Ron Kitching, Australian libertarian legend, has been a bit concerned about the quality of debate around these parts. To that end, he’s assembled a convenient classical liberal reading list for everyone to be going on with. He’s so far been reluctant to comment - despite having a password - so I suggested he put together this reading list rather than just sending his scholarly concerns along to me. I know I haven’t read (blush) everything on this list - not by a long chalk - so I’ve got a bit of work on my plate.
For Ron’s recommendations, hop over the fold.
I have been wondering what we can do to get these layabout babblers of yours on track. To start I’d recommend the following:
I think they ought to read my book first - that is, Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty. I wrote it for these people and dedicated it to Australia’s youth. I waited for years for some professor to write such a book and nobody did, so it is my best effort. It is a simple guide, and a good one too, with lots of illustrations of Classical Liberal policy at work in modern times.
Next up is Frederic Bastiat’s The Law. Make notes to read the rest of Bastiat’s work later on.
Then I’d go for Ludwig von Mises’s lectures Profit and Loss and Liberty and Property.
Then would be Ludwig von Mises’s book entitled Liberalism - In The Classical Tradition.
If I was instructing them I’d give them thirty days to do that and take it all in. The Rev. Dr. John K Williams and I were once discussing von Mises’s Liberalism and Dr. Williams said, ‘Well, that little book says it all [about liberalism], and anybody with half a brain can read it in, what, say - 3 or 4 hours’. I replied that when I first read it it took me 4 days. So his next remark was, ‘Well, so what - so long as you got the idea is the main thing’.
So at only five days for Liberalism, say 10 days for my Understanding Personal and Economic Liberaty, (bearing in mind that young Mr. Marks read it from Electronic print in as many hours), and 2 days for Bastiat’s The Law, and a day each for von Mises’s two lectures, gives them plenty of time on their hands to make notes and comments.
For months two and three, I’d set them von Mises’s Socialism. For this great book I’d give them two months, as one must allow for copious note making and a bit of thinking about things and a bit of re-reading parts of it here and there. But that’s only 15 pages a day for 40 days, which gives a spare 20 days for note making, and a short essay on it, say about a 2,000 word review. There is nothing like an essay like that to put one’s personal thinking into proper gear.
Month four I think a bit of Hayek would be in order. Say The Road To Serfdom. Now Hayek takes a bit of getting used to, but its 180 pages - complete with revision and note taking - ought to be able to be covered in say, 30 days.
Then in months five and six a change of pace to let students relax and enjoy their study. There is nothing better than Albert J. Nock’s Our Enemy The State and also his The Disadvantages of being Educated. Then his Snoring as A Fine Art and Twelve Other Essays - simply hilarious. They will be enough for a great introduction to Nock’s illuminating works, and make a note to pursue his many other works later. Rev. Dr. Edmund A. Opitz said of Nock’s The Memoirs of A Superfluous Man: ‘This is the kind of book that gets under a person’s skin, performing catalytically to persuade the reader into becoming what he has in him to be’.
In month seven, people with Classical Liberal yearnings should read Eugen von Bohm Bawerk’s Karl Marx and The Close of His System. Bohm Bawerk logically and conclusively showed that Marx’s labor theory of value was hopelessly invalid. And that was in 1896. It took almost 100 years to show that Bohm Bawerk was right on the button. As was Ludwig von Mises with his little essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920. (Later expanded in 1922 into his book Socialism). Make sure to earmark all of Bohm Bawerk’s writings for future study.
Now for month eight. A book about Hayek, to familiarize students with his works. There are about a dozen such books. Even one titled Hayek on Hayek. One of the best is Dr. Eamonn Butler’s book - Hayek - His Contribution to the Political and Economic thought of our time. Easy to read and written by a past master of Hayek’s works.
Month nine isn’t too onerous, as there surprisingly few books on Ludwig von Mises. To date Dr. Eamonn Butler’s book Ludwig von Mises: Fountainhead of the Modern Microeconomics Revolution is the best there is on von Mises. Prof. J. G. Hülsmann is also to publish this year a book on the life and times of Ludwig von Mises. Professor Hülsmann is in my view the most outstanding of the new generation of Classical Liberal Scholars.
Month 10. By now I am anxious that the student become familiar with the many illuminating works of W. H. Hutt. Hard to say where to start with Hutt. Say, The Keynesian Episode : A Reassessment. Make a note to read all of Hutt’s works in due course. A really great scholar, his works are not as well known as they deserve to be.
Month 11. George Reismann’s The Government Against The Economy. This is only about 200 pages, but I’ll give the reader 30 days to devour this little masterpiece. Make notes to acquire and read his monumental tome titled Capitalism.
Now for months 12 and 13, it is time to get into money. But first read Ludwig von Mises, Notes and Recollections. This gives a student a great background to Mises himself and to the absolute best book on money and credit : The Theory of Money and Credit. I found that this was for me Mises’s most difficult book. But persistence paid off. Mises revised the book in 1924. All he did was bring some monetary expressions up to date. The book remained essentially as it was when first published in 1912. Unfortunately it was not published in English until 1934, when he again modernised monetary terms. In 1954 he revised the book and added a Chapter called Monetary Reconstruction. He could even then see clearly that the present paper money system must in the end fail. In this vital chapter he explains to the world how to return to Honest Money. That is, a world without inflation.
Months 13 and 14 : To round off the monetary education a great new book has been published by Jesus Huerta De Soto. De Soto is Professor of Political Economy at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, in Madrid. A devout Miserian, De Soto has produced a new masterpiece. People who wish to discuss monetary affairs seriously should study carefully both of his books.
Months 15, 16 17 and 18: Books on The State: we have already read Albert J. Nock’s Our Enemy The State. I then recommend the following for keen students:
Franz Oppenheimer’s The State, Ludwig von Mises’s Omnipotent Government. For serious students only is The State (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, [1986] 1998), by Anthony de Jasay. And there are many more that can be easily discovered. There is no doubt that our greatest enemy is the state.
To give the student a first hand idea of dealing with the state and the effectiveness of the state compared with private research, the book by Terence Kealey titled The Economic Laws of Scientific Research is very enlightening reading. Prof Kealey is a very good writer.
Having made a good start a student should now be able to pick for him/herself the sensible books on which to extend his/her knowledge. But under no circumstances neglect Von Mises, Human Action, F. A. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and his The Fatal Conceit - The Errors of Socialism. Also his trilogy Law, Legislation and Liberty should be studied carefully.
In this short statement I have neglected Henry Hazlitt, Lord Peter Bauer and his great works, Julian Simon and Milton Friedman and many others.
If a student wants to talk sensibly about Classical Liberalism and the books of the masters one should read them all.
41 Comments
Terence Kealey is now the VC of Buckingham University, the only private uni in the UK. I visited there in September 2006. He asked me if I approved of patents, and when I said ‘yes – but very limited patents’, he thumped the table and said, ‘You Stalinist statist’. He is a very likable man. His book is excellent and a follow up will be out this year.
My thanks to Ron Kitching for this reading list, I will certainly be following some of the recommendations. I might just read them a bit quicker than one or two a month.
Is this the same Ron Kitching who wrote this?
http://www.brookesnews.com/070801pinochet.html
Yes, Don.
Gerry Jackson gave Ron the space. Gerry likes Ron quite a lot. It’s a very good piece too.
Ron lived in Chile for several years, Don, and his wife is Chilean. He wrote weekly features for a major paper over there for most of his time. He is probably more qualified to comment on Chile than most people hanging around the Ozblogos.
Thanks for a great choice, Ron. You have lots of admirers here - even a sort of quiet hero to some.
So you guys approve of governments murdering political opponents without trial?
Is this what libertarianism is about?
My views on Pinochet are very clear, Don (I’ve made them very clear during the course of several long and painful threads). I’m not going to change them despite the fact that I like and respect Ron.
What I am pointing out that he is well qualified to comment. He is also a man of honesty and integrity, so if he makes suggestions about the historical record, he shouldn’t simply be written off.
skeptic - I accept that Ron knows more about what happened in Chile than most of us.
And I’ll take your word for it that he is a man of honesty and integrity.
But a lot of communists were men and women of integrity too. That doesn’t make their principles right.
If libertarianism is about placing limits on the arbitrary power of government then I have some sympathy for it. But if libertarians are only against arbitrary rule by people they don’t approve of (eg trade unionists and marxists) then I’ve got no sympathy at all.
If there is a slippery slope to totalitarianism then supporting Pinochet is where it starts.
Let’s leave the Pinochet thing alone already - as the SL said, several long and painful threads !
My views on Pinochet are very clear too Don and I’ve made my views known many times. If you’re going to judge a system based on what some people who believe in it think about Pinochet knock yourself out. Hayek was wrong about Pinochet too. But his ideas are independent of Hayek the person. To me a philosophical system is like mathematics. There are loads of theorems to discover still in our lifetime and the person who first conceived of mathematics didn’t in so doing define the limits of the system by what he alone could derive from them.
Thanks to Ron for this. In advance of attacking this list I suggest the purchase of shares in Amazon !
I should add you are sounding uncharacteristically emotional and irrational with this sort of nonsense:
“So you guys approve of governments murdering political opponents without trial?
Is this what libertarianism is about?”
The ideas matter more than the people behind them. The ideas transcend the identities and the system speaks for itself.
But if you want to go all tabloid then knock yourself out.
I wasn’t commenting about his principles, Don, I was commenting about his knowledge of the historical record.
Please, not another Pinochet thread. I guarantee you the lefties will not be beating themselves up like this when Castro dies.
“If libertarianism is about placing limits on the arbitrary power of government then I have some sympathy for it. But if libertarians are only against arbitrary rule by people they don’t approve of (eg trade unionists and marxists) then I’ve got no sympathy at all.”
What’s with this IF? You have two eyes and a brain. You can read. You can work out the implications of the system by yourself. Why do you need to observe what particular libertarians do or say? Humans are imperfect. Only ideas are perfect.
“If there is a slippery slope to totalitarianism then supporting [Allende] is where it starts.”
Pinochet happens next. Pinochet was the lessor of two evils - he did save Chile from communism. Anyway, the expression ‘don’t mention the war’ comes to mind, Don. We have argued this here (several weeks ago) and there was some discussion over at Quiggin (when Pinochet died and again when Friedman died and also some comparisons to Hayek).
Jason - I agree that “The ideas matter more than the people behind them.”
And that’s exactly what this is about — ideas. As I understood classical liberalism, it was about opposition to the arbitrary use of government power and support for the rule of law.
Am I wrong about this? I thought it was one of those non-negotiable, core principles.
Yes Don, so what’s your point? You’ve already answered your own question about what classical liberalism should have to say about Pinochet’s death squads.
Jason - If I’ve answered my own question then I’m happy to move on.
Don - read the first paragraph of chapter 7 in The Constitution of Liberty. Actually read the whole chapter.
Law, Legislation and Liberty can be bought in a single volume at the UK amazon. I’ve often been tempted but at 32 pounds its a bit too rich for my blood.
Now, SL, you should get one of those amazon link thingies for all the books mentioned in this post.
For those who don’t have a copy of the The Constitution of Liberty handy, the paragraph reads:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sinkers is right, c8to. We need an Amazon affiliate code for Ron’s post!
I have read Ron Kitching’s ‘Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty’ and highly recommend it, especially as a lead-in to wider readings.
One good thing about it is that Ron lets the maestros do the talking. It is filled with quotes from the masters of libertarian philosophy.
Each chapter ends with excellent reading lists which refer you to the great classics on each topic.
Sinclair, do they pay you so poorly in Australian academia that 32 quid is too much for a book?!?
Possibly your students routinely pay a similar amount for works of considerably lesser provenance …
Just closed Don’s tag. Everyone’s comments were rather drunk!
32 pounds works out to about $80, which I can afford. But for a book(s) I already own it seems a bit much. If I didn’t already own it (in 3 volumes) I might have bought the single volume version. When the Uni Chicago Press finally complete Hayeks completed works I’ll probably get the entire series in one big hit and end up with another copy anyway.
“But a lot of communists were men and women of integrity too. ‘
how so , don? how can any commie have integrity? What you really mean is a lack of conscience don’t you? It takes a special kind of mind that happily confiscates people’s private property without any hesitation. And that’s why you can never see reason or why you would think Pinochet was an evil man but someone like Castro gets a pass.
“If there is a slippery slope to totalitarianism then supporting Pinochet is where it starts.”
What nonsense you are talking Don.
And just to prove to your own satisfaction what a fool you are being just make a quick list of all the places where a violent and illegal communist takeover WASN’T stopped by a Pinochet before they had secured total unrestricted power.
You are just be stupid.
“Pinochet called an immediate election, and handed over power to a civil administration. Only the second dictator in 2,000 years to do so. The previous one was Sulla, the Roman General known as the last of the great republicans.”
They could in theory have gotten him to step down 7 years earlier.
There is no question but this was an illegal and unconstitutional communist coup that Pinochet stopped.
“The Communists backed by armed Cuban advisers were ravaging the countryside, taking over property and farms. Anybody who resisted this egalitarian ‘take-over’, was simply murdered. Industries were simply ‘taken over’ by the communist regime.
People who resisted were shot. Such was the ‘compassion’ of the new rulers.
It was the women of Santiago who precipitated the revolution. In protest at this lawlessness, and the 1,000 per cent inflation, they marched in the streets of the city and were fired upon by the communists — however, they continued to demonstrate.”
Now what are you saying Don. Are you saying that you would have:
1. Sided with the looters.
2. Left the situation longer???!!!!!????
Clearly they left it to the very last moment. Too long perhaps.
3. Not been ruthless enough to stop a Cuban and Soviet-backed civil war in a long-skinny country with unlimited mountain cover.
You just gotsta snap out of it man.
Good Queen Skeptic sweet-tallking some QUALITY onto the site at long last.
I really must read this Boem-Bawerk.
In Reismans Canon he is second only to Mises.
“So you guys approve of governments murdering political opponents without trial?”
Don, lets cut the crap. There were about 3,000 people killed. nearly all were killed during the first two weeks of the conflict. That’s fact.
Allende’s own death squads were trying to take things back. they lost.
Now what’s your point? Read the post again. Please detail with proof what Ron actually got wrong.
let me tell you if a punk turned up trying to take my possessions ala Allende’s nasty crew they would end up with all their limbs broken crawling out to the road.
“So you guys approve of governments murdering political opponents without trial?
Is this what libertarianism is about?”
Don what are you talking about?
If communists start a war in this country and they are backed by foreign assistance I’ll hang every one of them myself if I can get my hands on them.
How do you act responsibly and nuanced such a thing?
Or just to get you to thinking how would you deal with the Rwanda thing to stop the killing that happened there?
You are perfectly safe in your thieving yearnings Don.
Don’t start a civil war and a communist takeover and you won’t get shot or hung.
Pretty simple isn’t it?
I don’t think thats too much to ask.
The other thing is if that does happen don’t go near anyone whose involved. Don’t drive the car for them. Or give them money. Just stay away from them.
If you see one of these guys walk the other way and get at least 100metres from them then get another kilometre from them.
Don’t call them on the phone. On the home phone or the mobile or the pay-phone.
Because when we come through with the hard rain to stop their operation cold we would just have to go through anyone to kill the key people so that no bastard will want anything to do with them.
So that their own military operations become impossible to conduct in any rational way.
We wouldn’t want a goddamned Iraqi situation to develop would we?
Fortunately (or unfortunately) our geography does not lend itself to insurgency.
But instead lends itself to an easy takeover by a populous nation with a sound navy.
And because our country doesn’t lend itself to insurgency this sort of thing is hard to contemplate in Australia.
But have a bit of human understanding Don?
What the hell would you have had them do in that long, skinny country with endless mountain cover?
With some trepidation I have to say, while Don’s comment was moderately provocative, and slightly out of place, a mild response would have been more effective and illuminating: the simple and obvious acknowledgment that liberalism reviles the use of the coercive power of the state or of any faction with ability to impose its will to silence those who would speak against it. To that one might have added, just to be clear, liberalism reviles, with at least equal ardor, the use of coercive power of the state (etc) to take the property of those who would speak against it, or to imprison or torture or maim or kill those who would speak against it.
Jason
“Only ideas are perfect” ? That’s a scary thought. Wouldn’t it be better put that “only good ideas stand the test of time in the long run”. Read Robert Conquest on the danger of the “big” idea (or more recently Martin Amis). A libertarian driven society would NOT be perfect, just a helluva lot better than what we currently have. Every idea has a downside, although it is possible to detect more downside in some ideas than others.
jimmy, a “libertarian-driven society” wouldn’t be an idea, would it? It would be a society, full of messy mistakes like any other.
Jason’s point stands - and it’s the temptation to think that your idea’s perfection can be actualised that leads more or less directly to some of the worst and messiest mistakes.
No use beating around the bush Kodjo.
I’m an ethical genius of sorts. And so why should I endlessly apologise (thats what I’d be doing) for what I’m saying here by a sort of mindless repetition of motherhood statements.
Which is what you wanted me to do.
Don is being a pigheaded fool on this matter.
I wouldn’t have said that 3 months ago:
1. Because I didn’t know the Chilean situation.
2. Because I had no way of knowing how much Don knew.
But the fact is that this subject has been explored running into the hundreds of thousands of words since Pinochet died.
And so Don is not being ignorant about this.
Only pigheaded and allowing himself to be controlled by the accumulated leftist wall-of-sound.
“the simple and obvious acknowledgment that liberalism reviles the use of the coercive power of the state or of any faction with ability to impose its will to silence those who would speak against it.”
But unfettered liberalism would be powerless to stop the powerful faction in Libertopia from imposing its will. However reviled such an imposition may be.
Let’s agree to disagree GMB.
What I said was not mindless repetition of motherhood, nor was there any need for abandoning courtesy in this dialogue.
No thats fucking week.
You’ve got the right to disagree if thats where the chips fall.
Otherwise you are just being a jerk.
I never abandoned courtesy.
I never took it up in the first place having already had enough problems with beer.
Its an irrelevancy that you mention only because you are being gutless and irrational and wimping out.
Most Australians believe that the tax system is over-complex and unfair, that government welfare schemes produce perverse and destructive results, and that there are now far too many complicated regulations in any and every aspect of life. The problem is, through lack of understanding, we as a nation have got into the habit of trying to fix any given problem by calling for more governmental action, which makes the problem worse!
Ronald Kitching’s book ‘Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty’ shows why, and why it doesn’t work. This excellent beginners’ guide to the philosophy of freedom explains the essential institutions that gave rise to political liberty in the western world. It shows how the political value of individual freedom saw the rise of the living, including environmental, standards that we now take for granted. It shows how the past century’s disastrous flirtations with big government have institutionalised the destruction of so many of our freedoms, and what should be done to fix the problem.
People who want to get a summary of the philosophy of liberty often don’t know where to start, and hesitate to tackle the weighty works of numerous philosophers. Mr Kitching’s book is a great introduction because he explains all the major points in such a short compass. Much of the book consists of quotes from the great masters of the philosophy of liberty - the fruit of literally decades of reading. Each chapter, and the book, ends with a reading list, referring the reader to the major classics on that topic in the history of libertarian philosophy. So this book is really the essential guide and introduction to the whole field.
The people of Australia are fed up with the exploitative ‘business as usual’ of the major parties. Mr Kitching’s refreshing book explodes the myths of big government, and shows the way forward. Everyone should read this book.