Libertarian Book Reviews

Classical Liberal

The Micronation Revolution

By Leave a Comment

Four hundred years ago an oppressed religious minority, after escaping England and after a sojourn in the Netherlands, arrived on the shores of New England to start a life in the New World.

Certainly there was no shortage of people who were oppressed for their religion in those days. In recent memory, Protestants and Catholics had fought against each for control in England. But there were also the minority sects within Protestantism, the dissenting churches, who faced various legal liabilities for their non-participation in the established Church of England. Among these were the Puritans, who sought to reform the established Church to eliminate what it saw as remnants of Pagan and Popish ritual.

But among the Puritans was an even smaller group, the Separatists, who saw the Church in England as irredeemably fallen. They were a minority of a minority. They wanted to remove themselves from this corruption and start again in a new land. These families were the Pilgrims who settled in Plymouth Colony in 1620, and their separatist colony is a historical metaphor motivating the need for, and the prospects for success for micronations, in William Otey’s new book, The Micronation Revolution: How the Creation of Small, Free and Sovereign Nations Will Peacefully Transform Government on Earth.

Otey’s book is in four parts, the first of which makes the argument for why a divorce is necessary, why the U.S. government is irredeemably fallen, and why no amount of internal reform can fix it.

The second part describes how the liabilities outlined in the first part can be addressed by the “clean sheet” approach of a micronation. Part of the argument is that a micronation, by doing well, would tend to provide a form of competition that might exert pressure on other states to reform.

The third part looks at some specific modes by which a micronation might come about. Seasteading and the purchase of land from a money-poor/land-rich nation are given as the two most promising approaches.

The fourth and final part recapitulates and summarizes the argument.

There is much here to like and agree with, and also much I might want to question. I think this largely comes down to whether you are an optimist or pessimist. I’m the latter, and Otey the former. For example, Otey is optimistic about the ability of the press and public opinion to keep large nations from predatory behavior toward micronations:

[I]f large, violent and corrupt governments want to try and stop seasteading illegally and through brute force, they will have a galaxy of cameras pointed directly at them and the images will be broadcast across the entire globe.

I tend to expect the worst. I’d give even odds that the “free” press is actually the lackey of the state, and that large social media companies can and would bury stories at will. And all a government needs to do is allege (no actual evidence needed) “child abuse” or “sex trafficking” in the micronation and the press will fall in line behind the government. Remember Waco?

And as far as a classical liberal micronation being a beacon to other countries, inspiring their citizens to expect more, and demand more from their own governments, I think this is a double-edged sword. Alexander Dubček was such a beacon in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Many thought his reforms would inspire change in neighboring states. It did motivate change, of a sort. “Prague Spring” ended with tanks in the streets, when Czechoslovakia was simultaneously invaded by the Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, and Dubček removed from office. Evidently, not all states welcome competition.

That said, Otey’s argument is worth hearing and making your own judgement about. It is an important topic, one we should be thinking about and debating. For this reason, I’d recommend getting a copy of The Micronation Revolution and giving it a read.

My Passion for Liberty

By Leave a Comment

This is the first in a series of reviews of relevant books written by candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination for president. By relevant, I mean the book is plausibly related to their political views. So, Vermin Supreme’s iPony: Blueprint for a New America will be reviewed. Although it is irreverent, it is relevant. However, John McAfee’s Computer Viruses, Worms, Data Diddlers, Killer Programs, and Other Threats to Your System is not reviewed, since it is not relevant.

Aside from Vermin Supreme’s learned tome, I’ll be reviewing Adam Kokesh’s Freedom! as well as the subject of the present review, Jacob Hornberger’s My Passion for Liberty. I am not aware of other relevant books written by announced LP candidates. If I missed any, please let me know in the comments.

Now, let’s get to the review…

A candidate book is a genre, like a detective novel or a vampire novel. If you’ve read one you understand the basic formula. It is part autobiography, focusing on the formation of the author’s political views. And it is part political manifesto, outlining his approach to various issues of present concern to voters. In this sense, Jacob Hornberger’s My Passion for Liberty is a conventional exemplar of the genre. He touches all the bases and establishes himself as an earnest libertarian who has spent his time in the trenches.

From his upbringing in Laredo, Texas and education at the Virginia Military Institute, Hornberger seemed destined to a career as a lawyer, like his father. But along the way he discovered an anthology published by Leonard Read and the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). This was the proverbial Road to Damascus moment that set him on a different track. He eventually left his law practice to lead the FEE for a stint, before founding the Future of Freedom Foundation, which he continues to lead.

Hornberger’s political views, as described in this book, are at the vital center of libertarianism, “liberty, free markets, and limited government.” There is no discussion here of esoteric theoretical questions, or shocking “what if” dilemmas. He sticks close to the core, and does it soberly, with a pleasant, direct style.

The one area where Hornberger verges outside of what I’d consider core libertarianism is in his discussion of the JFK assassination, an area that as occupied him (some would say preoccupied) for years. Honestly, I was skeptical of his seeming fascination with the subject, but he does acquit himself well with his explanation, where he shows how he uses this to demonstrate the danger of America’s transformation into a national security state, where the state topples governments around the world, and perhaps even here at home.

The book has short introductions by Ron Paul and Richard Eberling, and closes with a handful of shorter pieces written by Hornberger.

The Inclusive Economy

By Leave a Comment

If you are like me you already have some strong opinions about poverty. And by “strong” I don’t mean your opinions are particularly loud or obnoxious, but that they are deeply-seated and fundamental to how you see the world. You might think of poverty as being a structural problem, stemming from from systemic racism and sexism. You might think it is a cultural problem, caused, in part, from fatherless homes and substance abuse. You might see it as a moral failing. You might see it as a predictable outcome of a process of globalization and consolidation in industry. These, and several other theories of poverty, arise repeatedly in contemporary debate.

Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, does us a great service by dedicating the first half of his book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor, to a deep dive into the various historical and contemporary views on poverty. He brings data to bear on the question and essentially demonstrates that each of the various theories are incomplete or ineffective from a policy perspective. He certainly challenged some deep-seated views I’ve held on the subject, and for that I am grateful.

The second half of the book is a detailed articulation of Tanner’s policy recommendations. Tanner rejects the pessimistic view that poverty is inescapable, that the only policy discussion worth having is how to design an efficient program for redistribution. Observing that, “The best thing that government can do now, therefore, is to stop doing all the bad things it currently does,” he proposes libertarian reforms in five basic areas: criminal justice, education, zoning and land use, impediments to savings, and taxes/regulations, showing how each one would help the poor. It is a compelling argument.

As mentioned before, this is not an breezy read. If you are like me, you’ll put it down and ponder what you’ve read for a while, as your preconceptions are challenged. But it is an important book, one worth reading, and one I hope more policy-makers read as well.

The Case Against Socialism

By Leave a Comment

There are several classic books that make the case for individual freedom over the collectivist state. Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, and Mises’s Liberalism come to mind. But for all the virtues they have, with the commanding sweep of their vision and their penetrating social analysis, the reader of today often struggles in understanding the argument due to the reliance on examples that today are dated, even obscure. The reader of 2019 reads these classics for their evergreen ideas, but often ends up baffled by discussions of 19th century English politicians, New Deal legislation, the Bretton Woods currency system, or Nixon-era price controls.

Against this background, Rand Paul’s new book, The Case Against Socialism, is a most welcome addition to the literature of freedom. He does not innovate—not need he—on the fundamental arguments in favor of liberty. Instead, Sen. Paul does an admirable job refreshing the argument for a reader of today, with 39 short, conversational chapters discussing topics such as Venezuela, Scandinavia, authoritarianism, economic inequality, climate alarmism and fake news.

The text is organized into six parts, containing 39 short, conversational chapters. The text is well-documented, with hundreds of footnotes citing sources, many of which I’ve copied down for further exploration.

This is a good, easy read, one I recommend heartily. It is the right argument, at the right time.

Capitalism and Freedom

By 2 Comments

When Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom came out in 1962, his was a rare voice defending classical liberal values and the free enterprise system.  For years his ideas were unloved in ruling circles, as the leviathan unleashed by F.D.R.’s  New Deal pressed its tentacles even further into the flesh of American society through Johnson’s Great Society and beyond.

But after nearly a generation wandering in the wilderness, Friedman lived to see the vindication of his ideas, as big government solutions repeatedly failed, and free market approaches out-performed.

The fall of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe should have sealed the argument.  But bad ideas never truly die.  They merely go dormant.  The anti-liberal contagion awaits the day to entice and poison new audiences, in new generations, with the false promise of heaven on earth, for the price of their soul and their freedom.

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well.  It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

The fascinating thing is how far ahead of his time Friedman was in 1962, and also how advanced his thinking remains, even for today.

Among the things Friedman proposed were: school vouchers to replace public school funding, elimination of agricultural price support programs, elimination of all tariffs and trade restrictions, repeal of rent control and minimum wage laws, elimination of Social Security, repeal of occupational licensure laws, ending military conscription, privatizing national parks and public toll roads,  reeling in the Federal Reserve System to remove discretionary powers (he’d essentially have it run on auto-pilot), eliminate foreign economic aid,  balance the federal budget, on average, year to year, elimination of public funding for state colleges and vocational/professional training, allowing equity-based investment (pay a percentage of future earnings) for college education, elimination of anti-discrimination laws, fair employment, fair housing laws, anti-segregation laws, application of antitrust laws to labor unions and other government-granted monopolies,  elimination of corporate income tax (but have tax on retained corporate earnings for individual income tax returns), a flat individual income tax rate, rejection of “social responsibility” instead of profit as the primary duty of corporate officials, elimination of estate taxes,  a negative income tax to replace other forms of welfare (in a way, similar to a UBI), etc.

It is amazing how much of these items has already been accomplished or are at the forefront of debate today, nearly 60 years later.

I’d recommend reading (or re-reading) Capitalism and Freedom to anyone interested in girding themselves for mental strife, to do battle with the modern opponents of freedom, whether they are Facebook friends, or college professors.  Friedman’s mastery of the economic matters (he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976) and his gift for explaining his arguments in a non-technical, but rigorous fashion, is unparalleled.