Recent Blogposts on The Libertarian Standard and Mises Blog

That I did not cross-post here: Stefan Molyneux’s “Libertarian Parenting” Series Stefan Molyneux, of Freedomain Radio, has recently had a very interesting series of interviews on “libertarian parenting”. The three guests (so far?) were me, my fellow TLS blogger Gil Guillory, and just today, David Friedman. The MP3s for the first two, and the YouTube videos for all three, are below. All three had different perspectives but were all very practical and had tons of great tips and ideas. Gil Guillory’s mentioned several books and other resources he’s found useful in the instruction of his children. There was a critique of my discussion by one “Aaron,” an “unschooling” advocate, which was debated further on the FDR boards, and discussed subsequently by Molyneux on the FDR1698 Sunday Call In Show July 18 2010. FDR1689 Libertarian Parenting – A Freedomain Radio Conversation with Stephan Kinsella – Two libertarian parents discuss how to best raise confident and freethinking children, including discipline without aggression, Montessori education, resolving conflicts and teaching skepticism and rationality. FDR1693 Libertarian Parenting — A Conversation with Gil Guillory The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever I am not exaggerating: this is what Jacob Huebert’s just-published bookLibertarianism Today is. I’ve been a libertarian for over 25 years, and have read a lot of libertarian books. I am sure I was one of Laissez Faire Books‘s biggest customers in its heyday in the 80s and 90s. Among introductions to libertarianism I’ve read are Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty (1st ed. 1973), David Bergland’s Libertarianism in One Lesson (1st ed. 1984), David Boaz’sLibertarianism: A Primer (1997), Charles Murray’s What It Means To Be A Libertarian (1997), Jeffrey Miron’s recentLibertarianism from A to Z (2010), and probably others I’ve forgotten. Now, among these, Rothbard’s FANL is a classic and stands out, of course. ButFANL is more of Rothbard’s own particular vision of libertarianism rather than a more comprehensive presentation of the views of the libertarian movement. And of course it is a bit dated by now, does not cover in detail topics that have risen to the fore in the intervening years (such as intellectual property, the Tea Party movement, nullification, etc.). Given the rise of the Tea Party and the expansion of the libertarian movement in the last couple decades–and the inadequacies of other introductory books (each of them, other than FANL, has various deficiencies, although some of them are excellent and most of them worth reading too)–it was high time for a good, up to date new treatment. Huebert has done just this. I read the book in manuscript form well before its publication; I readily disclose I’m friends with Huebert (he’s also a co-blogger here at TLS). I read it with growing excitement. Here, finally, was a book that covered all the major issues, and from a solidly Austrian and anarchist-informed base–one that did not reveal (or feign) ignorance of various libertarian perspectives on issues such as democracy and decentralization and drawbacks of use of electoral politics or court battles. I’ve long maintained that an appreciation of Austrian economics is essential to sound libertarian theorizing; without it, there is always something missing; with it, a more integrated and coherent libertarian perspective is possible (and frankly I don’t see how one can be an Austrian andnot a libertarian, unless one is a misanthrope). Huebert’s book exemplifies this strength in spades. He is thoroughly familiar with Austrian economics and intertwines it throughout his analysis. Let me also say, as somewhat of a specialist on IP related matters, that Huebert’s chapter on this topic is probably the single-best concise overview and explanation of the proper Austrian-libertarian case against IP, and the related libertarian debates about this matter, that I’ve ever read. The book is great for the intelligent person looking to learn more, but has enough insights to interest even seasoned libertarian intellectuals. This is one of the first books I can imagine giving to intelligent, almost-libertarian friends, who have some interest in our ideas (others include Hazlitt’sEconomics in One Lesson, Rothbard & Rockwell’s The Free Market Reader, Bastiat’s The Law, Woods’s Nullification and Meltdown; for more ideas, andlinks to some of these, see my The Greatest Libertarian Books). The book is punchy and well written, not boring; but it doesn’t talk down to the reader either. It’s got exactly the right tone, and covers all the major, modern libertarian issues–and fairly and objectively, to boot. It’s going to be very useful and popular among seasoned libertarians; the growing young generation of emerging libertarians; and with potentially interested people among the civil libertarian left and among the anti-bailout right/Tea Party types. I highly, highly recommend this wonderful book. (See also Block’s excellent book review here.) Google Calls France A Monopoly! Well, they should, anyway–after all, “France Calls Google a Monopoly,” which is absurd. The only real monopoly is the state and monopolies it grants, not private companies that have no extra-market power. Imagine a state adopting the motto, “Don’t Be Evil.” You could use it to strike down most of its laws! Dodge Challenger Freedom Commercial by STEPHAN KINSELLA JULY 7, 2010 This stupid Dodge commercial–which shows a Dodge Challenger arriving bearing American flags to save the day against the British Redcoats in 1776, ending with the narrator saying “America got two things right: Cars and freedom” is a sad statement about America. We have given up our freedoms and cling to mere words and slogans. We [...] Read the full article ? What Kagan Should Have Said About Natural Rights As noted in this Reason article, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was questioned by a Senator about whether she believes in natural rights that are not provided in the Constitution. She repeatedly refused to grant this, instead insisting: “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job [...] The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is Here to Help Elizabeth Higgs passed this image on to me–she was alerted to this by a European friend who used a site called TV Shack to watch American TV and found the image above. The center seal, from the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, is creepy and  fascist-looking. And no wonder–the NIPRCC is a program of [...] TLS Podcast Picks: Stefan Molyneux on Language and the State and the Motorhome Diaries Recommended podcasts: FDR #1688: Stefan Molyneux’s opening speech at Porcupine Freedom Festival (PorcFest) on “Language as the Ultimate Government Program” (June 26 2010; video below). It’s a fascinating, audience-participation talk about how the state uses euphemistic language to disguise and cover up the evil that it does–and how we can fight it. Also interesting–listen to [...] Seinfeld’s Elaine is Anti-IP   Hoppe in Bulgarian The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright I’m often asked by people who are interested in the criticisms of intellectual property how authors, for example, would be compensated in a copyright-free society. My answer is sometimes: “I’m not sure. They’d have to figure it out.” I say this not because I have no opinions but because I’m not a consequentialist and do not want to acknowledge that the criticism of IP law is contingent on some kind of view of what would happen in its absence. In this, I’m reminded of John Hasnas’s comments in his brilliant, classic article The Myth of the Rule of Law: What would a free market in legal services be like? I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. … It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law (or Socrates of Monosizea, for that matter) describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge. With the advent of state IP legislation, the state has interrupted and preempted whatever other customs, business arrangements, contractual regimes and practices, and so on, that would no doubt have arisen in its absence. So it’s natural for those new to the anti-IP idea to be a bit nervous about replacing the current flawed IP system with … a vacuum. It’s natural for them to wonder, well what would occur in its absence? As I noted, the reason we are not sure is the state has snuffed them out. This is similar to the FCC which preempted and monopolized the field of property rights in airwaves just as they were starting to develop in the common law; now people are used to the idea of the state regulating and parceling out airwave or spectrum rights and might imagine there would be chaos if the FCC were abolished (for more on this see David Kelley & Roger Donway‘s 1985 monograph Laissez Parler: Freedom in the Electronic Media, as discussed in my post Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property). So, because people are bound to ask the inevitable: we IP opponents try to come up with some predictions and solutions and answers. Thus, in the end we must agree with Hasnas: Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot....