rotorguy64's review
4.0
UPDATE: David Friedman himself responded to this review in the comments. I am a firm believer in hearing both sides before passing a verdict, so: Please read his feedback. It is succinct enough that I don't think I have to summarize it.
The Machinery of Freedom differs from the anarchocapitalist mainstream, as established by [a:Murray Rothbard|15813666|Murray Rothbard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], in two aspects: Economically, David Friedman stands in the tradition of the Chicago School, not the Austrian School; ethically, he is a utilitarian, and doesn't accept a natural law (more on that later). While I believe that the approach of Rothbard and his disciples is superior, I think that these differences should make The Machinery of Freedom very attractive to people to whom the traditional approaches are too outlandish. Friedmans more modest claims and his less confrontative style should help with that. I read this book partly to challenge my views, as I knew of his different approach, and to find more arguments in favor of them. It succeeded on both counts.
Most of the book is dedicated to outlining free market-solutions to problems such as public transport, healthcare and law enforcement. Especially the latter subject is very interesting, with Friedman giving a detailed account on how defense firms would create an entirely contractual law and enforce it, and why they would be preferable to a state. I think few writers have created a more vivid vision of how an anarchocapitalist society could function in practice, which is another big point in favor of this book and something else that should make it particularly attractive to newcomers.
He also dedicates an entire chapter on military defense, and while I appreciate the input from it too, I find him too pessimistic. Friedman agrees with the critics of anarchocapitalism that military defense is a public good, but he still thinks it can potentially work on a non-coercive basis. As was pointed out by [a:Walter Block|98318|Walter Block|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1299447841p2/98318.jpg] in an essay in [b:The Myth of National Defense|168854|The Myth of National Defense|Hans-Hermann Hoppe|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1172360977s/168854.jpg|163057], a public good is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The only aspect of military defense that could possibly qualify as a public good would be military deterrence, but even that is more than questionable in an anarchocapitalist society. If the USA embraced anarchocapitalism tomorrow, would a strong military defense provided by firms in California deterr potential invaders of Florida? That is more than doubtful. So even if the only good you'd buy was military deterrence, enough people would invest in it to create a strong national defense. My bigger objection, however, is that the actual good most people would buy would be real defense, not just deterrence, and defense in this narrow manner is very much rivalrous and excludable. That I have a very good defense contract would not keep my neighbor from getting one himself, or from taking other precautions in case of an attack.
What I find very problematic is David Friedman's view on nuclear prolification. He bought the propaganda that Mutually Assured Destruction is a guarantee for peace, and so claimed that free society would be well-advised to buy itself a nuclear arsenal. Not only is this ethically impermissible, according to the view of me and many other anarchocapitalists (which I obviously see as the correct view, or I wouldn't have adopted it), it's also unnecessary. I cannot blame Friedman for not taking the possibility of a missile shield into account, as that is a new development and was probably science fiction at the time The Machinery of Freedom was first written, but he could've addressed the role of foreign intervention and diplomacy in more detail, as [a:Michael Huemer|170898|Michael Huemer|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] did in [b:The Problem of Political Authority|15794037|The Problem of Political Authority An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey|Michael Huemer|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1344322311s/15794037.jpg|21516031].
Another chapter was about the shortcomings of anarchocapitalist theories based on the notion of a natural law. Friedman himself admitted that he's not a philosopher, and I have to say that it shows. His critique is rather superficial, he underestimates how well-defined the natural law can be. For example, he asks what the threshold is at which a contact with foreign property becomes a violation of said property. He claims that this threshold cannot be established without arbitrariness, but I maintain that this is very much possible, both in abstracto and for concrete cases by applying these abstract rules. Here's my solution: If an immission remains below the threshold your property had been subjected to before you homesteaded it, then it's not a violation of your property. If you build or buy a house in a busy street, you cannot sue the people passing by or talking loudly, but you could sue them if they take out a loudspeaker at 3 AM to shout at your house. The former immission is part of the package you acquired, the latter isn't, so to speak. Now, this chapter isn't horrible by any means, it just isn't very good.
After this letdown, I got to read one of the best chapters of any anarchocapitalist book I've ever read: David Friedman's analysis of Medieval Iceland. His account of this society and its legal and cultural achievements was thrilling to read and one of the best arguments in favor of customary and contractual legal systems I've ever read. I started reading [b:Njal's Saga|103104|Njal's Saga|Anonymous|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1369097748s/103104.jpg|1982703] due to his recommendation, and I don't regret it. I believe Friedman is working on another book about Medieval Iceland, and I cannot wait for the final product!
The book closes with a few recommendations for further reading and some critiques of the works of other authors, a bit outdated and not exhaustive, but nevertheless great to read. If I recall correctly, he missed out on [a:Rothbard's|15813666|Murray Rothbard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] two great books, [b:For a New Liberty|1268994|For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1184280797s/1268994.jpg|1696120] and [b:The Ethics of Liberty|81983|The Ethics of Liberty|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388217379s/81983.jpg|79157], but as his list is still diverse and shows he's done his research, I can look over that.
To sum my review up: The Machinery of Freedom is a comparatively easy and short read, compared to the other libertarian manifestos, and so especially recommendable to beginners. Those who are more well-versed in libertarian theory can still profit greatly from it, though, especially from the chapter on Iceland. I was pretty close to giving it five stars, too, and it was only the chapter on natural law that pushed it down a star.
The Machinery of Freedom differs from the anarchocapitalist mainstream, as established by [a:Murray Rothbard|15813666|Murray Rothbard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], in two aspects: Economically, David Friedman stands in the tradition of the Chicago School, not the Austrian School; ethically, he is a utilitarian, and doesn't accept a natural law (more on that later). While I believe that the approach of Rothbard and his disciples is superior, I think that these differences should make The Machinery of Freedom very attractive to people to whom the traditional approaches are too outlandish. Friedmans more modest claims and his less confrontative style should help with that. I read this book partly to challenge my views, as I knew of his different approach, and to find more arguments in favor of them. It succeeded on both counts.
Most of the book is dedicated to outlining free market-solutions to problems such as public transport, healthcare and law enforcement. Especially the latter subject is very interesting, with Friedman giving a detailed account on how defense firms would create an entirely contractual law and enforce it, and why they would be preferable to a state. I think few writers have created a more vivid vision of how an anarchocapitalist society could function in practice, which is another big point in favor of this book and something else that should make it particularly attractive to newcomers.
He also dedicates an entire chapter on military defense, and while I appreciate the input from it too, I find him too pessimistic. Friedman agrees with the critics of anarchocapitalism that military defense is a public good, but he still thinks it can potentially work on a non-coercive basis. As was pointed out by [a:Walter Block|98318|Walter Block|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1299447841p2/98318.jpg] in an essay in [b:The Myth of National Defense|168854|The Myth of National Defense|Hans-Hermann Hoppe|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1172360977s/168854.jpg|163057], a public good is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The only aspect of military defense that could possibly qualify as a public good would be military deterrence, but even that is more than questionable in an anarchocapitalist society. If the USA embraced anarchocapitalism tomorrow, would a strong military defense provided by firms in California deterr potential invaders of Florida? That is more than doubtful. So even if the only good you'd buy was military deterrence, enough people would invest in it to create a strong national defense. My bigger objection, however, is that the actual good most people would buy would be real defense, not just deterrence, and defense in this narrow manner is very much rivalrous and excludable. That I have a very good defense contract would not keep my neighbor from getting one himself, or from taking other precautions in case of an attack.
What I find very problematic is David Friedman's view on nuclear prolification. He bought the propaganda that Mutually Assured Destruction is a guarantee for peace, and so claimed that free society would be well-advised to buy itself a nuclear arsenal. Not only is this ethically impermissible, according to the view of me and many other anarchocapitalists (which I obviously see as the correct view, or I wouldn't have adopted it), it's also unnecessary. I cannot blame Friedman for not taking the possibility of a missile shield into account, as that is a new development and was probably science fiction at the time The Machinery of Freedom was first written, but he could've addressed the role of foreign intervention and diplomacy in more detail, as [a:Michael Huemer|170898|Michael Huemer|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] did in [b:The Problem of Political Authority|15794037|The Problem of Political Authority An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey|Michael Huemer|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1344322311s/15794037.jpg|21516031].
Another chapter was about the shortcomings of anarchocapitalist theories based on the notion of a natural law. Friedman himself admitted that he's not a philosopher, and I have to say that it shows. His critique is rather superficial, he underestimates how well-defined the natural law can be. For example, he asks what the threshold is at which a contact with foreign property becomes a violation of said property. He claims that this threshold cannot be established without arbitrariness, but I maintain that this is very much possible, both in abstracto and for concrete cases by applying these abstract rules. Here's my solution: If an immission remains below the threshold your property had been subjected to before you homesteaded it, then it's not a violation of your property. If you build or buy a house in a busy street, you cannot sue the people passing by or talking loudly, but you could sue them if they take out a loudspeaker at 3 AM to shout at your house. The former immission is part of the package you acquired, the latter isn't, so to speak. Now, this chapter isn't horrible by any means, it just isn't very good.
After this letdown, I got to read one of the best chapters of any anarchocapitalist book I've ever read: David Friedman's analysis of Medieval Iceland. His account of this society and its legal and cultural achievements was thrilling to read and one of the best arguments in favor of customary and contractual legal systems I've ever read. I started reading [b:Njal's Saga|103104|Njal's Saga|Anonymous|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1369097748s/103104.jpg|1982703] due to his recommendation, and I don't regret it. I believe Friedman is working on another book about Medieval Iceland, and I cannot wait for the final product!
The book closes with a few recommendations for further reading and some critiques of the works of other authors, a bit outdated and not exhaustive, but nevertheless great to read. If I recall correctly, he missed out on [a:Rothbard's|15813666|Murray Rothbard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] two great books, [b:For a New Liberty|1268994|For a New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1184280797s/1268994.jpg|1696120] and [b:The Ethics of Liberty|81983|The Ethics of Liberty|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388217379s/81983.jpg|79157], but as his list is still diverse and shows he's done his research, I can look over that.
To sum my review up: The Machinery of Freedom is a comparatively easy and short read, compared to the other libertarian manifestos, and so especially recommendable to beginners. Those who are more well-versed in libertarian theory can still profit greatly from it, though, especially from the chapter on Iceland. I was pretty close to giving it five stars, too, and it was only the chapter on natural law that pushed it down a star.
More...