A good friend of mine, who is very progressive/liberal, is often willing to have intelligent discussions with me about my anarcho-capitalist views. Recently, she said she was willing to learn more.
I told her I have about 25 books, and it would take reading most of them to really get the whole picture. She said "give me the two best".
She is college educated, and pretty smart. Like most Americans, she believes most of the mainstream "conventional widom" about politics and government, though she does admit that all governments are full of corruption and deceit.
The books can't be too narrowly focused, or too huge (no way she'll read Human Action).
I was thinking Economics for Real People, and The Ethics of Liberty. But, there may be better choices.
Anyone have any good recommendations?
Economics in One Lesson
For a New Liberty
One to show them the failure of government and fill them with skepticism. One to show them the libertarian alternative and the inherent evil of the state.
Economics In One Lesson
but I prefer Machinery of Freedom over For a New Liberty, just because it's a better practical explanation,
You've got to get economics in there for these leftist types, it's the root of their flawed thinking. So I'll endorse Econ in One Lesson too, though I also really like Sowell's Basic Economics.
And I think For a New Liberty superior to Ethics of Liberty, FaNL also includes a lot of material from EoL.
First off, thanks for the replies. I really need to use the Mises.org forums more often. I'm an IT professional, and I'm having huge problems figuring out how to make basic posts and replies. I feel like an idiot.
As for the recommendations:
I'm a bit surprised at the recommendations for Economics in One Lesson. No knock against Hazlitt -- I love him -- but I didn't find Economics in One Lesson to be all that compelling, or to do enough to comprehensively explain the Misesian views of human action. Maybe I'm wrong, it's been a while since I read it, but I just felt like I was reading a mainstream Republican argument against government spending.
basic economics is huge though.
and i agree with most the recommendations so far. I like the idea of going with an economic book and then a libertarian book.
I agree with For A New Liberty, but I would include either Bob Murphy's Lessons for the Young Economist or Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People rather than Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt's book is more of a refutation of interventionist policies and not really a good intro to the austrian school.
grant.w.underwood: basic economics is huge though. and i agree with most the recommendations so far. I like the idea of going with an economic book and then a libertarian book.
Yeah, i keep forgetting that he ballooned the book in its later editions :\ the first edition I read was reasonable.
1. As for the Ethics of Liberty, I think that it's too large, not succinct enough, and that it doesn't cover a wide enough range of material in this case.
2. In terms of the Machinery of Freedom. Even though it is entirely void of an ethical case, and my therefore appear more "practical", the vast majority of For a New Liberty is spent on dealing with current issues. I think that it does a much better job of explaining the problems as well as the libertarian solution. I didn't find Machinery nearly as compelling as For a New Liberty, rather a good complement to For a New Liberty.
3. Economics in One Lesson does have some republican undertones, but it still does a great job of destroying a lot of statist arguments, however it also does an amazing job of putting forward the one fact that will convert almost anyone to free market capitalism: Markets and their structure exist for a reason. They are not arbitary constructions whcih can be fixed by the government. I also have to say that the short chapter dealing with economic calculation and entrepreneurship is literally one of the greatest chapters written in the history of Austrian Economics
4. Economics for Real People is a pretty bad book. It deals with too many things too quickly for beginners. It also presents these things too superficially for anyone experienced enough to understand what the author is talking about to gain from reading from the book. It's more or less useless except in some of the background information it gives.
For the very liberal/progressive liberal woman? Albert Jay Nock - Our Enemy The State Rose Wilder Lane - The Discovery of Freedom
Close 3rd: Any good compendium of Lysander Spooner
Maybe something from Ron Paul....
“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
Beyond Democracy
I know it's three books but Beyond Democracy is really small -- 2-3 hour read tops. Have had a lot of success recommending that one to non-libertarians.
I've heard How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes is an excellent primer to proper economics as well.
I find that most people agree with libertarianism on social issues fairly quickly, but the economics are really the core of it.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
The Politics of Obedience
I will give an honorable mention to Bastiat's The Law... the only reason I put Politics of Obedience ahead of it is that Economics in One Lesson covers most of the arguments that Bastiat puts forward in The Law and without the obsolete references to 19th-century French political arguments which few people today are familiar with.
With Politics of Obedience, I would challenge her to ask herself the following two questions:
1) Even assuming that democratic governments are mostly non-tyrannical, how many modern governments can truthfully be said to be enlightened and not tyrannical in the sense that Boetie discusses? Is it even a majority (more than 100 out of the 200 existing?)
2) Modern Democratic governments still wield all the same instruments of power that medieval tyrants wielded, including capital punishment and now torture, disappearance, and so on. So, how is it that these governments are somehow magically immune from the abuses that Boetie describes in Politics of Obedience? Given the headlines we see constantly coming out regarding abuses of government power, is it not possible that we are only seeing the tip of a much larger iceberg?
As a final note, you said she's educated so I hope she's read The Prince. If not, I would recommend to bundle The Prince and Politics of Obedience as one book... after all, Politics of Obedience is very short.
Clayton -
I think you can't really be a libertarian unless you understand economics; and if you do understand economics, you will inevitably be a libertarian. Hence:
Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt
Interventionism, Mises
Economic Sophisms and Economic Harmonies by Bastiat.
I think you can't really be a libertarian unless you understand economics
Actually, i think this is not true and it's one of the common beliefs among libertarians that reduces the influence that libertarians could have. I'm convinced that "all paths lead to liberty". Nobody is actually in favor of tyranny. Let me explain what I mean by that. If you're justifying some tyrannical, anti-property rights policy, there are only a few possibilities:
a) You're the tyrant (or one of his associates), in which case, I'm not surprised and I never expect to "persuade" you of the error of your ways... but neither do I care to persuade you because you are an insignificant minority
b) You're planning to become the tyrant or one of his agents- that is, you haven't yet achieved power but you think you're on your way. The key here is that the very fact that you're dreaming up your own tyranny shows that you are not happy with the tyranny that is.
c) You understand your subjugated situation with respect to the tyrant power but you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome
d) You don't understand your subjugated situation with respect to the tyrant: you're confused.
Libertarians can easily reach out to groups (c) and (d) and I think these groups are much bigger than people realize. In fact, I'm of the opinion that they are larger than group (b). Group (b) is a little more challenging - this is your typical, mainstream Republicrat. However, I think that illustrating the fact that tyranny is the reason we have the problems we have and more tyranny has never solved them (economics is definitely useful here) can help.
Of course, there's no hope for group (a). Break out the guillotines, baby. ;-)
What about Anatomy of the State and The Prince? Nobody here seems to talk about The Prince. Monarchism isn't dead, all you have to do is walk into a grocery store magazine lane and you'll see idiots reading stuff about the Royal Tools.
Clayton:c) You understand your subjugated situation with respect to the tyrant power but you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome d) You don't understand your subjugated situation with respect to the tyrant: you're confused.
How do you determine whether a given person is in group c or group d?
Do you use a different approach depending on what group you think they are in?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
@Clayton
Yes, I agree that an understanding of economics is not going to make rulers or would-be rulers libertarians, I should have included that caveat.
Anyway, I'm not saying that a person can't, for example, be in favor of libertarian policies without understanding economics. Lots of people voted for Ron Paul who really don't understand anything about economics. Their libertarianism is purely ethical. I guess what I'm saying is that IMO economics is essential to libertarianism, and so one cannot fully understand libertarianism without understanding economics, though of course people can certainly favor something which they don't understand. That goes for many of the people who support libertarian policies, and obviously goes for most of the people cheering on corporatism.
@Minarchist: I'm trying to say that we need to broaden our approach. myhumangestme suggested Rose Wilder Lane and Albert Jay Nock... I think that's brilliant if you're trying to reach across the aisle, precisely because neither author is an economist.
@ Clayton -
What if the person just wants to be a slave? Why must it be that all men want freedom?
Clayton: I think you can't really be a libertarian unless you understand economics Actually, i think this is not true and it's one of the common beliefs among libertarians that reduces the influence that libertarians could have. I'm convinced that "all paths lead to liberty". Nobody is actually in favor of tyranny.
Actually, i think this is not true and it's one of the common beliefs among libertarians that reduces the influence that libertarians could have. I'm convinced that "all paths lead to liberty". Nobody is actually in favor of tyranny.
The people who don't know economics believe that tyranny is unavoidable. They simply prefer the tyranny of the majority (the state, the democracy) to the (perceived) tyranny of the "propertied class" (the rich, the capitalists, the employers, the greedy, the exploiters, etc). Learning economics opens one up to the thought that society without tyranny is not only possible but preferable to any alternative.
For me, the economics path has been by far the most successful one for opening people up to libertarianism.
Just an idea: why not make a "book" based on Mises.org articles? In the end, it might be shorter than two books, but since you can include exactly what you think is most important and most persuasive it'll have a much greater impact.
What if the person just wants to be a slave?
This is not logically possible. An evolutionary argument easily shows why (people who wanted to be enslaved could not reproduce and, thus, could not pass on their servility). Granted, the welfare state is doing its level best to pervert the natural order in this regard. Anyone who thinks its a mistake or accident or oversight that modern welfare programs result in the dregs of society being propagated at the expense of the productive class is naive.
America's great depression
anatomy of the state
I would not recommend Ethics of Liberty to start her down the libertarian path. There are great ideas in that book to be sure, but there are also ideas that are shocking (e.g., that a parent can not feed their kid until the child dies) which could scare her off.
Dr. Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto, I think, might be able to spark her interest. If she's willing to read and learn more about the subject, there's no need to hit her with the full force of libertarianism right away.
Economics in One Lesson I'd suggest as the second book. This way, she's read one in political philosophy and another in economics. Seems like a balanced approach to me.
This is not logically possible [for man to want to be a slave]. An evolutionary argument easily shows why (people who wanted to be enslaved could not reproduce and, thus, could not pass on their servility).
Gay people cannot reproduce with those of their same sex. Your premise would conclude that it is logically impossible for someone to only want to be with others of his or her own sex (to be homosexuals).
Is it common for threads to get off topic like this? I feel bad arguing something unrelated to the question (it must get frustrating for the questioner).
For an introduction to libertarianism I suggest David Boaz "Libertarianism-A Primer". Fairly broad, not too radical and an enjoyable read.
For a New Liberty No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority (preferably one of the many audio versions available everywhere on the internet)
This may blow her mind and convert her, but remind her to keep an open mind; the best advice anyone can take is never to become invested in a theory. Any theory a person accepts at any given time should be viewed as the best least-wrong theory they've encountered. Even Murray Rothbard, one of the indisputable giants of libertarian anarchism, acknowledged the fact/value dichotomy. And as a bonus, tell her to read up on evolutionary biology and history, and even psychology. Even if a person has respectable emotions about how things could be in a perfect world, it's important to come to terms with why they have those emotions, and the very real reasons—imposed by laws of chemistry and physics and fine tuned over billions of years—regarding why things are the way they are as opposed to every other possibility.
Power and Market
Chodorov, The Rise and Fall of Society
Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies
If you don't think they'd be up for something so focused on the economy as Sowell's book - even though it is aimed at a popular audience - put in Hayek, The Fatal Conceit instead.
I second the Sowell recommend. Why do you recommend Chodorov? I know nothing about the book, just curious what you like about it.
The Chodorov work is relatively short (less than 200 pages), introductory, wide-ranging, and frames the issue very well: as the state preventing the full flourishing of society, that not only should the state be seen as something different from society, but that it actually works against it. In doing this, he draws upon economics and proto-libertarian philosophy. Chodorov is one of my favourite writers, actually.
My husband, since the last election, finally told me that he is formally giving up on voting republican and will be changing his voter registration to libertarian. Hooray!
He's not a great reader. But he will need to read something, at least, on the overviewish side. A lot of his opinions -like on the subject of national defense- are influenced by republican rhetoric.
I don't think For A New Liberty would suit right off the bat-the language, in my opinion, is a little sales-pitchy in a way I find offputting and I think he would too. No quarrels with the content, though.
Do you think the Chodorov would be a good choice for an indifferent reader? If it was the only thing he ever read?
For a small-government conservative with hawkish foreign-policy tendencies (a lot of the small-gov't Repubs fall in this category), I would recommend Molinari's The Production of Security. It's more direct and less technically theoretical than Hoppe's stuff - which is the gold-standard for refuting the hardliner Pentagon-apologists, like neocons. If he's reaching a tipping point, this might just be the nudge that will push him over the edge. And it's brief.
For a New Liberty and Lessons For The Young Economist (about as much good economics you can possbily fit into a small book - I highly recommend it)
If she's willing to go farther after that, I say you give her something about methedology. Methedology is essential, and I see it as what really allowed me to reach such radical, anarchist conclusions so easily. Once you start realizing that progress is only meaningful when it's reached by the voluntary actions of individuals, the whole concept of a "useful" state withers away.
Anybody agree with me on the second point?
Oh, and then have sex with her. Women love radicals.
Edit:
Thanks for the rec. I need to check this out.
No problem. It's freely available in the mises.org literature section.
Thanks! I downloaded it on my phone and started reading it yesterday, and I think this might be the best-written introduction I've come across so far, at least the little bit I've finished. Definitely, if the content is broad enough, this'll be my recommendation to my husband.