Best Libertarian Literature

[ALMF]

If were going for libertarian litrichuer it is Hinline out front: Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Star-ship Troopers (the real one not the suck move), Jobe: a comedy of justice, et al.

[Farnhamia]

If were going for libertarian litrichuer it is Hinline out front: Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Star-ship Troopers (the real one not the suck move), Jobe: a comedy of justice, et al.

Heinlein.

[Patriqvinia]

He didn't say that anywhere.

What he said was

(I probably didn't represent left-libertarianism well....)

Left-libertarianism is traditionally an increase in personal freedoms, so if he had left that little clause out I wouldn't have made as big a deal, although Tolkein really does not belong with libertarians of any sort.

Why do you suppose he said that? It was preemptive of posts saying "what about left-libertarianism?" due to an uncertainty in how well they are represented here.

"Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with libertarian and monarchist leanings..."

[Distruzio]

Time Will Run Back, by Henry Hazlitt

The Cinder Buggy, Garret Garrett

The Driver (my favorite), Garret Garrett

[Farnhamia]

What he said was



Left-libertarianism is traditionally an increase in personal freedoms, so if he had left that little clause out I wouldn't have made as big a deal, although Tolkein really does not belong with libertarians of any sort.

Why do you suppose he said that? It was preemptive of posts saying "what about left-libertarianism?" due to an uncertainty in how well they are represented here.

"Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with libertarian and monarchist leanings..."

Bit of a stretch from the actual words in Tolkien's letter to his son ("My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.") to libertarianism, I think.

[Augarundus]

He didn't say that anywhere.

What he said was

(I probably didn't represent left-libertarianism well....)

Left-libertarianism is traditionally an increase in personal freedoms, so if he had left that little clause out I wouldn't have made as big a deal, although Tolkein really does not belong with libertarians of any sort.

1) Read the OP again. I said that the poll represents "liberal" fiction moreso than "libertarian" fiction and went on to invite "left libertarians" ("libertarians", properly understood) to provide their own examples of fiction.

Read the OP. If you pay attention to what I'm actually saying, you don't have to correct mistakes I didn't make.

2) I understand what left-libertarianism is. I just didn't "represent it well" insofar as I did not provide examples of left libertarian fiction in the poll.

3) Tolkein provides a criticism of power (in the broadest sense), which is categorically "libertarian" (in the broadest sense). His own political ideology is irrelevant when examining Lord of the Rings as politically symbolic literature, but I'll examine his politics all the same:

From he Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995:

"You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: and allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power" (p. 121.)

"Power is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales" (p. 152.)

"In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit" (p. 243.)

"Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)" (p. 246.)

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word state (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!" (p. 63)

I mean, I can start quoting Lord of the Rings itself and extrapolating that to Tolkein's own ideas if we want to continue this debate. He considered himself a "philosophical anarchist" (on the grounds of his objection to violent power), meaning he critiqued the state as an institution.

[Frisivisia]

This thread of course assuming that any literature written with a right-wing libertarian theme CAN be good.

[The Macabees]

Why do you suppose he said that? It was preemptive of posts saying "what about left-libertarianism?" due to an uncertainty in how well they are represented here.

"Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with libertarian and monarchist leanings..."

Sounds like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, minus maybe the religious views (not sure).

[Aggicificicerous]

Why do you suppose he said that? It was preemptive of posts saying "what about left-libertarianism?" due to an uncertainty in how well they are represented here.

Because his wording implies that Tolstoy was not a left-libertarian.

"Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with libertarian and monarchist leanings..."

Just because he had libertarian leanings does not make Lord of the Rings a libertarian book. If anything, it exemplifies the monarchy. Yes, I am sure you can draw some vague libertarian messages from it, but I can do the same with Harry Potter. All sorts of books promote individuals fighting against larger oppressive forces. That doesn't make them examples of libertarian literature.

EDIT:

3) Tolkein provides a criticism of power (in the broadest sense), which is categorically "libertarian" (in the broadest sense).

Fair enough. I can see where you come from, even if I never considered that aspect as important to the book, mostly because I always felt it overshadowed by the emphasis on the various monarchs. And outside Tolkein's grand prose, monarchy is really the antithesis to libertarianism.

[Distruzio]

Garet Garrett (e.g. The Driver) deserves mention. Also, while most of his books I know are non-fiction, Henry Hazlitt also wrote the novel Time Will Run Back. I've tried to read Atlas Shrugged once or twice, but each time I stop at 100 pages, because the writing and theme comes off as dry to me. One day I'll have to finish it. The truth is, though, I'm not familiar enough with libertarian fiction (I'm more into the non-fiction).

A man after my own heart in every way it seems.

[Augarundus]

1) Because LOTR is a fantasy that was never claimed by its author to bear any resemblance to reality, whereas Atlas Shrugged and all of Rand's "fiction" is just thinly-disguised polemics.

Not entirely true (well, on Tolkein's part). I personally don't like Rand's writing (it is pretty dull... I mean, there are some great one-liners and speeches, but most of it just reads like terrible erotic literature).

But Tolkein didn't say LOTR bears "no resemblance to reality" - he said that it wasn't an "analogy" and that it was up to the reader's interpretation. His private letters indicated that it was a critique of power structures and that he was also a critic of power. That also doesn't matter, considering this is just my own interpretation of Lord of the Rings (just as you're welcome to interpret anything - even some crap like the film "Avatar" - to support whatever ideology fits your own definition of the term "libertarian" is).

This thread of course assuming that any literature written with a right-wing libertarian theme CAN be good.

No, it does not assume that...

Because his wording implies that Tolstoy was not a left-libertarian.

I don't understand why? I consider Tolstoy a libertarian in the historical ("leftist") sense of the word.

The only problem with the poll is that it provides three authors of the "liberal" (Rand and Heinlein) or "right-anarchist" (Tolkein) tradition, and only one of the truly "libertarian" tradition (and Tolstein's actual fiction isn't very ideological charged when compared to Rand's manifestos).

Just because he had libertarian leanings does not make Lord of the Rings a libertarian book. If anything, it exemplifies the monarchy. Yes, I am sure you can draw some vague libertarian messages from it, but I can do the same with Harry Potter. All sorts of books promote individuals fighting against larger oppressive forces. That doesn't make them examples of libertarian literature.

I provided a list of quotes in which Tolkein describes both his own political ideology and its representation in LOTR. I can provide more, as well as quotes from LOTR that are fairly exemplary of this view.

And the modern "right-libertarians" (the anarchocapitalists, I consider "radical liberals") frequently idealize monarchy as preferable to the democratic state (see: Hans Hoppe). Monarchism is viewed as a preferable (some could even say "voluntary" - though I'd generally disagree) institution to the state. In any case, LOTR's heroes are liberators/philosopher kings who topple tyrants and reject the Ring of Power. Perhaps the book isn't explicitly anarchist, but its heroic theme is the rejection of The Ring of power", holding that power is morally corrupt in itself. This is not just a symbolic interpretation - it's fairly literal (the book's story and dialogue is indicative of power's intrinsically evil nature).

Fair enough. I can see where you come from, even if I never considered that aspect as important to the book, mostly because I always felt it overshadowed by the emphasis on the various monarchs. And outside Tolkein's grand prose, monarchy is really the antithesis to libertarianism.

By the historical definition of libertarianism, yeah; monarchy is probably its antithesis (well, probably "the state", but monarchy can probably be specifically isolated).

Liberalism is not necessarily anti-monarchist, and modern radical liberals (anarchocapitalists, mostly of the Hoppean tradition) probably see democracy as a greater foe.

[Meryuma]

You are sadly mistaken if you think writers such as Tolkein and Tolstoy support your Americo-centric concept of libertarianism.

Oh no! It's the ebul Americentrism...hurr durrr Amerikans are imperialists Bush hurrr

How the hell did you even get that from what he said?

[Frisivisia]

I can't tell, did you just say that Tolkein is a right-anarchist? Is anyone else seeing this?

[Augarundus]

Oh no! It's the ebul Americentrism...hurr durrr Amerikans are imperialists Bush hurrr

How the hell did you even get that from what he said?

More important question is how he thought I had an Americentric mindset... but he clarified later that he misunderstood the OP, I think.

I can't tell, did you just say that Tolkein is a right-anarchist? Is anyone else seeing this?

No, I didn't.

Tolkein said he was a right-anarchist.

[Frisivisia]

How the hell did you even get that from what he said?

More important question is how he thought I had an Americentric mindset... but he clarified later that he misunderstood the OP, I think.

I can't tell, did you just say that Tolkein is a right-anarchist? Is anyone else seeing this?

No, I didn't.

Tolkein said he was a right-anarchist.

Mmm, tasty, can I get some sauce on that?

[The Corparation]

If were going for libertarian litrichuer it is Hinline out front: Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Star-ship Troopers (the real one not the suck move), Jobe: a comedy of justice, et al.

Other then the typos this ^ Seriously people always call him a fascist but if you actually read his works and don't watch the shitty movie with the same name as one of his books, the guy was had some major libertarian themes. He made some decent points and his writing was amazing.

[Aggicificicerous]

I don't understand why? I consider Tolstoy a libertarian in the historical ("leftist") sense of the word.

The only problem with the poll is that it provides three authors of the "liberal" (Rand and Heinlein) or "right-anarchist" (Tolkein) tradition, and only one of the truly "libertarian" tradition (and Tolstein's actual fiction isn't very ideological charged when compared to Rand's manifestos).

Seeing as how there were only four choices, and what libertarianism Tolkein has is fairly vague and does not conform to the left-right paradigm, I actually thought you made a fine representation of left-libertarianism with Tolstoy.

And the modern "right-libertarians" (the anarchocapitalists, I consider "radical liberals") frequently idealize monarchy as preferable to the democratic state (see: Hans Hoppe). Monarchism is viewed as a preferable (some could even say "voluntary" - though I'd generally disagree) institution to the state. In any case, LOTR's heroes are liberators/philosopher kings who topple tyrants and reject the Ring of Power. Perhaps the book isn't explicitly anarchist, but its heroic theme is the rejection of The Ring of power", holding that power is morally corrupt in itself. This is not just a symbolic interpretation - it's fairly literal (the book's story and dialogue is indicative of power's intrinsically evil nature).

Libertarianism is not necessarily against power, just when that power is wielded by the state.

By the historical definition of libertarianism, yeah; monarchy is probably its antithesis (well, probably "the state", but monarchy can probably be specifically isolated).

Liberalism is not necessarily anti-monarchist, and modern radical liberals (anarchocapitalists, mostly of the Hoppean tradition) probably see democracy as a greater foe.

Yes, although I wouldn't lump Tolkein in with Hoppe's crowd.

[Augarundus]

Seeing as how there were only four choices, and what libertarianism Tolkein has is fairly vague and does not conform to the left-right paradigm, I actually thought you made a fine representation of left-libertarianism with Tolstoy.

M'k. It's just, he was the only one (two were definitely "right-wing" and Tolkein's a conservative anti-statist...).

Libertarianism is not necessarily against power, just when that power is wielded by the state.

That factually isn't true.

Libertarians are historically socialist because they criticize power relations inherent to the structure of capitalism. Not simply because they were antistatists.

Yes, although I wouldn't lump Tolkein in with Hoppe's crowd.

Yeah, neither would I.

... Actually, they both seem somewhat conservative, both sympathetic to monarchy, and both critics of power/statism. Some significant similarities, tbh.

[Aggicificicerous]

That factually isn't true.

Libertarians are historically socialist because they criticize power relations inherent to the structure of capitalism. Not simply because they were antistatists.

Yes, I got ahead of myself again there. But it's still not a critique of power itself.

Yes, although I wouldn't lump Tolkein in with Hoppe's crowd.

Yeah, neither would I.

... Actually, they both seem somewhat conservative, both sympathetic to monarchy, and both critics of power/statism. Some significant similarities, tbh.[/quote]

It is interesting how people who have so many similarities can still have quite different views. But then again, Tolkein specialised in fantasy.

[Saiwania]

I find this characterization of the LOTR vaguely offensive, in a vague sort of way. And putting Prof. Tolkien in the same category as Ayn Rand laughable, because, as has been said, "Two novels can change a bookish 14-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I'm not quite sure what that quote is supposed to mean, orcs don't exist.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Not really seeing how Lord of the Rings is libertarian literature. I think the closest literature to US libertarianism is probably William Burroughs' later works.

[Phocidaea]

You are sadly mistaken if you think writers such as Tolkein and Tolstoy support your Americo-centric concept of libertarianism.

This.

I'm pretty sure both Tolkien and Tolstoy would have some nasty things to say about American libertarians.

[Evil the Great]

I'm pretty sure both Tolkien and Tolstoy would have some nasty things to say about American libertarians.

They were both particularly anti-egalitarian ( tolkien was even accused of being racist ), and had realised the corruptive potential of supreme power. I'd say they'd be philosophically quite close to libertarians, eventhough their views on social issues were probably far, far away from libertarianism.

Also, why always put "american" before the word "libertarians"? The libertarian philosophy has its roots in the Franco-British propertarian movement of the 18th century.

I guess that it's easier to picture us as angry american rednecks to dismiss our thoughts...

[Phocidaea]

I'm pretty sure both Tolkien and Tolstoy would have some nasty things to say about American libertarians.

Also, why always put "american" before the word "libertarians"? The libertarian philosophy has its roots in the Franco-British propertarian movement of the 18th century.

I guess that it's easier to picture us as angry american rednecks to dismiss our thoughts...

Because "libertarian" simply means "valuing liberty over authority". The Libertarian Party, and the typical self-described "libertarian", in the US is about right-wing economics combined with social do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want-ism. Neither one of those viewpoints is inherent in the original definition.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

This thread of course assuming that any literature written with a right-wing libertarian theme CAN be good.

Ooooohh burrrnn.

Really, why does there always have to be people like you who have to make these stupid inflammatory remarks. Post something insightful, not just some hackneyed stab at every last libertarian comment.