Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, July 11, 2014

TGIF: Speaking to Nonlibertarians

If libertarians want to change how nonlibertarians’ think about government, they will need to understand how nonlibertarians think about government. By “nonlibertarians,” I mean the majority of people who spend little if any time pondering political theory, or what Murray Rothbard called political ethics. They may focus at times on particular government programs and actions, or on proposals for new programs, but rarely about government as an institution.
Read TGIF here.

1 comment:

dennis said...

This is great advice, but I fear a good many of those committed to the state (whether on the left or the right) subscribe to their political ideology the same way a young earth creationist subscribes to his religion. For the more knowledgable non-llibertarians it is important to determine the nature of their view of the state. Do they see the state as a necessary but dangerous thing, useful to counterbalance other institutions in society but always capable of mischief even when doing "good" things? Or does the statist buy into nonsense like the idea that the state is just a group of people like any other, or that "the state is us" or that "the state is the thing we all belong to/do together"? If it's the former there is hope, if the latter, we've got a problem.