Introduction
In "For a New Liberty," Murray N. Rothbard presents a compelling case for libertarianism, a political philosophy that advocates for individual liberty and minimal government intervention. This book, first published in 1973, remains a foundational text for libertarian thought and continues to challenge readers to reconsider their assumptions about the role of government in society.
Rothbard argues that a truly free society can exist without a centralized state, and that many of the functions currently performed by governments could be better handled by private individuals and organizations. He explores how a stateless society might function, addressing common concerns and objections along the way.
Throughout the book, Rothbard applies libertarian principles to various aspects of society, including education, welfare, environmental protection, and foreign policy. He challenges readers to imagine a world where individual rights are paramount and where voluntary cooperation replaces government coercion.
The Evolution of Libertarianism in American History
Rothbard begins by tracing the roots of libertarianism in American history. He argues that the United States was founded on libertarian principles, which were deeply influential during the country's early years.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, classical liberals (the precursors to modern libertarians) sought to challenge the prevailing political order of absolute monarchies, high taxes, and government-granted monopolies. They advocated for free markets, limited government, and an end to political oppression and constant warfare.
These ideas were central to America's founding, as evidenced by the influence of thinkers like John Locke on the Founding Fathers. Locke's arguments for natural rights and the right to revolt against tyrannical governments resonated strongly with the American revolutionaries.
However, Rothbard notes that these libertarian values began to erode over time as the central government's power expanded. The Democratic Party was initially created to recapture the spirit of liberty, but it was torn apart by the issue of slavery in the 1840s. The Republican Party, while ending slavery, also instituted many big-government policies during and after the Civil War.
Rothbard also points out how other ideologies, particularly socialism, co-opted libertarian terminology. Before the rise of socialism in the 19th century, libertarians were considered the radical, progressive party on the "extreme Left." However, socialists soon claimed the mantle of progressivism, pushing libertarianism to the fringes of political discourse.
Despite these setbacks, Rothbard notes that the Libertarian Party has grown to become the third-largest political party in the United States, indicating a resurgence of interest in libertarian ideas.
The Nonaggression Axiom: The Foundation of Libertarianism
At the heart of libertarian philosophy lies the nonaggression axiom, which Rothbard describes as the fundamental principle underpinning all libertarian beliefs. This axiom states that no person or group of people should initiate or threaten violence against anyone else.
Rothbard explains that this principle extends beyond just physical violence to include aggression against property. In the libertarian view, private property is seen as an extension of its owner's body, leading to the conclusion that all rights are essentially property rights.
For example, freedom of speech is interpreted by libertarians as the right to say what you want while on your private property or on property you've rented for that purpose. Even classic exceptions to free speech, such as falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, are viewed through the lens of property rights. In this case, the person yelling "Fire!" would be violating the property rights of the theater owner and other theatergoers by breaching the implicit contract they entered into when purchasing their tickets.
Rothbard argues that the biggest violator of the nonaggression axiom is the State itself. He contends that the State regularly engages in actions that would be considered criminal if performed by private individuals, such as theft (taxation) or murder (war). The State, according to Rothbard, has developed a sophisticated vocabulary to justify its actions as being for the "common good" or "public welfare," but these terms merely disguise the fact that the State holds a monopoly on aggression.
The State and Forced Labor
Rothbard makes the provocative argument that various forms of forced labor, which he equates to slavery, still exist in modern society, perpetrated by the State. He points to several examples to support this claim:
Military Conscription: At the time of writing, all young American men were required to register for the armed forces and could be called up for service at any time. Rothbard sees this as a clear violation of individual liberty, forcing men to potentially risk their lives for the State's purposes.
Taxation: Rothbard argues that income tax is a form of part-time slavery. By taking a portion of people's earnings, the State effectively forces people to work for free for a certain amount of time each year.
The Court System: Rothbard criticizes the current system of punishing criminals by jailing them at taxpayer expense. This means that victims of crimes are forced to pay for the punishment of those who wronged them. He also objects to the practice of jailing suspects before they're proven guilty.
Involuntary Hospitalization: Rothbard takes issue with the practice of involuntarily committing people with mental illnesses to hospitals on the grounds that they might be a danger to themselves or others. He argues that this is unjust, as we don't imprison other groups who might statistically be more likely to commit crimes.
Through these examples, Rothbard attempts to show how the State regularly infringes on personal liberties and property rights, often in ways that are accepted as normal or necessary by much of society.
The Separation of Law and Morality
Rothbard presents a libertarian perspective on the relationship between law and morality, arguing that the two should be kept separate. He contends that the State should not legislate based on any particular moral code.
To illustrate this point, Rothbard uses the example of inciting a riot. He argues that if one person (Citizen A) encourages others to riot, and two other people (Citizens B and C) choose to do so, only B and C should be held legally responsible. This is because B and C acted of their own free will in choosing to commit a crime. While inciting a riot might be considered immoral, Rothbard argues that it shouldn't be illegal.
This principle extends to other areas as well. Rothbard points out that both conservatives and liberals often seek to encode their moral beliefs into law. For example, conservatives might want to ban pornography because they find it immoral, while liberals might support its legality because they view sex as healthy and empowering.
Rothbard argues that from a libertarian perspective, these moral questions are irrelevant to the law. The only relevant factor is whether an action violates the nonaggression axiom. In the case of pornography, banning it would make the State the aggressor by invading the property rights of those who wish to produce, share, or consume it.
This principle also applies to gun ownership. Rothbard argues that individuals have the right to defend themselves with whatever weapons they choose. He points out that vulnerable groups (such as low-income individuals, elderly people, and African Americans) are often the ones who most need the ability to protect themselves.
By separating law and morality, Rothbard believes that individual freedoms can be better protected from the whims of majority opinion or the moral beliefs of those in power.
The Pitfalls of State-Run Services
Rothbard dedicates significant attention to critiquing state-run services, particularly focusing on education and welfare. He argues that these services, despite their good intentions, often harm the very people they're meant to help.
Education
Rothbard traces the history of public education in the United States, noting that it's a relatively recent phenomenon. He points out that in the 1920s, the state of Oregon passed a law banning private schools, forcing all children into public schools with a state-approved curriculum. Surprisingly, this law was championed by the Ku Klux Klan, who wanted to force immigrants and Catholics into a homogeneous "Americanized" school system.
Rothbard argues that public schools, in the name of progress and democracy, actually stamp out diversity and harm children. He contends that the one-size-fits-all approach of public education fails to account for the different personalities, talents, and learning styles of individual children.
In contrast, Rothbard envisions a privatized education system where parents could choose schools that best suit their children's unique needs. This could include religious schools for religious families, schools with strict grading systems for some, and gradeless education for others. He believes this diversity would better serve children's educational needs.
Welfare
Rothbard is equally critical of the welfare system. He points out that despite a decrease in the number of people living below the poverty line in the 1970s, welfare spending had increased dramatically. He provides statistics showing that total social welfare spending rose from $13.7 billion in 1937 to $247.7 billion in 1976.
Rothbard argues that this increase in welfare benefits creates a disincentive to work. If people can make almost as much money through welfare as they can by working, there's little motivation to seek employment.
Furthermore, Rothbard challenges the popular belief that welfare redistributes money from the rich to the poor. He cites estimates from the Tax Foundation showing that even people in the lowest income brackets were paying significant portions of their income in taxes. However, these taxpaying poor weren't necessarily the ones receiving welfare benefits. Instead, their taxes were funding welfare for other poor people who didn't pay taxes.
Through these arguments, Rothbard attempts to show that state-run services like education and welfare, despite their good intentions, often create more problems than they solve and can harm the very people they're meant to help.
The Federal Reserve and Economic Instability
Rothbard dedicates a significant portion of his book to discussing the role of the Federal Reserve (the Fed) in causing inflation and economic recessions. He argues that the Fed's control over the money supply leads to artificial booms and busts in the economy.
To illustrate how the Fed operates, Rothbard uses an analogy of a family (the Joneses) being given control of the nation's money supply. Initially, the family uses this power conservatively, but over time, they begin printing more money to fund their own luxuries. This increase in the money supply creates the illusion of widespread wealth, leading to rising prices for consumer goods.
In reality, Rothbard explains, the Fed doesn't simply print money at will. Instead, it uses a more complex system involving bank demand deposits. The Fed can write checks at a rate of 6:1 to its physical money reserves, effectively allowing banks to lend out six times as much money as they actually have on hand.
This system, according to Rothbard, is inherently unstable. If everyone were to suddenly demand their deposits in cash, banks would be unable to pay out without the Fed printing massive amounts of money, which would cause severe inflation.
Rothbard then explains how this system contributes to the boom and bust cycle:
During the boom phase, the Fed increases the money supply, and banks offer loans at artificially low interest rates.
This encourages businesses to invest in capital goods (like factories), and the extra money flows to workers in the form of higher wages.
The larger money supply causes consumer goods prices to rise.
Eventually, banks must ask for debt repayments to replenish their reserves, leading to an economic depression.
The Fed then steps in to bail out the banks, further inflating the currency.
This expands government revenue but hurts everyone else, as the money supply never shrinks and prices never fall.
Rothbard argues that this cycle, perpetuated by the Fed's policies, is responsible for much of the economic instability experienced in modern economies. He suggests that a truly free market, without central bank intervention, would lead to more stable economic conditions.
The Case for Privatizing Public Services
One of Rothbard's most radical proposals is the privatization of services traditionally provided by the public sector, including streets, police, and courts. He argues that the free market could provide these services more efficiently and at a higher quality than the government.
To illustrate his point, Rothbard uses an analogy of a society where the government has always provided shoes to everyone. If someone suggested privatizing shoe production, many people would object, wondering who would supply shoes without the government and how people would afford them. Rothbard argues that this is precisely the reaction many people have to the idea of privatizing roads or police services, simply because they're accustomed to government provision of these services.
Here's how Rothbard envisions these services working in a privatized system:
Streets and Roads
In a fully privatized system, all land would be privately owned, including streets and roads. In a residential area, for example, landlords might jointly own a particular block. To increase the value of their property, they would have a natural incentive to ensure the streets remain efficient and safe.
Police
Private police forces would be hired by property owners to ensure safety. Rothbard argues that landlords wouldn't be able to attract tenants if their streets were plagued by crime, so they would have a strong incentive to provide effective policing.
Courts
In Rothbard's vision, the court system would also be privatized. If a crime occurred, the accuser could take the case to a private court. If the accused disagreed with the verdict, they could appeal to a different private court. If the two courts disagreed, the case could be taken to a third court for a final decision.
Rothbard argues that without a state to enforce court judgments, criminals would be incentivized to comply with sentences due to the social and economic consequences of non-compliance. For example, a merchant found guilty of fraud who refused to pay a court-ordered fine might quickly find himself out of business as word spread of his actions.
Through these examples, Rothbard attempts to show that many of the services we assume must be provided by the government could potentially be handled more effectively by private entities in a free market system.
Free Market Solutions to Environmental Issues
Rothbard challenges the notion that capitalism and industrialization are to blame for environmental problems. Instead, he argues that the free market can provide solutions to issues of resource scarcity and pollution.
He begins by pointing out the benefits of capitalism and industrialization. Thanks to these forces, North America now supports hundreds of millions of people at a high standard of living, compared to the roughly one million Native Americans living at subsistence level before the advent of capitalism.
Rothbard then argues that the free market has actually done an excellent job of conserving many resources. He uses the example of copper mining companies, which operate according to supply and demand principles. These companies have an incentive to conserve copper resources to ensure future profits.
In contrast, Rothbard points to the timber industry as an example of how government control can lead to resource depletion. Because the government owns most forests and merely leases them to timber companies, these companies have no long-term incentive to maintain the forests. Their goal is simply to generate as much profit as possible before their lease ends.
Rothbard argues that privatizing forests would create an economic incentive for companies to carefully maintain them. He extends this principle to the problem of pollution:
If a company like General Motors owned the Mississippi River, it would have a huge incentive to keep it clean and pollution-free.
Any company or individual polluting the river would likely face immediate lawsuits from the owner.
The current pollution of rivers and lakes is largely due to sewage companies employed by the state to dispose of waste for free.
If this service didn't exist, people would have more incentive to invest in eco-friendly solutions like toilets that can burn off sewage.
Through these arguments, Rothbard attempts to show that many environmental problems could be solved more effectively through private ownership and free market principles rather than government regulation.
Libertarian Foreign Policy
Rothbard extends libertarian principles to the realm of foreign policy, advocating for a non-interventionist approach. He argues that war is a gross violation of the nonaggression axiom and that states should interfere as little as possible in other states' affairs.
Rothbard begins by addressing the common misconception that libertarians are isolationists or naive pacifists. He explains that libertarian opposition to war stems from the same principle that underlies all libertarian beliefs: the nonaggression axiom.
In an ideal libertarian world, Rothbard argues, there would be no need for foreign policy because there would be no nations or governments. However, recognizing that this is not the current reality, he proposes that the libertarian goal should be to pressure states to avoid war at all costs and confine their aggression to their own populations.
Rothbard points out several problems with modern warfare:
Unlike wars in the Middle Ages, which primarily involved armies fighting each other, modern warfare often results in mass civilian casualties.
Advanced weaponry has made war far more destructive than in the past.
Nationalism has led to the idea that entire civilian populations are complicit in their government's actions, making them targets in war.
Rothbard also addresses the question of whether it's ever justified for one country to intervene in defense of another country that's been unjustly attacked. He argues that this scenario is not analogous to defending an individual from a mugging, as pro-interventionists often claim. When a state intervenes in another state's affairs, it not only risks aggressing against the civilians of the attacking state but also opens its own population up to potential attack.
The only type of warfare that Rothbard sees as potentially acceptable from a libertarian perspective is guerrilla warfare, which typically involves civilians banding together to fight against their own oppressive state. This aligns with the libertarian belief that individuals always have the right to defend themselves against violence and coercion.
However, Rothbard emphasizes that even in cases of justified self-defense, individuals never have the right to force others to fight on their behalf, whether through conscription, taxation, or any other form of coercion.
Conclusion: The Vision of a Libertarian Society
In "For a New Liberty," Murray Rothbard presents a comprehensive vision of a society based on libertarian principles. He challenges readers to reconsider many of their assumptions about the necessity and benevolence of government intervention in various aspects of life.
Throughout the book, Rothbard consistently applies the nonaggression axiom to different areas of society, from education and welfare to environmental protection and foreign policy. He argues that many of the services and functions currently provided by the state could be more effectively handled by private individuals and organizations in a free market system.
Rothbard's vision of a libertarian society includes:
- A fully privatized education system that allows for diverse approaches to learning.
- The abolition of welfare programs, which he argues create dependency and disincentivize work.
- Private ownership of all property, including roads and natural resources, which he believes would lead to better conservation and less pollution.
- A privatized system of law enforcement and courts.
- A non-interventionist foreign policy that avoids war at all costs.
While many of Rothbard's ideas may seem radical or even unthinkable to some readers, his goal is to challenge conventional thinking about the role of government in society. He argues that many of the problems we face today are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much.
Rothbard's work continues to be influential in libertarian circles and beyond. While not everyone may agree with all of his conclusions, "For a New Liberty" provides a thought-provoking exploration of how a society might function with minimal government intervention.
The book serves as both a critique of the current system and a blueprint for a radically different approach to organizing society. It challenges readers to question their assumptions about the necessity of state power and to consider the potential benefits of a truly free society based on voluntary cooperation rather than government coercion.
Whether one ultimately agrees with Rothbard's vision or not, "For a New Liberty" offers a comprehensive and passionate argument for libertarianism that continues to spark debate and discussion more than four decades after its initial publication.