Rating: 
Summary: Warning! Mind Expanding Material
Review: I had the unique pleasure to be one of the typesetters on the 1998 edition of this book, and I must say that it was a POWERFUL book. Rothbard builds his entire world-view from some basic arguments, creating a step-by-step explanation for his positions. His initial exposition seems straight-forward, but when he starts applying his views to modern ethical questions, the weak of mind should exit. I found myself disagreeing with his positions, and then realizing that I could not disagree with his positions without disagreeing with his previous fundamental arguments--which I had already accepted. Rothbard's logic is powerful, and he is a master at its use. Anyone looking for an easy bed-time read is discouraged from this book. Anyone looking for a serious intellectual challenge--with the testicular fortitude to stand up to a world-class intellectual onslaught--may find this book to be a life-changer.
Rating:
Summary: to answer some criticisms
Review: Just about everything has been said about this book, so I'll simply answer some criticisms."let us imagine a murder victim who has no heir or whose legacy is repudiated. Is his death to go unpunished? And what if the heir is the murderer? I'm sure that Rothbard had a answer for that, but it is not in this book." Well, Rothbard is no omniscient, nor is anyone else; furthermore, he can't answer every possible question in one book. In reality, no-one knows exactly how the free market would provide various services in the absence of any form of a State, but Rothbard makes likely predictions. In the case that a victim has no heirs, it is presumed that anyone who was close to the victim would be able to demand justice in a private court, on his behalf. Furthermore, the victim's insurance policy against crime might mandate that, should he be murdered, the murderer be found; his lawyer would be responsible for making sure that happens after his death. Finally, all crimes must occur in place. Rothbard says that various streets and buildings would have private police, employed by the owners. It would be in the owners best interest to see that crimes committed on his or her property go punished, so as to discourage that. Furthermore, another reviewer has remarked that it is possible to have a government of minimal function that does not inflate the money supply. This displays extreme ignorance of history, and naivete. That's exactly what our founding father's tried to do: and it was a failure from the start. The past 300 years have shown us that any government at all, no matter how small it starts, no matter the "constitutional restrictions", will grow and grow and grow until all liberty is crushed under the boot of tyranny. The very existence of a government, in and of itself, mandates that the non-aggression axiom be violated. For a government cannot possibly exist without taxes, and taxes are the initiation of aggression. What are taxes, but forcing indivudals to work 10-37.5% of the year for no compensation? And what is that, but slavery? Systematic, persistent, and regularized theft is slavery. Thus, it is impossible to adhere to libertarian principles and support any State.
Rating: 
Summary: A near miss.
Review: Murray Newton Rothbard's classic hard-hitting defense of property-rights-based libertarianism is deservedly back in print, with a valuable new introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe that alone is worth the price of the book even for those who already own the original. Prof. Hoppe helpfully locates Rothbard in libertarian scholarly tradition, explains why Rothbard's work was unjustly ignored while unsystematic but "tolerant" thinkers like Robert Nozick were unfairly elevated, refutes the major criticisms that have been offered of Rothbard's work since the original publication of _The Ethics of Liberty_, and effectively argues that for natural-law theorist Rothbard, libertarianism was not "libertinism" but socially quite conservative. Also helpful is the new format, in which the book's former end-notes are arranged in footnote style rather than collected at the end of each chapter.
Rating:
Summary: Classic defense of property rights; great new intro, format
Review: Murray Newton Rothbard's classic hard-hitting defense of property-rights-based libertarianism is deservedly back in print, with a valuable new introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe that alone is worth the price of the book even for those who already own the original. Prof. Hoppe helpfully locates Rothbard in libertarian scholarly tradition, explains why Rothbard's work was unjustly ignored while unsystematic but "tolerant" thinkers like Robert Nozick were unfairly elevated, refutes the major criticisms that have been offered of Rothbard's work since the original publication of _The Ethics of Liberty_, and effectively argues that for natural-law theorist Rothbard, libertarianism was not "libertinism" but socially quite conservative. Also helpful is the new format, in which the book's former end-notes are arranged in footnote style rather than collected at the end of each chapter.
Rating:
Summary: The Ethics of Anarchy
Review: Murray Rothbard was the leading libertarian thinker of the 20th century. In 1982, he published THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY, his central work on political theory and ethics. This work was republished recently with an excellent introduction by Hans-Hermann Hope (the endnotes have been converted into footnotes, a big improvement). This work is probably the best discussion of libertarian philosophy from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. In addition, Rothbard develops a theory based on natural law, thus distancing himself from other strands of libertarian thought. The book is particularly comprehensive. Starting with a discussion of natural law, Rothbard turns to practical issues such as voluntary exchange, contracts, and the rights of children. He then discusses the concept of the state. He ends the work with discussions of different approaches to rights and a strategy for advancing liberty. The comprehensive nature of the work is also its greatest weakness. Rothbard discusses too many subjects in too few pages. For example, the difficult question of the rights of children takes all of 15 pages. Yet there is no more difficult question for any theory of rights than that question. Rothbard's discussion of the rights of children is emblematic of the weakness and at times superficial nature of this work. Take Rothbard's discussion of when the parents' "jurisdiction" over a child ends. He states: "Surely, any particular age (21, 18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution to this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his FULL rights of self-ownership WHEN HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS THEM IN NATURE-in short when he leaves or `runs away' from home." [p. 103; emphasis in the original.] First of all, it may be arbitrary to establish the age of emancipation at 18 rather than 17, but such decisions are found in all areas of life and are not thereby rendered "completely arbitrary." In any event, is it "completely arbitrary" to set it at 18 rather than 5? Moreover, Rothbard's "solution" is in most respects even more arbitrary. For example, if Junior Jones runs away when he is 8 years old, does that mean his parents cannot force him to stay? What if Junior is 5 and wanders off his parents' property and stays at the Smiths' house, asserting that he would prefer to live with the Smiths. Has he then demonstrated a "right to self-ownership" in nature? Would it be wrong for the Joneses to take him back? Rothbard uses a similar argument against Laissez-faire advocates of limited government who believe the state may provided limited protection services. Supposedly their views fail because how much or little services such a government might provide can only be "purely arbitrary." [p. 181.] This type of argument leads Rothbard to advocate abortion-on-demand, a position with which I strongly disagree. For whatever flaws it contains, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY it is certainly one of the most provocative books you will ever read.
Rating:
Summary: The Ethics of Anarchy
Review: Murray Rothbard was the leading libertarian thinker of the 20th century. In 1982, he published THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY, his central work on political theory and ethics. This work was republished recently with an excellent introduction by Hans-Hermann Hope (the endnotes have been converted into footnotes, a big improvement). This work is probably the best discussion of libertarian philosophy from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. In addition, Rothbard develops a theory based on natural law, thus distancing himself from other strands of libertarian thought. The book is particularly comprehensive. Starting with a discussion of natural law, Rothbard turns to practical issues such as voluntary exchange, contracts, and the rights of children. He then discusses the concept of the state. He ends the work with discussions of different approaches to rights and a strategy for advancing liberty. The comprehensive nature of the work is also its greatest weakness. Rothbard discusses too many subjects in too few pages. For example, the difficult question of the rights of children takes all of 15 pages. Yet there is no more difficult question for any theory of rights than that question. Rothbard's discussion of the rights of children is emblematic of the weakness and at times superficial nature of this work. Take Rothbard's discussion of when the parents' "jurisdiction" over a child ends. He states: "Surely, any particular age (21, 18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution to this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his FULL rights of self-ownership WHEN HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS THEM IN NATURE-in short when he leaves or 'runs away' from home." [p. 103; emphasis in the original.] First of all, it may be arbitrary to establish the age of emancipation at 18 rather than 17, but such decisions are found in all areas of life and are not thereby rendered "completely arbitrary." In any event, is it "completely arbitrary" to set it at 18 rather than 5? Moreover, Rothbard's "solution" is in most respects even more arbitrary. For example, if Junior Jones runs away when he is 8 years old, does that mean his parents cannot force him to stay? What if Junior is 5 and wanders off his parents' property and stays at the Smiths' house, asserting that he would prefer to live with the Smiths. Has he then demonstrated a "right to self-ownership" in nature? Would it be wrong for the Joneses to take him back? Rothbard uses a similar argument against Laissez-faire advocates of limited government who believe the state may provided limited protection services. Supposedly their views fail because how much or little services such a government might provide can only be "purely arbitrary." [p. 181.] This type of argument leads Rothbard to advocate abortion-on-demand, a position with which I strongly disagree. For whatever flaws it contains, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY it is certainly one of the most provocative books you will ever read.
Rating:
Summary: A near miss.
Review: Rothbard argues like a great trial lawyer. I was reminded of Bugliosi's book on the OJ trial more than any of the philosophical books on ethics I have read. I much prefer the clarity of Rothbard's writing to the rambling and gratuitous use of logical argot in Nozick. At the same time, I think Libertarianism needs a better approach to ethics to counteract the work of scholars like Rawls, who,following Kant's Metaphysics Of Morals, argues pursuasively for a more collectivist view. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think Ayn Rand was closer to the the mark with her ethics as expressed in Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. It is sad that more critical approaches to objectivist ethics have not been attempted by non-devotees. Still, the discussion of property rights as fundamental is priceless, and should be required reading for congressional staffers.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Work, From a Brilliant Author
Review: Rothbard's book intends to do two things: 1. Establish the objective truth and morality of his Natural law and Libertarian principles. 2.Show what can be allowed in a society that accepts these principles He fails completely at the former, and does a fairly impressive job with the latter. Lets look at some of the problems with Rothbard's attempt to establish objective morals: Rothbard doesn't deal with the fact value dichotomy directly. He simply shows that his views profess greater faith in rationalism (p.8) or that David Hume said some things that were incompatible with his views on the Fact/Value dichotomy (p.15) and in a footnote (p. 14 n.15) states that it hasn't been proven that the conclusions of an argument have to be in the premises. This is a dubious claim, but Rothbard (or anyone) hasn't shown that his ethics are objectively correct. He seems to assume that if its possible that ethics exist that can't be proven to be non-objective, then his specific ethics are correct. In this discussion of natural law, Rothbard also tries to disprove determinism by showing that it can't be proven logically (because if people are determined to do things, then how can the determinists think they weren't simply detyermined to know a falsehood?). I don't see why it would have to be, or why people who were determined to have certain rational faculties are less likely to be correct than people who got their rational faculties in some other way. This is an argument rothbard puts forth in a more extensive form in his 1960 essay "The Mantle of Science", but still to no avail. The most problematic aspect of this is Rothbard's defense of property rights. On page 21, he makes known his support for the Lockean view that when man mixes his labor with natural resources, it becomes his. But how can me mix his labor with anything? In his economic treatise, Man, Economy, and State; Rothbard says numerous times (correctly, I believe) that one's labor is inalienable! So which is it? Rothbard does a sometimes astonishingly good job of showing what would and wouldn't be allowed in a libertarian society. However, he still makes more arbitrary value judgements (such as that the only just principle of sentencing is a punishment which fits the crime).
Rating: 
Summary: Very good, but I dislike the dogmatic tone.
Review: There are many treasures to be found in this excellent book. According to Rothbard, "laissez faire" economy is not enough. What we require is a theory of justice, because so long as we exchange legitimate rigths to property, it is a philosophical and ethical matter to see what are the standards to establish when a particular title to property is actually just. Economics alone could'nt tell us that. So he sets to build a theory of justice and he is remarkably successful as to that, in general, but not in particular instances. This is a systematic work. It begins with the idea that "natural law" is a correct notion, then continues determining that property is a necessary consequence of the recognition of "human rights" -or rather, that in fact, all "human rights" boil down to property rights- In this respect, the foremost right is that one which concerns one's own person and body. Property rights over exterior objects are the consequence of men mixing their bodies (their labor)with natural resources, whence the right to own land that one has worked on if it was vacant before. Rothbard doesn't support "feudal" land ownership that comes from military conquest and does not imply the owner labor mixed in it. When this happens, the real natural owner is the laborer, the serf or the slave. I'd wish only that Rothbard were somewhat more humble about his doctrines and convictions. He dismisses everyone else are nitwits and fools. I prefer the temptative and inquisitive style of Nozick or more recently, Jan Narveson. For example, he reviews "alternative conceptions of liberty", criticizing -sometimes quite cogently, but not always- flaws in Mises, Nozick, Hayek and Isaiah Berlin. Even James Buchanan is set upon. When he departs from his main subjects in his construction of libertarian ethics, he reaches sometimes inconsistent or even preposterous conclusions. For example, when it comes to criminal law, he says that punishments should be the affair of the victim, himself or his heirs, either through private companies to the effect or somehow -Rothbard was, let us remember, the "enemy of the state", the greatest anarcho-capitalist-. The victim could choose the enforcement of the law or even to omit exacting any punishment or relatiation at all. But now I say: let us imagine a murder victim who has no heir or whose legacy is repudiated. Is his death to go unpunished? And what if the heir is the murderer? I'm sure that Rothbard had a answer for that, but it is not in this book. Another reviewer has remarked upon "children rights" in this book. But I ask you, what do these rothbardian libertarians find so interesting about blackmailers? Rothbard writes pages on end to stress that blackmailers are legitimate suppliers of a good to their (should we say...?) victims. So does Walter Brock in other writings. Well, you go on like this, rothbardians, and I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun, but all by yourselves. In sum, it is not strange that Rothbard has not found academic recognition. Nevertheless, it is worth reading if you don't take him too seriously because his recklessness is precisely what allows him to show the inconsistencies of other more sedate theorists.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Work Impossible To Ignore
Review: This is a very powerful work to say the least. Rothbard pushes natural rights and the non-initiation of force arguments to the full extreme. Despite this, I still disagree with him on one major point; the necessity of government. Although the idea has only been lightly touched upon by theorists, government is possible without any initiation of force against the governed. In fact, it is this ideal government that is the only alternative to both anarchy and statism. Nevertheless, Rothbard keeps you on your toes at all times. It is impossible to challenge anarcho-capitalism without an indepth understanding of this book. Ultimately, the premises of this book are virtually irrefutable, it is only the conclusions that one may dispute.
| 
