Read more
Zusatztext “America is a country full of people who feel personal liberty and individual responsibility in their guts. This book puts those guts into words. America is also a country full of politicians! academics! and self-possessed elites who mistrust liberty and responsibility to the bottom of their souls. This book plants a kick in that fundament.” Informationen zum Autor David Boaz (1953–2024) was a distinguished senior fellow of the Cato Institute. For more than four decades as vice president for public policy and executive vice president, he played a key role in the development of both the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is the author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom (first edition titled Libertarianism: A Primer ) and the editor of The Libertarian Reader . His articles appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Wall Street Journal , and the Los Angeles Times , among other publications. Klappentext Rev. ed. of: Libertarian: A primer. New York: Free Press, 1997. Leseprobe The Libertarian Mind Chapter 1 The Coming Libertarian Age Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom. It’s the philosophy that has in different forms inspired people throughout history who fought for freedom, dignity, and individual rights—the early advocates of religious tolerance, the opponents of absolute monarchy, the American revolutionaries, the abolitionists, antiwar and anti-imperialist advocates, opponents of National Socialism and communism. Libertarians believe in the presumption of liberty. That is, libertarians believe people ought to be free to live as they choose unless advocates of coercion can make a compelling case. It’s the exercise of power, not the exercise of freedom, that requires justification. If we followed the presumption of liberty, our lives would be freer, more prosperous, and more satisfying. The burden of proof ought to be on those who want to limit our freedom. We should be free to live our lives as we choose so long as we respect the equal rights of others. The presumption of liberty should be as strong as the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, for the same reason. Just as you can’t prove your innocence of all possible charges against you, you cannot justify all of the ways in which you should be allowed to act. But too often we’re told that we have to justify each exercise of our freedom. Want to add a room onto your house? Smoke marijuana? Own a gun? Surf the Internet in privacy? Open a new taxi company? Prove that you need such a freedom. When New York mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to impose a ban on sodas larger than sixteen ounces, nanny-state activists proclaimed that “no one needs a large soda.” Maybe not, but what if they want one? Don’t people have a right to choose what they eat and drink? Former senator Richard Lugar said that he wanted to ban certain firearms “for which I see no legitimate social purpose.” What other products might not have a “legitimate social purpose”—cigarettes? Electric toothbrushes? Light beer? Politicians’ autobiographies? In a free society politicians and political majorities shouldn’t be arbiters of what can be sold by willing sellers to willing buyers. Similarly, defenders of massive surveillance of our phone calls and web surfing demand that we make the case for our freedom and privacy. They are wrong. The burden of proof should be on those who would compile sweeping databases of our activities. Liberty should be the presumption. Restrictions on liberty need justification. We do get exercised about limits on our freedom, but not often enough. Just look at the restrictions government has imposed on us. Gover...
