I've recently become quite good friends with a man who I've known for a long time and who I deeply respect. He is intelligent and a man of many talents, he teaches Humanities at a college near where I go to school, he speaks multiple languages, he plays several instruments at a professional level, and he's involved with directly attempting to relieve poverty and provide education in Ghana, a country he visits relatively frequently. I was in town for a few days and we started talking and holding very good, interesting, and intellectual discussion and we're going to start to exchange emails and, being a proper Austrian, I would do anything to attempt to bring him a little more towards our side. I'm not looking to make him into an anarchist, merely more towards a classical liberal state of mind.
He is, I believe, currently a modern liberal. He is extremely well read in a variety of topics, especially "classical" works from Plato to Dante to Rousseau, so at very least I know that so I know that at very least he has very definite views surrounding morality and ethical matters. He's more or less a novice in terms of economics, although he's familiar with aspects of the subject. He's very intelligent and reasonably open-minded. These are the things that I am looking for in a book I suggest to him:
These constitute a VERY specific set of criteria, so I can totally understand if someone doesn't have anything to offer. To give an idea of the sorts of work I am currently thinking of providing him:
Does anyone have any suggestions on books to provide him, insights to the books that I am proposing, answers to the above questions, or suggestions on ways to introduce topics and discussion?
Well, I was going to recommend The Anatomy of the State, but then you said no Rothbard so...
Why no anarchists?
You definitely want Hayek, The Fatal Conceit. Other short books I suggest are Chodorov, The Rise and Fall of Society, and Nock, Our Enemy the State. A couple of good articles are Hasnas, 'The Myth of the Rule of Law', and De Jasay, 'Before Resorting to Politics', in Against Politics. I have all of these in PDF form so if you're having trouble finding them just let me know.
How about Beyond Democracy?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Skeptic,
You have to remember that he is involved in the mainstream and he is reasonably political. I don't want to scare him off by citing people too "radical". Hayek is an amazingly influential economist, if only indirectly and he won the nobel peace prize in economics, and Mises was undeniably an intellectual giant rivaling on Marx which is a practically impossible feat. I also want only highest of analysis which I find that neither Rothbard or any other anarchist I have ever read to really give. This is to say while I think that Rothbard's analysis is more TRUE than most anything else out there, it is not necessarily the most scientific and thorough of investigations. As I said I also do not believe that he would be responsive to something explicitly political.
Aristippus,
Why would you suggest "The Fatal Conceit" over Hayek's sociological work? Perhaps I failed to make this clear but right now we're just exchanging emails and recommending intellectuals to each other. The deal was basically that he would hook me up with some materials in order to help me better understand "The Republic", which I am currently reading, and I would hook him up with some philosophical/economic. For this reason I am not interested in anything which openly opposes the state or which is really "Anti-government" as such. Perhaps later, but not now.
Kelvin,
That is a fairly good idea, and this is a subject which he and I have already touched upon. With this said I would like to focus on something a little more individualistic and not focused upon attacking a specific ideology that isn't more on the lines of something economic.
Thank you for your input thusfar everyone!
Huh? The Fatal Conceit is a combination of the sociological, philosophical, and economic. I can see why you might think it's too anti-government, but I'm at a loss over what kind of Hayekian work you're looking for under those labels if the The Fatal Conceit doesn't qualify. In fact you said you wanted Hayek's works concerning spontaneous order, and The Fatal Conceit is the most developed one!
Forgive me, perhaps I misunderstood what the book consisted of. I assumed that it was just a critique of socialism involving Hayek's knowledge argument, I will look more thoroughly into the book tomorrow and tell you what I think.
The Fatal Conceit is a combination of the sociological, philosophical, and economic. I can see why you might think it's too anti-government [...]
The Fatal Conceit is not anti-government.
IIRC, one of Hayek's main arguments is that government is necessary to preserve customs and traditions so that societies/nations that maintain these practices, because the state enforces them, prosper and proliferate. In a Darwinist way, then, civilization is advanced.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
No, it is about the role of decentralized, competitive, spontaneous institutions vs. the attempt to centrally plan institutions, i.e. the fatal conceit. Hayek traces them historically, sociologically and philosophically, with some economics thrown in. All this in under 100 PDF pages!!
Well, if you were a mainstream 'liberal' you might think it is.
IIRC, one of Hayek's main arguments is that government is necessary to preserve customs and traditions so that societies/nations that maintain these practices, because the state enforces them, prosper and proliferate.
I don't recall him emphasising the role of the state in that at all. He is neither overtly pro-state minarchist nor anti-state anarchist in the work. Because of that he seems to lean towards the latter, since he doesn't make the usual platitudes of the supreme necessity of the state.
The ideal for Hayek would probably be Individualism and Economic Order and mostly the 1st two essays. As Ari stated, The Fatal Conceit works well too, from what I can remember.
If you are interested in institutional looks, Lachmann is good for that in The Legacy of Max Weber. It's 3 easy to divide lectures. Pretty abstract - maybe a bit too much jargon though.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
"He's more or less a novice in terms of economics"
Aren't they all :\
Honestly, the economic angle is a good direction of attack. I'd give him Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." It is a direct attack against leftist government interventionism while being friendly to but not explicitly Austrian, and uses as examples a number of the ways public policy has failed for economic reasons. Beyond that, it doesn't get more scholarly than Sowell, and unlike other texts on econ, he's not dry and boring, and he uses only one chart in the whole book.
I understand it's expanded quite a bit in later editions, I've only read the first.
That said, you could just go hail mary and give him Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty :P
im not the type to pussyfoot around the subject as i feel honestly works best. So i think you should reconsider not going rothbardian meaning going all anti government on him.
id go bob murphy chaos theory. its short and easy. Let him respond with what he thought was interesting about it or thought was wrong. it hits on almost all aspect of a free society, but obviously doesnt go much into detail. when he gives a response you will have more information on problems he might have or a better understanding what he is open to.
He might try and refute the whole book and in which case id give him mises "socialism" and economic calculations. make him understand that socialism results in complete failure.
Neodoxy,
Aristippus recommended The Myth of the Rule of Law, and even if you decide against using it, I think you would find it a great (and short) read for yourself. I think it's an almost perfect essay for what you want, as Hasnas essentially remains apolitical for almost the whole essay. A huge portion of the essay is dedicated to demonstrating that modern statutory law is not objective, in spite of the fact that it seems everyone thinks it is. So, it would be great in attacking a statist's faith in the law.
However, Hasnas does go into what a free market in law would look like, and he states that he is an anarchist. So, if you are trying to avoid anarchists completely, then it's something you'll have to save for another time. I recommend you give it a read (it really isn't that long) and see if you think Hasnas comes on too strong for this Big Fish.
Generally it's the moral argument that convinces people. Marxism has been hanging around last 50 years purely on moral outrage. That's what keep the unethical means for achieving social justice going as well, moral outrage.
But only libertarians can make a coherent moral case for our political prescriptions.
The intro is by rothbard though.
http://library.mises.org/books/Etienne%20de%20la%20Boetie/The%20Politics%20of%20Obedience%20The%20Discourse%20of%20Voluntary%20Servitude_Vol_3.pdf
Mega Response Activate!
I took a look at the book contents and it seems perfect, I think that I will send him that book although I'd actually genuinely like to read it more first. Thank you for your help.
Vive,
I'm taking you up for the FC recommendation. I like Hayek more than Lachmann in this case because Hayek is much more distinguished and visible from a historical aspect.
Anenome,
I like the idea of Sowell but I think that he is more interested in a general overview of economics and more of a focus upon methodology and societal outlook. There are very few people I would recommend TEOL to due to the books content and premise which I fundamentally disagree with.
I would also argue that the moral argument as such is ultimately irrelevant, at least in modern discourse and the survival of Marxism, what's more important is the economics of the matter. I doubt I could win a moral victory here anyway. As for libertarian conversion I feel that for younger people it tends to be the morality that gets them, while older people tend to be drawn in by primarily the economics which is given some aid by the morality.
Grant,
I have no interest in having that sort of discussion with him. I believe that an intellectual expansion, which can occur by introducing new ideas which one is not opposed to, is much more favorable than an intellectual exercise, which can occur even if one is trying to be fairly objective upon something which they do oppose.
Gotlucky,
I'll take you up on your recommendation to read the essay. Do you have a pdf or some nicer format than the wall of text on that webpage perchance?
FTW,
I think that the other books which have been recommended are more along the lines of what I am looking for.
Thank you all for the advice.
If you just want to be humble in giving him a basis to see the benefits of capitalism..you could try Milton Friedman's 'Free to Choose' video series which you can find streamable for free online. Also theres Hazlitts classic 'Economics in One Lesson'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I have that article (and many others) by Hasnas in PDF.