• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How libertarianism started, a look back in its history

Have you read the book upon which the OP is taken from?
You keep asking that question, and everyone is going to give you the same answer. No one here wants to read a fringe revisionist ideology book, which as presented by the OP is demonstrably and factually false.

The OP is intentionally deceptive, trying to claim that Friedman created the libertarian philosophy along with big business cohorts after WWII.

It doesn't matter what book I'm presenting to you, if I do it in a way that is over the top and ridiculous, it doesn't matter, you probably won't accept my recommendation.
 
I found this on Amazon

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement: Brian Doherty: 9781586485726: Amazon.com: Books

From Publishers Weekly
Modern libertarians see themselves as the loyal opposition to the totalitarian tendencies of centralized power, in an American tradition reaching back to the anti-Federalists. Doherty's astute history shows where that consensus comes from and where it fractures along personal, political and practical lines. As a procapitalist and antistatist philosophy, libertarianism has had its greatest impact in economics. But Doherty shows that modern libertarianism since the 1940s, and increasingly since the 1980s, has been politically and ideologically influential, too. Whether believers in a small state regulating only contracts and national defense, or no state at all (like self-described “anarcho-capitalistâ€� Murray Rothbard), libertarians have rooted themselves in a number of institutions—from schools, publications and think tanks to the Libertarian Party, the country's third-largest ticket. Reason magazine senior editor Doherty conveys an insider's understanding in clear, confident prose. However, his sympathies resist questioning the fundamental assumption uniting diverse ideas, personalities and institutions: the belief in the power of completely unfettered markets to bring about the best possible society. Though partisan and sometimes hagiographic, Doherty's well-researched history avoids polemics in outlining a vital political orientation that cuts across the political spectrum.

It seems that this picture is a bit different than what some have taken from the short six or seven sentences of the OP.

And this from the book description

In this revelatory book, based on original research and interviews with more than 100 key sources, Brian Doherty traces the evolution of the movement through the unconventional life stories of its most influential leaders— Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman—and through the personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. And by doing so, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history—from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1960s to today's most divisive political issues. Neither an exposé nor a political polemic, this entertaining historical narrative will enlighten anyone interested in American politics.
 
Which, besides being untrue, has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed...


... how very not surprising.



Early libertarianism was an outgrowth of the same economic radicals and political philosophers who variously produced anachism, minarchism, and anarcho-communism.

It certainly had little or nothing to do with aristocrats and plantations.

So? In the Eighteenth Century, to be free you needed a large estate and plenty of slaves. Nowadays you need plenty of police and troops, plus control of the state. It is a simple rich-man's nonsense, meaning 'I can steal from you and you won't object'. If you believe it you are a simpleton.
 
and clips from reviews of the Doherty book

[h=3]Review[/h]"Doherty helps explain why libertarianism is the biggest political movement nobody ever heard of." -- Chicago Sun-Times, July 5, 2007

"Doherty's fascinating and, indeed, freewheeling history reminds us that curmudgeonly people can shape the world too" -- The American, February 5, 2007

"Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the 'pure idea.'" -- The Wall Street Journal online, February 15, 2007

"[Doherty's] fierce intelligence growls at your from the page." -- BBC Focus, June 1, 2007

"[Doherty] has done an impressive job of pulling together an interesting, enlightening, and entertaining history of the American libertarian movement." -- (Laissez Faire Books)

"[Doherty] has written what should be the standard intellectual history of libertarianism.... comprehensive and insightful... clear, wry prose." -- City Journal, April 20, 2007

"quite simply, the best book of its kind ever written...an extraordinary accomplishment...an extremely entertaining and informative ride..." -- National Review, May 14, 2007

"remarkably engaging and encyclopedic history" -- New York Sun, January 24, 2007

"serious, comprehensive history of libertarianism... this scholarly and far-reaching account is necessary for collections of modern American history and politics." -- Library Journal, March 1, 2007

"Brian Doherty's sympathetic, well-informed and endlessly entertaining tour traces the ways in which American libertarianism punches above its weight." -- The Financial Times --
 
I found this on Amazon

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement: Brian Doherty: 9781586485726: Amazon.com: Books



It seems that this picture is a bit different than what some have taken from the short six or seven sentences of the OP.

And this from the book description

And that still isn't the truth, how the OP related it.
Libertarianism didn't start after WW2, as the OP described.

It dates back much further.
If that weren't true, modern liberals wouldn't exist, because their political philosophy to, dates back to many of these same people.
 
And that still isn't the truth, how the OP related it.
Libertarianism didn't start after WW2, as the OP described.

It dates back much further.
If that weren't true, modern liberals wouldn't exist, because their political philosophy to, dates back to many of these same people.

And from the reviews I have read the book also agrees. I also found this about the author

Brian Doherty (born June 1, 1968) is an American journalist. He is a Senior Editor at Reason magazine. He is the author of This Is Burning Man: The Rise of a New American Underground (Little, Brown, 2004), Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (PublicAffairs, 2007), Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment (Cato Institute, 2008), and Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books, 2012).

Sounds like he has fairly decent libertarian credentials and would certainly be aware of the historical basis of libertarianism.
 
Oh and Doherty's book, is only referenced in the OP, but the OP's article is written by another person.
So you just cited a pro libertarian book, in support of the OP's article, which was written by another author, that make a bull **** argument.
 
And from the reviews I have read the book also agrees. I also found this about the author



Sounds like he has fairly decent libertarian credentials and would certainly be aware of the historical basis of libertarianism.

Doherty would, because he's a libertarian.
Mark Ames, the article's author, would not.

Ames only reference Doherty, for his own work, the article the OP posted.
 
So? In the Eighteenth Century, to be free you needed a large estate and plenty of slaves. Nowadays you need plenty of police and troops, plus control of the state. It is a simple rich-man's nonsense, meaning 'I can steal from you and you won't object'. If you believe it you are a simpleton.

It seems that it is rude to say that IF you do or think such and such you are a simpleton. I do not, first, find 'simpleton' offensive, and, second. I suppose that 'if' is a conditional, letting people off any hook. If anyone took offense, however, sorry - none intended.
 
It seems that it is rude to say that IF you do or think such and such you are a simpleton. I do not, first, find 'simpleton' offensive, and, second. I suppose that 'if' is a conditional, letting people off any hook. If anyone took offense, however, sorry - none intended.

I didnt, but I respect your apology to whom ever did.
 
It seems that it is rude to say that IF you do or think such and such you are a simpleton. I do not, first, find 'simpleton' offensive, and, second. I suppose that 'if' is a conditional, letting people off any hook. If anyone took offense, however, sorry - none intended.

Did you just reply to yourself?
 
The OP is about a think-tank, not the libertarian philosophy, which can be traced back to 18th century philosophers..

Exactly, which is how modern libertarianism is these days.

How it was in the 18th century is absolutely pointless.
 
Which libertarian, who was around before WW2 is alive then?

I would imagine quite a few. Plenty of people lead long lives these days, many into their 80's & 90's, some even into their 100's.

I am suprised anyone would think that all pre-WWII people would now be dead, or do you just assume a lower lifespan for libertarians?
 
I would imagine quite a few. Plenty of people lead long lives these days, many into their 80's & 90's, some even into their 100's.

I am suprised anyone would think that all pre-WWII people would now be dead, or do you just assume a lower lifespan for libertarians?

So you can't name any.
 
So you can't name any.

No, I think if you read my post you would see I didnt say that.

Im just puzzling over your weird questions, why you would think they were all dead and why you'd want me to name random old men that youve never heard of, & who, if I named them, because you dont know them, would mean no more to you than a made up name like kermit the frog.

It seems a most odd line of questioning, & really a bit weird, especially the request to "out" elderly people.

I mean Im sure most libertarians would be happy to stand by their beliefs, but its really just polite to ask first before putting their names online, alongside their political affiliation, without first asking if they minded.

Especially under these sort of circumstances where their seems no rhyme or reason in doing so.

Is there any particular reason why you would want to know an old mans name?

What benefit do you think it will bring you?
 
Yes, because the ideas of individual freedom, the constitution, and the free market were all founded after WWII.

Way to crack the case wide open.


Yeah, you'd never know John Locke etc ever existed
 
To live in the Eighteenth Century you need large estates and plenty of slaves.

its amazing how many people managed to pass on their DNA having neither.
 
Back
Top Bottom