Hey I was in pcf and some guy said these 3 books converted him away from libertarianism:
Was just wondering if anyone has read them and or would recommend it. Thanks
Do you know what specifically had he read before that?
Might be useful to gauge how “dedicated” he was. Had he read any Rothbard?
well David Friedman is a libertarian, and more so than his dad because he’s an An-Cap like most of us here. his book was one of the earlier anarchist books i read and it didnt turn me away from libertarianism.
Also, Georgists are kinda ridiculous( taxes are bad except for when they hit landowners (say what?! )
I never heard of Hobhouse before I must admit.
I’m not sure but I’m assuming as he called himself a former hardcore libertarian.
I agree with many of the points Friedman makes in that book, but how in the world would it convert someone away from libertarianism? The book is a defense of libertarianism, for cryin’ out loud.
Anyway, if there are any substantive arguments against libertarianism in those two other books (unlikely), he should have no problem giving a brief summary of them rather than dropping titles. My guess is that it’s just same old statist twaddle.
"Specifically, Henry George called into question the entire viability of property as a right, given the nature of land and unproduced natural resources, Hobhouse called into question the right of contract under conditions of unequal bargaining power, and Friedman pointed out that in a world where externalities are pervasive and our actions affect others, that attempting to delineate boundaries of absolute rights is a futile endeavor. "
Yeah, that’s what they all say. I’ve noticed there a lot of so-called “former libertarians” (especially left-anarchists) out there who went on to “see the light” of statism and socialism. Most of them are just political fad-followers who adopt and reject ideologies as quickly as they change caps.
Who cares even if all of them were libertarians at one point? It’s not as if it gives them street cred. They were right, and now they’re wrong. Simple as that.
By that logic, nothing can be a property right. Everything was originally “unproduced.”
Yawn not that again.
So what? Why would this make anyone give up libertarianism? Especially when the author is a libertarian?
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but if he’s pretty daft if actually persuaded by these silly arguments.
He did? Assume he did (I don’t think he did based on arguments I’ve seen by his proponents and Rothbard’s criticism of him.) So what? Libertarian justifications for property (other than Locke’s) are not based on productivity.
Ho hum. Is this the hogwash about “economic power”?
Um, Friedman’s point was that aggression is impossible to preclude from any viable anarchist system, to my knowledge. I don’t agree that this invalidates the NAP or even remotely touches upon it, given that the anarchist legal system is favoured precisely because it can deal with these issues through property and contract. Friedman never said it is futile, he said the market would deal with the issue, and Rothbardians agree insofar as courts will ultimately determine boundary issues. BTW, whence does it follow, assuming he were right, that a coercive monopolist provider of a “solution” to the “problem” of externalities is required? I guess Block is right: anything and everything under the sun can be a “public good” or an “externality” depending on the subject’s POV. So what? That just elucidates the utter bankruptcy of the notion… it isn’t an argument for it.