If this had been the only book on libertarianism I had ever read, I would probably have become an authoritarian. I'm aware that academics often use words differently than us normies do, but the idea that there is a school of "ethics" that includes allowing one's own baby to starve to death is unfathomable.

Clearly by the 1980s Rothbard was already well on his journey right-ward from the leftist activists had the pleasure of working with in the 1960s Peace & Liberty Party and the author of radical works like "Man economy & State." He spends the whole book looking at his basis for an economic and "legal" system in a libertarian society and expanding upon those for various parts of life and society. However, he just accepts his own basis as fact and doesn't even seem to attempt to argue why that should be a basis of any thought, let alone libertarianism. This is particularly true in the first section of property ownership. There is no explanation why mixing one's labor with unowned property automatically makes it the private property of the laborer. There is no question as to the idea that an individual can be private property, even to himself, while also claiming that slavery, even so-called voluntary slavery, is unethical. There is absolutely no explanation why inheritance is considered an ethical transfer of private property rights, but a promise to do so is not. (There are plenty of reasons he says why a promise is not, but I see that as little difference than inheritance). There was a whole chapter on the transfer of land titles and the problem of tracking such back to its rightful owner, yet there was 0 reference to the obvious cases of this such as European colonialization into Australia, Africa, & the Americas. An incredible western European centric viewpoint, particularly when you consider Rothbard was an American Jew.

One thing he did do right was right in the introduction he made it clear that nothing contained within would be able to challenge Marxists ideals, including the labor-theory-of-value, as the ideas are so far apart, they can't even be compared properly.

I've been a Libertarian for over 20 years, and no argument against liberty written by a statist has come nearly close to making me question my belief in libertarianism as this one of the American libertarian right. ( )

natural rights theory of libertarianism, weak logic in defining "man"

An ethics/morals based case for a society without rulers. Rothbard outlines the legal framework for a free society. Very convincing. ( )

This was my favorite of the books I read for my capitolo-anarchist symposium. Rothbard is considered very weak, almost a dandy of the field, but for a bleeding heart libertarian, he's the closest they get to me. ( )

The book is a collection of topical essays, organized or presented in five parts. The first three parts deliver Rothbard's views on natural law, on various topics or ethical issues related to society, and on a review of what he sees as governmental errors. The forth part is a review of certain practitioners and literature in which he reports what he calls the shortcomings of Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, von Mises and Nozick. The last part presents some (now dated) views of current events (60s and 70s) that could encourage a libertarian to work toward the expansion of liberty.

Much of the material and examples are reprises of things he has also presented in other volumes, but they are well written, and if considered alone support his well-earned reputation as an outstanding intellectual supporter of a general ‘libertarian’ position. The surprise to me was that considering his positions as a whole does not seem to lead to libertarianism, but to anarchy or anarcho-caopiatlism as a desired state. If you are into any study of governments and their role in supporting individual liberty, the subjects and reasoning presented are well worth your time. ( )