PRINT-Libertarianism from A to Z by Jeffrey Miron

Jeffrey Miron's Libertarianism from A to Z is a great primer for libertarians or anyone else inerested in the libertarian viewpoint. Covering a wide array of topics in alphabetical order, Miron lays out standard libertarian views on things like gun control, school choice, and the like. Long time libertarians won't find much of anything new here.

The one interesting thing I found in the book was Miron's discussion of consequentialist libertarianism and philosophical libertarianism. A consequentialist libertarian argues from a utilitarian and empirical point of view. What are the results of a particular policy? Where does it bring us? This is opposed to the philosophical or rights-based viewpoint arguing the moral case for libertarianism. One argues that libertarianism is the smart thing to do while the other argues that it is the right thing to do.

I consider myself a consequentialist. I try to use an empirical approach to things. I rely on facts. The problem with making the moral case is that opponents make the moral case for their side as well. For leftards, it is all about equality and social justice. For fasctards, it is all about maintaining social order. When philosophical libertarians enter the fray, they just toss out liberty as their preference. The result is that their case is no stronger than that of the other people at the table. The consequentialist prefers liberty but also shows how liberty works better at providing both equality and order than what the leftards and the fasctards are doing. These approaches are what have separated the libertarians of the Cato Institute/George Mason University/Chicago School/Reason Magazine bunch from both the Rothbardians/Austrians/Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute people and the Objectivists. It is the difference between science and philosophy.

I listen to both sides since I think they have interesting insights, but I tend to the consequentialist side. I am a minarchist. I don't see anarchy working better than limited government though it works better than tyranny. I'd rather live in Somalia than North Korea because I can get the hell out of Somalia. But empirically, limited government such as what we have had in the Western world has worked the best. The reason philosophical libertarians tend towards anarchism is because they are trying to be philosophically consistent. I think this is dumb. I don't argue like a lawyer. I argue like a scientist.

When you argue from the consequentialist viewpoint, you don't get called a "utopian" or a "loony" because arguing against you is arguing against reality. Your opponents end up looking like the loonies and the utopians then which is what they are. Miron's book gives you the facts you need to make the case.

Now, I am willing to compromise on issues. I think private roads are better than public roads, but I'm not going to stop driving on them. If the welfare state was just a provision against starvation and sleeping on the street, I could handle that. I'm not a Platonist yearning to live in Libertopia because I know it doesn't exist. But I believe that is the right direction based on history and the facts. Freedom works and works better than statism.

LAZ is a good volume to add to your library of liberty. You will find it a handy reference.

Posted in: