyed the public’s 'faith in government'—and it was high time, too. Watergate engendered a radical shift in the deep-seated attitudes of everyone—regardless of their explicit ideology—toward government itself. For in the first place, Watergate awakened everyone to the invasions of personal liberty and private property by government—to its bugging, drugging, wiretapping, mail covering, agents provocateurs—even assassinations. Watergate at last desanctified our previously sacrosanct FBI and CIA and caused them to be looked at clearly and coolly. But more important, by bringing about the impeachment of the President, Watergate permanently desanctified an office that had come to be virtually considered as sovereign by the American public. No longer will the President be considered above the law; no longer will the President be able to do no wrong."-Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty

  • John
    2019-01-07 17:47

    Typical Libertarian manifesto. Though in the solutions sections he never really did tell us how libertarians will take over the government and make it into what he thinks government should be. A couple of problems with some of his more interesting proposals. The police officers and the streets would be a disaster if people were allowed to each own their own street and their own police and their own courts and their own bridges...I'm a republican and happy that we have government to handle things like that. I don't think it's plausible. Another problem I have with libertarian doctrine is that he says the poor are poor because they are forced by the gov't to be poor. While many of the social programs do do this, that's not the ONLY reason that they are poor. In a libertarian society, the poor wouldn't be able to own their own houses either. That's why they are poor!!!!!!! They don't have any money for a reason!!! God forbid Gov't tries to help them out.The society proposed in this book would be highly unpredictable and unsustainable. He says that communism is way different than libertarians and that only communism is impossible. Yet, he doesn't see that a libertarian society, a different utopian society, is as impossible as communism. That being the case, I gave him two stars for effort, because most libertarians couldn't even imagine their own ideal society and do in fact often confuse it with communism.

  • J
    2019-01-08 01:13

    Pretty good as far as manifestos go. It felt really formulaic and dry, but managed to avoid that nagging, almost cultish creepiness that most manifestos seem to radiate. All things considered, I'd say it's a great introduction to Rothbardian libertarianism, or in other words, the "controversial" """""""anarcho""""""-capitalism". While I have my reservations of it's practicality and possibility here and there, the scorn and blind hatred levied against it by advocates of other political philosophies is so fervent as to border a realm equal parts annoying and absurdly comical.If you're dying to drink the kool-aid of an oddball yet fascinating political philosophy, drink up; this book's got you covered on the basics. If you want to read this to legitimize your hatred and scorn of anything daring the word "capitalism", furrow your eyebrows into a comfortable scowl and get cracking; the only solidarity these fuckers are getting is your pointed, Marxist rebuttals up the ass... or something like that anyway.

  • Ron Cooney
    2019-01-16 00:12

    If you're interested in Libertarianism, or in Libertarian thought, you do yourself a disservice by not reading this. While I don't agree with every word uttered by Rothbard, he makes a compelling and incisive argument against big government.For me, this book gave me a lot to think on and evaluate within my own views. He paints a picture of a purely Libertarian society, which allows the reader to understand the virtues and challenges it would face. The passion which he feels for liberty is tangible on every page, and makes this book (which could have been a very, very boring treatise) come alive.If you are interested in reading this, do it. There is also an audiobook version by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which can be found for free in Podcast form, if sitting down and reading this seems like too much of a commitment.

  • Heather
    2019-01-04 19:07

    This is a MUST-READ! This book explains the only way to have a TRULY free society without the contradictions and hypocrisy of both the right and the left. I've said for years that the only real difference between the Republicans and Democrats is WHICH big corporations they are in bed with and WHICH of our liberties they want to strip from us. This book details the reasons for this. The book was written in the late '70's, so some of the examples area dated, but the concepts still hold true. The only real problem was his prediction that T.V. would become better once we had choices in channels. . .

  • Daniel
    2019-01-02 21:55

    An important work for understanding libertarians in their own words. Read with caution.

  • Jeremy
    2019-01-12 21:06

    This book is mind-blowing. It’s like reading something completely, refreshingly new and yet innately familiar and comfortable. Rothbard is an expansively knowledgeable historian, a clear and concise economist, and a hopeful yet practical political philosopher. As I read, I was conflicted because half of me wanted to read slowly and savor each page, but the other half wanted to rush through and devour all the exciting information. This is one of those rare books you come across that just might change your life, or at least the way you think about it. Quotes:“The book is still regarded as dangerous precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way again.” Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.The new federal government formed by the Articles of Confederation was not permitted to levy any taxes upon the public; and any fundamental extension of its powers required unanimous consent by every state government.America, above all countries, was born in an explicitly libertarian revolution, a revolution against empire; against taxation, trade monopoly, and regulation; and against militarism and executive power.Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth—goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything—by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. It was a movement which could only fail, which indeed did fail miserably in those numerous countries where it attained power in the twentieth century, by bringing to the masses only unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding impoverishment.Whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise.The task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule, and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects.Either the land belongs to the first user, the man who first brings it into production; or it belongs to a group of others; or it belongs to the world as a whole, with every individual owning a quotal part of every acre of land.There is no existing entity called “society”; there are only interacting individuals.Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by “private” citizens.Only the government, in society, is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees.The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90 percent of the people decided to murder or enslave the other 10 percent, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority.There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain.Since the early origins of the State, its rulers have always turned, as a necessary bolster to their rule, to an alliance with society’s class of intellectuals.In the modern era, when theocratic arguments have lost much of their luster among the public, the intellectuals have posed as the scientific cadre of “experts” and have been busy informing the hapless public that political affairs, foreign and domestic, are much too complex for the average person to bother his head about.A thief who presumed to justify his theft by saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving retail trade a needed boost, would be hooted down without delay. But when this same theory is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it carries far more conviction with a bamboozled public.In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed.The earliest compulsory schooling in America was established by the Calvinist Puritans in Massachusetts Bay, those men who were so eager to plant an absolutist Calvinist theocracy in the New World.Thus, from the beginning of American history, the desire to mould, instruct, and render obedient the mass of the population was the major impetus behind the drive toward public schooling.Having no need to make profits and sheltered from the possibility of suffering losses, the bureaucrat can and does disregard the desires and demands of his consumer-customers.The “right” to schooling, to a job, three meals, etc., is then not embedded in the nature of man, but requires for its fulfillment the existence of a group of exploited people who are coerced into providing such a “right.”There is in fact increasing evidence that a vast amount of current schooling is not needed for productive employment.How much of the burgeoning of mass public schooling is a means by which employers foist the cost of training their workers upon the taxpayers at large?If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem.It is the rich who provide a proportionately greater amount of saving, investment capital, entrepreneurial foresight, and financing of technological innovation that has brought the United States to by far the highest standard of living—for the mass of the people—of any country in history. Soaking the rich would not only be profoundly immoral, it would drastically penalize the very virtues: thrift, business foresight, and investment, that have brought about our remarkable standard of living.Surely it is no accident that the current renaissance of Austrian economics has coincided with the phenomenon of stagflation and its consequent shattering of the Keynesian paradigm for all to see.For now the rulers of the State can simply create their own money and spend it or lend it out to their favorite allies.Just as the State arrogates to itself a monopoly power over legalized kidnapping and calls it conscription; just as it has acquired a monopoly over legalized robbery and calls it taxation; so, too, it has acquired the monopoly power to counterfeit and calls it increasing the supply of dollarsAfter a great deal of economic finagling and political arm-twisting to induce foreign governments not to exercise their right to redeem dollars in gold, the United States, in August 1971, declared national bankruptcy by repudiating its solemn contractual obligations and “closing the gold window.” It is no coincidence that this tossing off of the last vestige of gold restraint upon the governments of the world was followed by the double-digit inflation of 1973–1974, and by similar inflation in the rest of the world.So identified has the State become in the public mind with the provision of these services that an attack on State financing appears to many people as an attack on the service itself.There is no profit-and-loss mechanism in government to induce investment in efficient operations and to penalize and drive the inefficient or obsolete ones out of business. There are no profits or losses in government operations inducing either expansion or contraction of operations.The railroads had to consolidate; and in 1883 they agreed to consolidate the existing 54 time zones across the country into the four which we have today.The highways grant gross subsidies to the users and have played the major role in killing railroads as a viable enterprise.Being voluntary, furthermore, the rules of arbitration can be decided rapidly by the parties themselves, without the need for a ponderous, complex legal framework applicable to all citizens.For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice. ... There was no trace of State-administered justice.”At best there are only two parties, each one close to the other in ideology and personnel, often colluding, and the actual day-to-day business of government headed by a civil service bureaucracy that cannot be displaced by the voters. Contrast to these mythical checks and balances the real checks and balances provided by the free-market economy!Guerrilla warfare has proved to be an irresistible force precisely because it stems, not from a dictatorial central government, but from the people themselves, fighting for their liberty and independence against a foreign State.In Europe, where private ownership of forests is far more common, there is little complaint of destruction of timber resources. For wherever private property is allowed in the forest itself, it is to the benefit of the owner to preserve and restore tree growth while he is cutting timber, so as to avoid depletion of the forest’s capital value.With respect to the ocean, however, we are still in the primitive, unproductive hunting and gathering stage. Anyone can capture fish in the ocean, or extract its resources, but only on the run, only as hunters and gatherers. No one can farm the ocean, no one can engage in aquaculture. In this way we are deprived of the use of the immense fish and mineral resources of the seas… If private property in parts of the ocean were permitted, a vast flowering of aquaculture would create and multiply ocean resources in numerous ways we cannot now even foresee.The argument that such an injunctive prohibition against pollution would add to the costs of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing cotton, and that therefore abolition, however morally correct, was “impractical.”In the field of strategic thinking, it behooves libertarians to heed the lessons of the Marxists, because they have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any other group.The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.Ever since the acceleration of statism at the turn of the twentieth century, big businessmen have been using the great powers of State contracts, subsidies and cartelization to carve out privileges for themselves at the expense of the rest of the society.Only liberty can achieve man’s prosperity, fulfillment, and happiness. In short, libertarianism will win because it is true, because it is the correct policy for mankind, and truth will eventually win out.Lord Keynes once scoffed at criticisms by free-market economists that his inflationist policies would be ruinous in the long run; in his famous reply, he chortled that “in the long run we are all dead.” But now Keynes is dead and we are alive, living in his long run. The statist chickens have come home to roost.Libertarians are squarely in the great classical-liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy. Libertarians are the only genuine current heirs of Jefferson, Paine, Jackson, and the abolitionists.All other theories and systems have clearly failed: socialism is in retreat everywhere, and notably in Eastern Europe; liberalism has bogged us down in a host of insoluble problems; conservatism has nothing to offer but sterile defense of the status quo. Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind.

  • AhmadEbaid
    2019-01-16 22:48

    "نحو حرية جديدة، مانيفستو الليبرتارية، أو البيان التحرري"يقول هانز هيرمان هوبه، بأنه لولا "موراي روثبورد" لما كان هنالك "أناركية رأسمالية" أو "لاسلطوية رأسمالية"أفكار روثبورد كانت مؤثرة وعميقة الأثر على المدرسة الرأسمالية التحررية ككل، واليمينية منها على الأخصلم يتم تبني الكثير من أفكاره المنبثقة بالضرورة عن مدرسته الاقتصادية، كالأفكار التي استعرضتها في المراجعة المبدئية لكتاب "ماذا فعلت الحكومة بأموالنا"ولكن كان لأفكاره المعادية لما تبقى من سلطة الحكومة، عظيم الأثر في لفت أنظارنا لبعض فساد النظام المالي الحالي، وعقم البنوك المركزيةالكتاب يعتبر الشارح الأعظم لفكر "موراي روثبورد" التحرري بالكامل، وأتمنى إني ألاقي له وقت للقراءة وسط جدولي المزدحم

  • Daniel Moss
    2018-12-29 21:15

    Rothbard's arguments in favor of abortion aren't acceptable to me but outside of that - this book absolutely nails down the rules that should lay the foundation for a pluralistic and civil society.

  • Kashiari
    2019-01-16 20:01

    That was a great read. I really liked things like pleasant style, clarity and solid and coherent logical arguments that were not limited to abstract thesis, but were elegantly supported by contemporary and historical facts. Things like system of private roads, large stateless societies and other libertarian wishes (which I thought that are supported by anarcho-capitalits, because of a priori assumption that they will be good) apparently did exist in a past, working well. I was already a minarchist while I started the book and Rothbard persuade me that some a-cap ideas might actually work.But enough of this. When I write a review I prefer pointing flaws.So here they are:1) Private property problems.Rothabard states that doing work on something transfers free nature good in a private good. So somebody found a big island. He knows that it won't be long till others will find it too and he want to claim it whole. He doesn't have time to do anything really meaningful so he put litter everywhere and says that it is his now, because he transferred it with his work. Legit?A stole wood from B and sold it to C, who have made work of art from it. Whose is it now?2) AbortionI think that it is one of themes where there are no good solutions. Only bad and worse - and I think that many different views on this have their own good points...But his claim that since women have self-ownership she can willingly get pregnant and just change her mind and it is totally cool is just disgusting.3) Environment So in a free society you just can sue somebody if there are any harmful substances (or just noise) that harm you or your property. Must I say how overused that can be?4) War & USSRThe worst part of the book. It is clearly not his strong point. There is much wishful thinking and avoiding valid counter-arguments from his side.Nothing will invade us because we are peaceful, not threatening and hard to control? How about other state wanting just territory & resources, slaughtering native people?While there are many good points of decentralized and partisan warfare, centralized, disciplined and plan-based army sometimes can be sometimes much superior. Divide & conquer strategy can also be very effective against stateless society.While I condemn USA imperialism, i'd say that the isolationism is not always the perfect way to go.Stealing from people and sending them to war is fine? Sure it is not.But Rothbard sees world in black & white, so he criticizes USA for participating in WWII.Apparently he thinks it would be better if they stay out of everything and let Hitler and his allies take the rest of the world and probably face invasion later. Cool.Yes I agree that most wars are wrong, but there are rare situations of bellum iustum and neutrality then is not moral.Also he indicates that USSR should not had been be feared, because they had defensive attitude and just want to preserve.This is bullshit.What about an unsuccessful invasion in 1920? What about financing communists around a globe? What about... Do I really need to write about all this?He just wanted to show foolishness of american government so bad, that he made foul of himself.To finish - both this book and libertarianism have some flaws, but this is the most moral and rational political ideology I have found so far and thankfully - I bet that other works are able to improve it.This review is very critical for a 4 stars one, but other reviewers made good job at pointing it's quality, when it's opposition effort is rather lousy, so I decided to do it myself.

  • Michael Jones
    2018-12-24 21:01

    I do not necessarily agree with Rothbard’s ethics-- he ends up with some kind of natural law interpretation that can fall flat in places.But that having been said, he does provide a fairly cogent picture of how we could govern ourselves locally by the use of the free market to provide many of the services which the government now imposes.The eye-opening point is that from what other entity or person would we ever allow them to conscript our sons to be killed while they go and murder thousands to intervene where they are not wanted, coercively take one 3rd of our income or more to be used very inefficiently for its own monopolizing ends?? We’d never stand for it! And yet the government does this and more and we continue to allow it to do so.This is one of those books that truly shows how the King has no clothes and will definitely provoke much thought!

  • Alex
    2019-01-02 20:47

    For a New Liberty is the most deliberately apologetic libertarian literature I've encountered. Rothbard encourages a radical approach to living. One that casts aside violent, indoctrinating, enslaving, sacrosanct state worship and instead relies on the axiomatic libertarian ideals of self-ownership. He beautifully illustrates property rights and the importance of reputation in a free society. In one excruciatingly relevant chapter Rothbard discuses fiat currencies and their pitfalls and goes on to describe something eerily close to our modern day crypto currencies. As relevant as ever. If you doubt the state's importance in building and maintaining a successful society, and even more importantly if you do not, For a New Liberty is super clutch.

  • John Boettcher
    2019-01-03 22:59

    One of the best, all-time books on the malevolence of the state, the government, what it stands for, and what it takes away from our freedom. It is extremely hard to argue with any of the thoughts and logic laid out in this book. No matter what your political stance is, this book will challenge those ideas in a fundamental way. The book is not easy to read in that it makes you ask the hard questions about your own belief systems, perhaps those very systems your parents have and you inherited from them, or picked up in college, or from your friends, or some day time talk show host. This book will open your eyes and your mind to what so many people out there are either oblivious to, or don't want you to be thinking about at all. An enthralling read!

  • Robert
    2018-12-30 23:57

    The best book on Individual liberty I have ever read...It finally cleared up the nature of government, its role in the destruction of human happiness, and why thinking government can help us solve our problems is magical thinking akin to believing in fairies, Gods, or that we can fly by standing in a bucket and pulling really hard on the handle. When we finally understand this, we start to see every action taken by government at any point in time to be the actions of a lunatic giving tugs on that handle, thinking that if he only pulls hard enough (taxes enough money) maybe this time he will fly.

  • Alan Hughes
    2019-01-20 00:17

    I found this book quite a surprise. Usually I have found libertarian texts difficult to engage with and too American for a European reader. However, this text is quite different, lively and engaging, and very informative. Though still having an American focus when discussing current issues of state involvement in personal liberty this seems reasonable given the history described and the origin of the author. However, this is nicely counterbalanced by the description of the debt to the European tradition of classical liberalism which is well described.All in all an excellent primer to libertarian thought and a book which will change many minds and opinions.

  • George Pickering
    2019-01-08 16:51

    Brilliant! The perfect introduction to libertarianism. Light and readable enough to be enjoyable for anyone, but with enough nuance and uniqueness to be a revelation even to long-time libertarians. Rothbard was truly a genius. Can't recommend highly enough!

  • Kosmatos
    2018-12-26 16:55

    Excellent. I wouldn't say it contains big ideas, it just tries to show how one small idea has been trampled on from all directions, but continues to survive, and is still well alive.

  • ziombel
    2018-12-31 20:13

    Rothbard wrote a brilliant critique of the government, but weaker proposals to remedy these problems. For now, I don't want to translate reviews into English, because it is long and I would have to rewrite part about "peaceful" Communism (Poland was enslaved by the Soviet Union and average Pole have much greater knowledge than average human about this shit. Also I recommended some additional materials about this and they are in Polish, so I must find something different.//polishDostępna za darmo: napisał świetną krytykę rządu, ale już słabszą propozycję naprawy tych problemów. Zdecydowałem się na napisanie krótkiej krytyki dzieła rothbarda oraz niektórych poglądów anarchokapitalistów.O aborcji - Rothbard robi arbitralne założenie o tym, że płód jest pasożytem. Dlatego też ten wywód jest błędny. Czy jeśli zaproszę kogoś na kawę do swojego domu, a potem w trakcie picia kawy się rozmyślę i rozwalę mu głowę, to czy nie powinienem być niewinnym? Dodatkowo, jeśli kogoś porwę i zamknę w klatce a następnie porzucę go na czyjejś ziemi, to czy właściciel nie powinien mieć prawa do popełnienia dowolnego okrucieństwa na tej osobie, ponieważ jest na jego własności nieproszona. Oczywiście ktoś może mi zarzucić, że przesadzam, ponieważ zdecydowana większość ludzi nie jest psychopatami i pomoże takiej osobie. Ale psychopaci mogą to wykorzystać i zgodnie z koncepcją anarchokapitalizmu byłoby to dozwolone. Np. mógłbym założyć firmę porywającą osoby i porywać takie osoby na zlecenie jakiś bogatych ludzi. Oczywiście takie coś byłoby karalne, ale porwanie kogoś na pewno byłoby karane znacznie mniej niż zabójstwo itp. Np. jacyś bogaci ludzie mogliby płacić za porywanie ludzi aby się nad nimi później znęcać. Oczywiście poniósłbym karę, ale przecież wynagrodzenie za porwanie mogłoby ją zrekompensować. Dziecko nie jest w łonie z własnej winy, tylko z winy rodziców, więc to oni odpowiadają za taki stan matki a nie dziecko. Tak samo ja bym odpowiadał za te zbrodnie a moje ofiary nie powinny być karane za to, że znalazły się na czyimś terenie.Innym przykładem absurdów anarchokapitalistów jest pogląd, według którego oszustwo nie jest złe, ponieważ klient dobrowolnie dał się oszukać. Jest to absurdalne a nawet nie jest zgodne z zasadą NAPu, ale niektórzy anarchokapitaliści tego nie widzą. Np. Załóżmy że zakładam firmę i oferuję lekarstwo na raka. Oczywiście sprzedawany przez mnie środek nie jest lekarstwem. Jestem pewien, że znalazłbym zdesperowanych ludzi gotowych za to oszustwo zapłacić. Dla anarchokapitalisty nie ma w tym nic złego, ponieważ obie strony zawarły dobrowolną wymianę. Jednak według mnie jest tu łamana zasada NAPu. Należy zwrócić uwagę na to, że klient wymienia tytuł własności do swoich pieniędzy na tytuł własności na lekarstwo na raka. Kiedy zamiast tego daje mu w zamian jakieś gówno, to czy nie łamię jego prawa własności? Według mnie łamie i ofiara powinna mieć prawo do odszkodowania. Takie podejście rozwiązało by całkowicie problem oszustów nabierających zdesperowanych ludzi sprzedając np. lecznice kołdry albo garnki leczące raka. Po prostu klient po zakupie takiego cuda i po zauważeniu że został oszukany, mógłby taką osobę pozwać i domagać się odszkodowania. Oczywiście aby taki system działał, potrzebny jest jednolity system prawny dokładnie definiujący co jest oszustwem a co nie jest. A do tego potrzebna jest instytucja która ma monopol na przemoc a nie konkurencja na "rynku" prawa.Rozwijając dalej powyższy przypadek, można pokazać inny absurd anarchokapitalizmu - prawo do zabijania za pomocą podstępu. Załóżmy, że jestem wkurwionym mężem który chce pozbyć się swojej żony. Mógłbym dodać do jej jedzenia cyjanku i zabić ją. Oczywiście anarchokapitalista nie widzi w tym problemu, ponieważ obiad zjedzony przez żonę został zjedzony dobrowolnie. Według mnie znów łamałbym zasadę żony do samo posiadania. Za inny przykład może posłużyć sklepik z lemoniadą. Czy gdybym był psycholem i czerpał radość z zabijania ludzi, to czy dobrym pomysłem nie byłoby sprzedawanie latem zimnych napojów z dodatkiem cyjanku? Oczywiście ktoś może mi zarzucić, że przecież każda substancja w nadmiarze jest szkodliwa i każdy mógłby pozwać każdego producenta o próbę otrucia. Dlatego znów potrzebny jest nam jednolity system prawny który musiałby być respektowany przez wszystkich. W nim mogłoby być zdefiniowanie pojęcie trucizny, używki itp. W takim wypadku osoba która dobrowolnie zażyje truciznę nie mogłaby pozwać producenta za to, że jej ją sprzedał. W pewnym zakresie mogłoby być tak samo z używkami.Ale wracając do dzieła Rothbarda, zacytuję fragment o prywatnym sądownictwie:"Gdyby sąd ogłosił wyrok, a następnie przeszedł do bezładnej strzelaniny, klienci uznaliby zapewne, że jego usługi są nic niewarte. Istotną pozycją w ofercie sądów byłaby usługa polegająca na prowadzeniu postępowania odwoławczego. Wszystkie sądy zobowiązywałyby się do honorowania wyroków sądów apelacyjnych."Rothbard w tym fragmencie tekstu zakładka arbitralnie, że wszystkie sądy będą przestrzegać NAPu. Co w sytuacji, gdyby mafia założyła własny sąd i pozywała do niego ludzi i nie uznawała odwołań? Czy jakaś firma ochroniarska odważyła by się ryzykować kapitałem i życiem swoich ludzi aby brać udział w regularnych walkach w obronie jakiegoś pojedynczego klienta? Ktoś może mi zarzucić, że przecież taka firma ucierpiała by na reputacji. Ale czy nie ucierpiała by na reputacji, gdyby mafia dokonała by na niej(lub członkach jej rodzin) masowej egzekucji? Mafie na pewno nie będą przestrzegać NAPu, ponieważ są to instytucje oparte o przemoc. Oczywiście Rothbard odpiera tego typu zarzut, ponieważ według niego rządy mają większą siłę i środki niż mafie. A co w sytuacji gdy takie mafie zaczną formować feudalne państwa i akap zamieni się w sieć mniejszych państewek walczących ze sobą? Czy to nie doprowadzi w końcu do ponownego powstania dużego państwa, kiedy to najsilniejsza grupa podbije wszystkie pozostałe, tyle że z nowymi elitami?Kolejną słabością tego dzieła jest arbitralne założenie, że jak zlikwiduje się rząd USA, to nagle wszystkie inne kraje przestaną mieć wrogie zamiary wobec mieszkańców akapu. Fragment o "pokojowych" komunistach jest dnem intelektualnym. Według wywiadu historyka który niedawno widziałem, marksizm był pierwszą ideologią w Europie, która nawoływała do masowej eksterminacji innych grup społecznych. Na temat zbrodni, terroru oraz bojowych zapędów komuchów, polecam serię filmów dokumentalnych Grzegorza Brauna: Transformacja oraz film sfinansowany przez IV Rzesze: Sowiecka historia(dla przeciwwagi, gdyby ktoś uważał że powołuje się jedynie na prawicowych "oszołomów"). Komuniści od samego początku do samego końca mieli zamiar podbić Europę a później cały świat. Powstrzymały ich jednak: arsenał nuklearny USA oraz niemożliwość racjonalnej kalkulacji ekonomicznej w socjalizmie. Rothbard kumplował się z lewicowymi organizacjami i przesiąkł komunistyczną propagandą. Komuniści wspomagali Hitlera aby ten osłabił Europę i umożliwił im szybki podbój. Także finansowali agenturę na całym świecie aby rozsiewać propagandę o dobrym i sprawiedliwym komunizmie. Polecam gorąco filmy Brauna. Po nich zrozumiecie dlaczego ZSRR było i jest nadal postrzegana na zachodzie jako ten dobry. Dlatego też twierdzenie, że po zlikwidowaniu USA, ZSRR nie miało by żadnych pretensji do jego mieszkańców jest absurdem. Zapewnie zbombardowali by "burżuazyjnych" akapów nukami i zajęli by ich ziemie. I wtedy skończyłoby się śmieszkowanie.Innym poważnym zagrożeniem dla akapu byliby islamscy terroryści. W krainie talmudycznych libertarian tacy bojownicy mogliby spokojnie się osiedlić, zarabiać hajs, kupić atomowego krasnala, gaz bojowy lub coś innego a potem zabić paręset tysięcy ludzi(przecież wolność, nie?). Do obrony przed takimi sytuacjami są niestety potrzebne służby, które nie mogłyby opierać się na dobrowolnych relacjach z islamistami. Dla wszelkich "lewicowych libertarian" wierzących w pokojowe współistnienie z muslimami polecam przeczytać Koran, albo przynajmniej moją recenzję którą niedługo napiszę. Trzeba skończyć ze śmieszkowaniem.Wracając do akapów, co w sytuacji gdy założę sklepik z lemoniadą zawierającej narkotyki. Co w sytuacji, gdym później dał takiemu klientowi pod wpływem dokument do podpisania, który zobowiązałby go do oddania mi całego swojego majątku oraz służenia mi do końca życia? Rozumiem że nie ma złamania NAPu? Ktoś może mi zarzucić, że rynek zweryfikowałby takiego sprzedawcę. Tak, zrobiłby to ale najpierw zdążyłbym zniewolić kilka osób. Później mógłbym wyjechać w jakieś dalekie miejsce i zacząć od nowa. Tak robią współcześni oszuści.Myślałem że Maurycy posiada Rozum i Godność Człowieka. Jednak po fragmentach o komunistach w moich oczach poziom RiGCZu Rothbarda znacznie spadł. Według mnie z tego powodu fragment o wolnościowej Islandii powinien być całkowicie zapomniany przez libertarian. Niewiadomo z jakich odmętów czerpał Rothbard oraz osoby które cytuje. "Pokojowy" komunizm Rothbarda mocno podważa wszystkie inne jego twierdzenia o historii i polecam być bardzo sceptyczny wobec tego, co Murray pisze o historii. W świetle powyższych argumentów uważam, że anarchokapitalizm to piękna, ale niemożliwa do zrealizowania utopia. Dlatego popieram państwo minimum mające armię, zapewniające system prawny, służby i jakieś minimalne siły policyjne.

  • Evan McB
    2019-01-03 19:50

    I was convinced by all the arguments Rothbard makes in this book, but I was also convinced before I started reading it, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask. Hayek, Hazlitt, and Merrill Jenkins I think all have more insightful things to say about economic realities that point towards the wisdom of libertarian ideals. But Rothbard here does admirably present those ideals of personal liberty without compromise across all aspects of human activity, always starting from the first principle of property rights enjoyed by the individual as a consequence of nature. Rothbard begins by defining these rights (including property in self/body and resources exploited), and then proceeds with a consistent application of the principle that government, by coercion, infringes on these rights in all areas it inhabits, including taxation, police, the military, environmental regulation, etc. Many individuals may hold the assumption that government must necessarily provide services related to these areas and others because of the benefit to society, but Rothbard repeatedly makes the point that society itself is a noumenal figment, and again only the individuals which comprise society, and their attendant natural property rights, matter in a judicial analysis of perceived grievances related to things like assault, redistribution of wealth, and pollution. Again, I'm convinced, and I appreciate the philosophical consistency, but personally find the literature regarding sound money to be more compelling as evidence of the need for greater libertarian and anti-statist policies (instituted at the individual level, of course).

  • Abraham Arslan
    2019-01-01 21:17

    Rothbard was the pioneer of liberty - in every sense. His ideas zero into concept of self-ownership. The narrative is logical and profound. This book will act as a manifesto on ideas of liberty. You can read and re-read this and confirm the bleak prophecies of big government that Rothbard wrote about.

  • Tim
    2019-01-13 19:11

    A must read for any true believer in liberty. Rothbard paints a picture of a bright liberty filled future. I hope one day his vision is realized. The movement is strong but needs new leadership. This book and Austrian economics need to be taught more widely.

  • Breanna Zimmer
    2019-01-02 19:48

    Still true todayRothbard nails why and how we should advocate for "radical" libertarianism and why it's actually not radical whatsoever, but the natural order of human life. Very much worth the read for any libertarian or anyone interested in bucking the status quo of statism.

  • Bryce Eickholt
    2018-12-31 17:11

    Libertarian (ancap) politics from the ground up in It's purest form. Covers natural rights. Classical liberalism. What are the end results and how to get there. And how to deal with things people seem to want to hang on to. Probably best political book I've read.

  • Builyyy
    2018-12-28 01:01

    Life changing.