Charles Murray’s “What It Means to Be a Libertarian”

In my first blog post I mentioned that the first book I read on libertarianism was Charles Murray’s “What It Means to Be a Libertarian.”  It wasn’t coincidence that I mentioned that particular book, or that it was on my mind.  I was just going through some of my old stuff at my parents’ house and found that book tucked away in a box in a closet.  So I re-read it.*

The broadest possible definition of libertarianism, as I see it, is this:  The belief that the most important political value is the individual liberty of each citizen.  Personal liberty as well as economic liberty.  Each libertarian comes at this from a different angle, but the goal has to be individual liberty.

Dr. Murray’s foremost concern is maximizing the long-term happiness of individuals.  He’s not concerned, necessarily, with the momentary happiness that might come from finding a $20 bill in your pocket or sipping on a cold coke on a warm day.  This kind of happiness is fleeting.  Dr. Murray is primarily concerned with the sense of satisfaction that one can expect to have when looking back on a life well lived.  And that sense of satisfaction, he argues, can only be found if a man can look back and find good things that would not have been otherwise accomplished but for his effort.  It appears to Dr. Murray that in order for a man to be able to get this kind of satisfaction, he must be allowed to fail or succeed on his own merits.  Whatever status a man reaches through life, he should, and most likely would, be able look back with satisfaction if he knows that he has earned it.  This is, in a nutshell, the ethical basis Dr. Murray gives for placing his highest political value on the personal and economic liberties of the individual.

The meat of this book is really focused on defining the framework of Murray’s ideal government and defending that framework.  Murray’s ideal government is sort of a minarchist-plus government:  One that defends the individual rights of people with police, courts, and a military but also provides “public goods” such as roads, utilities, and even school vouchers so long as the administration of these goods is controlled at the most local level of government possible.   His defense is constructed by taking on the hardest possible cases for libertarians (the environment, public safety, public welfare, discrimination, healthcare, etc.) and showing why it is reasonable to believe that his ideal government would handle these problems better than the current government. 

Ultimately, Murray claims that a return to a government like the one he describes is possible when people begin to think of the government as “them” rather than “us.”  I think he’s right.  In fact, a good definition of “what it means to be a libertarian” might just be this:  thinking of the government as “them” rather than “us.”

*I hardly ever re-read books.  In fact I can’t even think of another book I’ve ever re-read cover to cover.  So just that fact alone should be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of Dr. Murray’s manifesto.