I don’t think P.J. O’Rourke is a libertarian. He’s in favor of a strong military and supports American intervention abroad. And he’s strongly pro-life (although admittedly I’ve never heard him call for pro-life - or pro-choice - legislation).
Check out the Cato institute for some good stuff.
Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises.
I disagree politically with PJ, but consider him one of my favorite writers. But he fits my working definition of “Libertarian” which is: A Republican who likes recreational drugs.
A lot of people who call themselves “libertarians” use that kind of definition. They don’t want the government to tax them or pass any laws against the things they want to do - a government that doesn’t bother them personally. But a real libertarian is opposed to government action as a matter of principle - he might be adamantly pro-life but still oppose making abortions illegal. So a “libertarian” doesn’t want the government to impose other peoples’ values on himself and a libertarian doesn’t want the government to impose his values on other people. There’s a lot more of the former than the latter.
Those were the first three names i thought of, although i would hesitate to recommend Mises to someone who is new to the field. While his ideas are central to many aspects of libertarianism, his writing can be rather obtuse at times, and he has a tendency to blithely rest his libertarian theories upon broad, unquestioned assumptions. And Human Action (the book i would suggest first) is BIG, and might put off someone new to libertarian ideas.
Yeah, for the last 10 years or so, O’Rourke has seemed to become increasingly conservative and decreasingly funny. He still occasionally produces a great article, but i just don’t think he’s as funny or as libertarian as he was in the 1980s.
Parliament of Whores is still a classic, IMO.
Whatever you do, please don’t give Ayn Rand’s writings to anybody who owns a dictionary.
My favorite description of Rand’s writing style:
“…characters hacked out of concrete with a blunt ice-pick”
Those are two I’d recommend for good casual reading.
His writings are more focused on personal & psychological aspects than political & economic, but I’ll also recommend the post-Rand writings of Dr. Nathaniel Branden.
Rose Wilder Lane’s The Discovery of Freedom, adapted by Henry Grady Weaver into The Mainspring of Human Progress.
Just for the record, Ayn Rand did not like libertarianism. She was an anarchocapitalist.
I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R. And I am a Republican with a capital R on grounds of expediency, not on principle. - Milton Friedman
Republican Liberty Caucus (www.rlc.org) - a grassroots, nationwide organization affiliated with the Republican Party (GOP). The goal of the RLC is to elect pro-liberty individuals to office. The RLC was founded in 1990, and now has members in every state.
Check out their list of principles at http://www.rlc.org/?p=FAQ#4252
In Thomas Sowell’s defense, the blanket-generalizations-without-citing-any-sources are an annoying feature of his Op-Ed columns. In his books, he does a better job of citing source materials.
I would consider him more “conservative” than “libertarian”, though. Then again, I have only read a small portion of his works.
Agreed. The Road to Serfdom, Hayek’s most cited book, is much more accessible to the casual reader. Mises is not for the faint of heart.
That is the only one of his books that I read, and I remember being in stitches for a good part of it. It is kind of sad to see him on Bill Maher-- he is a shadow of his former self, relying on the most cliched of jokes and worn out stories. He definitely needs some new material.
This was my suggestion, as well. RW Lane is an unfortunately under-appreciated writer and champion of libertarian philosophy.
“Republican Party Reptile” is a collection of shorter pieces written for different magazines, and has some of his best work. His articles on Ferdinand Marcos are deeply felt and resulted in a medal from the Aquino government. And “Ferrari Refutes the Decline of the West” for Car and Driver is a howl.
Personally, I didn’t find much of what he says in the columns linked to objectionable at all - and I’m very much a leftist.
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have a great deal (if anything) to do with libertarianism either; more like “common sense” conservatism with a generous dollop of anti-affirmative action screed thrown in.
That’s true. But the first chapter summarizes the entire chain of deduction. The rest is just supporting material.
Not a book, but check out the episode “the Underpants Gnomes” from South Park. Very funny attack on mindless anti-corporation rhetoric. Matt Stone is a member of the Libertarian party.