Golden Rule Libertarianism: A Defense of Freedom in Social, Economic, and Legal Policy (Philosophy, Logic, Science, Law)

This is an excellent book that I'm surprised more libertarians have not read and added a positive review. The author Russell Hasan has done an excellent job of conveying an excellent overview of libertarian ideals through his use of the Golden Rule. A deep philosophical truth has rung true from the Golden Rule throughout Western Civilization. Some of the principles he explains very clearly are: *Privatizing Education *Supply and Demand *Legalization of Vice crimes. *Abolishing Occupational licensing. *Solid defense of the right to own property. Explains the libertarian position on war clearly as that being war is only necessary for self defense. The many follies of the American “hawk” view of wanting to create an American Empire. Military spending is desirable to the extent it protests Americans from foreign aggressors. The author excels at destroying the ideas of the planned Socialist economy as advocated by the modern and historical left against their flawed visions of the “horrors” and “unfairness” of free market Capitalism. He also does very well explaining that America as it is today is a mix (or as Ayn Rand would describe a “mixed economy”) of Capitalist freedom and Socialist government controls which date back to FDR's New Deal as well as JFK and LBJ. He correctly asserts that the “evils” of the American economy are not the fault of Capitalism but of the Socialist elements in our economy. Hasan is an advocate of a Neo-Classical model of economics, which contrasts with many libertarians who often advocate for the Austrian school. This model centers around the supply and demand principle of capitalism and contrasts with the Keynesian model adopted by the liberal left which revolves around government spending. He rejects scientific economics on the grounds that most people are not mathematicians or professional economists. However everyone needs to understand economics and I totally agree. He says instead of empirical data to look at the basis and underlying premises and that any serious debate over economics will end up as a debate over ideas and principles so “scientific” economics doesn't really get you anywhere. Economics as he points out is not a hard science like physics or chemistry so empirical data is somewhat of a dead end here. He goes on to say that the Austrian school of economics started out by giving no weight to empirical data and instead going the way of philosophical economics but that they started with the wrong premise namely Von Mises's “Human Action.” He believes this premise is too vague since “human action” can mean anything. He does say that the Austrians have made great contributions to libertarianism but also some horrible errors. He attacks the Austrian view on intellectual property which would basically render inventions, music, art and on as free for all since it's so “plentiful.” Intellectual property he says should be treated just as physical property and I happen to agree here with the author very much. One of the biggest things I got out of this book was the author's defense of Minarchy that is a limited state against the anarchy or stateless society advocated by the very vocal segment of Anarcho-Capitalist libertarians. By looking at the U.S. Constitution through a libertarian lens you come to the conclusion that in spite of what many on the anarchist side like to say the U.S. Constitution is incompatible with dictatorship. And of course freedom leads to Capitalism and dictatorship leads to Socialism. He also rightly points out like other libertarian thinkers before him that “liberalism” will evolve into Socialism whether it takes decades or centuries. In essence liberalism is watered down Socialism. The U.S. Constitution is incompatible with evil, and as government is but a necessary evil the Constitution puts strict limits on what the government can do, or more bluntly what it CAN DO TO YOU. He does point to what many critics of the Constitution point out as flaws in the Constitution such as the Interstate Commerce Clause, that should be looked at in regards to the original text and not what the Courts have necessarily handed down through bogus rulings etc. The government we have today is involved in so many things not authorized by the Constitution such as the “War on Drugs” and health care and that we should look to the 9th and 10th amendments which can be used to nullify the government's actions and do away with these draconian laws and regulations. The U.S. Currently imprisons citizens at numbers and rates comparable and exceeding the worst dictatorships on Earth. The War on Drugs is responsible for most of this turning police into thugs arresting people for victim less crimes. Of course if we were following the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution things would be far different than they are. Again the courts have “interpreted” and twisted the Fourth Amendment just as they have nearly everything else in the Constitution. On the criminal justice system I have to agree over and over with the author that it is a factory convicting as many as possible for as long as possible. The plea bargain is the often “way out” from a staggering sentence for nothing more than often times possession of a controlled substance. This part of the book is invaluable for understanding the current problem that is the criminal justice system and should be read by all. Jury nullification as Hasan suggests could go a long way in reforming the system. Minarchist lIbertarianism is discussed at length near the end of the book and it's refreshing to say the least. He states very plainly that although we minarchist libertarians tend to agree almost totally on the issues with the anarchist libertarians that anarchy simply won't work. A government providing police, military and courts is very simple and very desirable. He says the anarchists are naive and idealistic fools who don't recognize the flaws in their own ideas. I have to agree overall here, and add that as a selling point to most anarchy falls flat. The anarchists he says counter that the minarchy advocated by the U.S. Constitution has failed and while I definitely see their point to an extent I agree with the author that people will get what they want and if people want more government that's what they will vote for. It's up to advocates of liberty to spread the message that liberty is ideal and government control is not. Hasan shines well in pointing out the “Rothbardian Error” here he makes the case that the Anarcho-Capitalist libertarians represented mostly by the late Murray Rothbard are however noble, wrong. Of course anarchy would only work in reality if individuals were all honest and honorable otherwise it falls apart. The better alternative Hasan argues and I agree in minarchy, specifically gradual minarchy. A few disagreements with the author. ***The author contends that since Nazi Germany desired to “take over the world” that America was morally right to get involved. He should read a bit deeper into the history of the time as well as the America First position, a great counter argument can be made against America's involvement in the war to say nothing of the hypocrisy of stopping the Nazis yet allowing the greater evil of Stalin's goons taking over Eastern Europe. ***Hasan rejects the death penalty because as he states no jury can ever have perfect knowledge and that death is of course final and of course some cases have been overturned due to DNA evidence etc. Of course any punishment in the real sense is irreversible, one cannot get back the time they spend in prison, courts etc. Ending the death penalty only benefits the worst of all criminals. Some crimes are punishable by the forfeiting of the criminal's life this include rape, murder, genocide etc. If a nation attacks one through military attack, the other nation would most likely retaliate in self defense or worse thus taking lives of the aggressor. The death penalty is not perfect, by outlawing it states that human life taken by murder is not worth avenging. ***Although the author correctly derides the Anarchists for opposing all taxation, he also states that voluntary taxation would be very problematic. I agree that right now Hasan may be correct I think as did Ayn Rand that in the distant future rights protecting government could be funded through voluntary means. ***In his list of GOLD issues Hasan lists open immigration as a key principle, however the current welfare state as we have seen here and in the West as a whole is a disaster. Libertarians are deeply divided on this issue and here in the U.S. We have had essentially open borders for the last few decades and a reversal is needed. These disagreements do not take away from the strength of this book. In my opinion every libertarian or even people who may be interested in learning about libertarianism should have a copy of this book. This author is a good writer and explains his positions and thoughts very well. We need many more books like this to get these ideas into as many hands as possible and if so we can achieve liberty and push back against the forces of leftism and socialist economic policies. Read this book and be free.

I have purchased about 14 of Russell Hasan's books because the author is highly educated and thinks outside the box. Unlike a lot of academics who put me to sleep, Hasan has a talent for engaging me on a level I can understand and that holds my attention. Golden Rule Libertarianism is a fascinating book. Hasan is a gifted writer and there is no one else quite like him.

I believe this is the next step in human social evolution.

Good info

explaining about GOLD was his reason for writing this book. Instead of writing about beinh liberal, he wrote more about being liberal, in my opinion. q uit readin his propaganda after a couple of chapters. DELETED>

Hasan writes well and makes many salient points but they can only work if Humans were able to be fair, especially about the sin laws. With fairness, these would maybe work, but with human unfairness, you would have exploitation. I am a conservative, socially and economically, but lean towards libertarianism in my "the best world" dream. However, in a large society, there must be boundaries and limitations to prevent exploitation.Keep writing and change enough minds that these issue could be acceptable, but our founders gave us a document of boundaries which would allow for much of Hasan's libertarianism if man could accept it.

Russell Hasan's <i>Golden Rule Libertarianism</i> is essentially a lengthy and detailed policy platform with some amateurish philosophy sprinkled throughout. Most of the arguments are fairly unoriginal - more or less a reiteration of basic libertarian tenets (ideas I'm largely in agreement with or sympathetic to by the way).The central thesis is that the Golden Rule can be fused with standard NVP Libertarianism to have the best, most persuasive political philosophy. This thesis is not compelling or thoughtful enough for a book length essay. In a few areas of the unforgivably long essay, Hasan actually engages with the ideas of influential libertarian thinkers like Von Mises, Hayek, Rand, etc. These discussions are a little more interesting, though I think the author's engagement and understanding of the philosophical ideas and economics there is a little too cursory and superficial for anything meaningful to be gleaned. Moreover, Hasan sometimes discusses more contemporary political issue like Obamacare, which makes for more interesting fare. The author is ostensibly well read but is still developing as a prose stylist and thinker.Ultimately, I wouldn't recommend this as a read given the abundance of dramatically more enriching and expert works of political philosophy that exist on the topic of Libertarianism.Disclaimer: I received this book through a Goodreads giveaway.

The author is clearly an optimist that sees the best in people and situations. However, that is not the reality we live in. If the ideas suggested here are enacted, greed of money and power would subjugate and terrorize the people who were to be protected by said ideas. Greed will never go away. There will always be winners and losers, and people like to win. The only chapter where I mostly agreed with the author was chapter 41 which discussed Obamacare. Other than that is was very narrow focused and ignored the larger issues at hand.#GoodreadsGiveaway

Poorly written and total rubbish. How does this stuff get published??The writer has verbal D.....aSave you money and read something else