This was the first book on libertarian philosophy that I sought out to read (as opposed to gleaning opinions and tidbits from the net), and it was good. It explains some of the libertarian principles rather well (“self-ownership”, and the sanctity of ownership-rights which is the basis for individual liberty which I hold so dear), and distinguishes modern-day libertarianism well from modern-day anarchism. Before reading this book I wondered whether I might actually be an anarchist, but now I know I don’t want to be an anarchist—and that’s not because I want police protection, it’s because I’d rather have my public actions be based on reason, not emotion.
Now, although I’d recommend this book to everyone, libertarian or not, I feel that there are a few corners where the author was, well, guilty of laziness. I am sure that if Mr. Walsh were to give the matter great thought and respond carefully, he wouldn’t have said what he wrote in this book regarding these few matters. First, the matter of “intellectual property”.
The fact that he did not give this matter great thought is evident. It only fills 2 pages, as an afterthought to a chapter devoted to property, natural, real property, not an imaginary one. He says, “The fate of the U.S. economy—or any modern economy—depends ultimately on a sensibly balanced system of intellectual property rights. The founders understood that. In the Constitution, they gave creators a limited monopoly over their creations as a means of fostering future creativity,” but he never questions whether current “intellectual property rights” are sensibly balanced, and perhaps in a haste to distinguish sensible libertarians from emotional anarchists that roam the net, vindicates the current system—only as a mean to condemn anarchists.
The matter of fact is, the system of copyrights and patents, as it stands now, goes way beyond ensuring ownership rights to the point where we effectively have a bureaucratic alliance of government and industry tycoons that work to limit the rights of individual owners and limiting free expression of individual artists (here’s a case in point). I think Mr. Walsh is guilty of laziness in looking at the system that the Founding Fathers have set up and assuming that that system is still standing. It is not, and it needs fixing to the point where not having this “right” at all would be better than the current situation.
The second point that I wish he had explored in more detail rather than glibly oversimplifying is capital punishment. He says, as if to make a case in point, “As many libertarians have asked, is the same bureaucracy that takes weeks to process a driver’s license up to the task of taking a person’s life?” But that is a strawman that he is knocking down. DMV is in charge of driver’s licenses; the court system is not the DMV.
Yes, the thought of judges and juries making a mistake at the expense of an innocent life is troubling. But, if we could ensure the absolute certainty of his guilt—or at least the willingness to accept it, as the legal system is not capable of stopping anyone who wants to make a criminal out of himself—and the deservedness, is “life without parole” a better punishment than capital punishment? In the former, the criminal is dead to the society in every aspect except one: the society must pay for his existence now. In the latter, well, the criminal is literally dead.
Perhaps resulting tax burden due to those in prison for life is not so great that it makes no practical difference—after all, these people are very few, and these very violent criminals are not the reason our prisons are overflowing. Perhaps it is still significant enough that killing them, and reducing taxes and the size of the government is more consistent to the libertarian principle. Either way, I think it would have been better if the author made a better-reasoned argument from practical and philosophical point of view, rather than a glib jibe at the monster that is the government.
On the whole, this was a good book and I’m glad I read it.