Liberalism: The Classical Tradition by Ludwig von Mises

Liberalism: The Classical Tradition Reviews

• 
  Ayob Alaie

  آقایان و خانم‌ها این تنها کتابیست که پیشنهاد می‌کنم همه باید آن را بخوانند نه تنها یک‌بار بلکه چندین بار
  لودویگ فون میزس کتاب لیبرالیسم را حدود صد سال پیش نوشت که به قول مترجم ای‌کاش همان صد سال پیش ترجمه می‌شد چون دقیقا به اندازه همین صد سال از دنیا عقب هستیم. اگر معتقد به برابری حقوق انسانی‌تان هستید و حق آزادی‌های فردی را در اولویت ذهنی‌تان دارین حتما این کتاب را بخوانید. لیبرالیسم را نمیشود از دریچه تلوزیون و از رفتار فلان سیاست‌مدار غربی در فلان کشور فهمید لیبرالیسم را باید خواد خواشحالم که این کتاب را آنقدر ساده نوشته که همه به سادگی می‌توانند آن را بفهمند. نمیتوانم تکه‌ای یا گوشه‌ای از کتاب را بیاورم ظلم به کتاب است(هرچند برای ترغیب دوستانم تکه‌هایی از آن‌را روزهای گذشته در استوری نوشتم)، این کتاب را باید یکجا خواند لیبرالیسم برای همه است حامی هیچ گروه خاصی نیست متعلق به هیچ قشر خاصی نیست، به مانند سوسیالیست که فقط از یک قشر خاص(کارگر) آن‌هم با محدود کردن آزادی دیگران و سلب حقوق مادی و معنوی دیگران برای همان قشر خاص در آخر هم همه باهم غرق می‌شوند هم کارگری که کسانی دیگر برای حقش جنگیده‌اند هم باقی اقشار جامعه. پس خواندن لیبرالیسم از اینجا اهمیت پیدا می‌کند کتاب‌های شاخه لیبرالیسم بسیار اندک چاپ شده‌اند اما همین مقدار هم غنیمت است که باید از جناب مهدی تدینی بابت این ترجمه روان مستقیم از زبان آلمانی تشکر کرد.
• 
  Patrick Peterson

  Sept. 2014 - Love this book. I just finished re-reading it after a lapse of about 30+ years. Better than ever. So many totally relevant sections of this book to the issues of today. Highly recommended.
  
  Peace, private property, free markets, limited government.
  As governments have at least partially moved toward these key principles, here are just some of the benefits to mankind:
  - eliminating slavery
  - vast improvement in the wealth and standard of living of everyone
  - huge increase in the numbers of people who have been able to survive and thrive on the planet
  - huge increase in the average lifespan as well as the health and quality of those lives
  - vast decrease in the arbitrary use of force in society
  
  I could go on an on about this. These are facts of which most people are woefully ignorant.
  
  The various forms of interventionism and socialism which contrast to liberalism (and laissez-faire policy) are stark. Those systems, which mankind lived with for millennia, kept people's lives "nasty, brutish and short."
  
  Read this relatively short and fairly easily read (moderate difficulty) classic book (from 1927) to find out how this is all possible, and just as, or even more relevant to today's issues.
  
  2022-04-19 A note on terminology:
  The title of the book refers to the original "classical" definition of liberalism, which comes from LIBERTY.
  People who are called, or call themselves, typically in the US, "liberals" far too often advocate policies of government which are the opposite of "liberal." So, if you want to call someone, or yourself, "liberal" but you advocate policies which oppose: Peace, private property, free markets, limited government, then please be more honest and effective in communicating what you really believe:
  - interventionism
  - socialism
  - coercive collectivism
  - totalitarianism
  - etc.
  Or do you really want to mislead people you are talking to?
• 
  Kasey

  Blah blah private property blah blah anything the government does is socialism blah blah misconception or purposefully misrepresented view of the utopian socialists writings, Marx’s writings, the Bolshevik actions. Blah blah trade unions are violent against bosses and that’s bad blah blah.
• 
  Otto Lehto

  Mises is the recognized granddaddy of Austrian economics and of 20th century classical liberalism. He taught Friedrich Hayek and many of the American libertarians, and his influence on 20th century thought is immense, even though he never won a Nobel Prize, unlike some of his students.
  
  His uncompromising, even doctrinaire, position against socialism has won him many fans and detractors. His biggest contribution to libertarian/liberal thought was "Human Action" which offered the innovative theory of "praxeology" as the moral basis of capitalism.
  
  "Liberalism," on the other hand, is not a very theoretical work, nor especially scientific or technical. It is a popular work, a pamphlet, written in easy-going prose. The 200-page book espouses the ideology of classical liberalism, which rests on the institution of private property and limited government intrusion into people's lives: "The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect coordination of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.” (p.105)
  
  It contains a summary of the moral, sociological and economic arguments for liberalism. The main challenge, for the classical liberal, fighting against popular opposition, is to show that "private property is not a privilege of the property owner, but a social institution for the good and benefit for all." (p.30) It runs counter to moral intuition to argue that income inequality can be a good thing; but this precisely is the argument that suggests itself to the liberal.
  
  Essentially, it all boils down to Adam Smith's succinct observation from the Wealth of Nations: "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things." The doctrine of laissez-faire that sprang from this observation has carried the world far into prosperity and civilizational advancement.
  
  But Mises goes a bit further than the earlier classical liberals. He argues, contrary to Locke, Smith, and many others, that the state has NO role in, e.g. education of children, or providing social welfare to the poor. This is a radicalization of the classical liberal program, which eventually lead to the so-called "libertarian" movement, which rejected all state intervention altogether. So Mises is an interesting "middle man" between the earlier classical liberal humanism and the later right-wing libertarianism exemplified by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul (the former being a student and the latter being a fan of Ludwig von Mises).
  
  Even while agreeing with most of his premises, I reject the absolutist conclusions of Ludwig von Mises, such as the unsubstantiated claim that "there is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution of the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way." I think history has shown that there is PLENTY of middle way possible. Most governments and societies are something of a middle way.
  
  Regulated markets are the way societies are organized. As already Adam Smith pointed out, not all government intervention needs lead to socialism. Even 20th Century liberals, such as, Hayek and Friedman would agree with this. It only makes sense to use government to take care of the basic tasks of minimum security as well as social security.
  
  Nonetheless, Mises is an important figure in warning against the oversteps of government interference. The main problem in today's society is excessive regulation, which stifles all growth and hurts the poor even more than the rich. Today's citizen is failing to respect his fellow citizen's private rights. To become a moral person, "He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." (p. 55)
  
  Mises knew what was wrong with command economy, and even if some his doctrinaire opinions bordered on myopic, his contribution to the struggle for freedom is immense. He was, and remains, one of the best popularizers of liberal thought, and this particular pamphlet is a wonderful little book, which every aspiring Che Guevara-wannabe ought to read with caution, self-awareness and humility.
• 
  Even

  I started off in the introducion really liking this book, but things deteriorated after that. The empasis Mises places on the importance of divison of labor to the classical liberal program is interesting, but the majority of the book is less convincing than it could have been. Some of the book's problems have to do with the era in which it was published, which you can't blame it for. Mises tome and rhetric is so uncomprimising and self righteous that it becomes unconvincing. Liberals are scientific according to Mises, any other position is a result of neurosis.
  
  The principle problem is related to his arguemnts concerning socialism, interventionism, and liberalism. He stresses that the liberal program has never been truly implemented, and then argues that interventionsim (the middle ground beween the other two philosophies), or indeed any deviation from his concepton of liberalism is fated to utter ruin. He then basically ignores interventionism, and argues for a fully implemented liberal policy. He criticizes socialists for being overly optimistic about human nature, but makes the same errors. He ignores the fact that populations seem to be willing to sacrafice opimal efficency of labor in favor of risk aversion. That there will always be those who can game the system for their own advantage. In order for Mises program to work, the whole world must be converted to his belief. Anything less than full implementation is doomed o failure. Added to that the fact that he seems to ignore the fact that in the real world there will always be practcial barriers to the free flow of capital and labor, and his arguments come across as uyopian skylarking. These turn most of the sections of the book into sources for good libertarian/liberal quotes, but substantively unconvincing
  
• 
  Joshua

  This book is a great, concise introduction to the ideology of (true) liberalism. To address the complaints of the negative reviews, the book was not meant to be a comprehensive discussion of liberalism nor was it meant to be a complete rebuttal to liberalism's critics. Mises says so himself in the introduction of the book. For what it is, Liberalism accomplishes its goals by engaging with the reader and forcing him to think twice about solidly held beliefs and assumptions. It is important to approach the presented material with an open mind because the philosophy is far from mainstream in academic and political circles despite being an integral part of western, economic systems. I recommend this book to any capitalists, open-minded socialists, or any other person interested in Austrian economics/political thought.
• 
  Matt

  This is my favorite book by Ludwig von Mises. Of course, it's also his most philosophical work, and so perhaps I'm merely exposing my bias as a political philosopher in ranking it so highly. But I also think it highlights Mises at his best - as a champion of optimism, reason, and a universal reign of peace, cooperation, and freedom. It also, I think, demonstrates some of the weakest elements of Mises' thought. But despite those weaknesses, the book is on the whole a beautiful and inspiring little treatise.
  
  The book is divided into four main parts, one on "The Foundations of Liberal Policy," a second on "Liberal Economic Policy," a third on "Liberal Foreign Policy," and a fourth on "Liberalism and the Political Parties." The fourth part is the most narrowly focused on mid-1920s European politics, and so of the least value to contemporary readers (though it does contain some nice statements of Mises' belief in the natural harmony of human interests). I'll largely pass over it here.
  
  Part 1 on liberal foundations is terrific, and discusses the importance of private property and freedom in the liberal regime. Those discussions are largely unsurprising for anyone familiar with libertarian ideas. What is most fascinating and distinctive about Mises' approach is his emphasis on peace. For Mises, peaceful social cooperation is the necessary precondition of prosperity, and the measuring stick by which all other social institutions and practices are to be judged. Thus Mises (unlike some contemporary libertarians) comes out strongly in favor of democracy as a political regime. Why? Not because he thinks that people's political preferences aren't sometimes foolish or ignorant. But because it is the only political system that allows for peaceful transitions of power in a pluralistic society. Mises is highly consequentialist in his approach to liberalism in this section, and it would be easy to write him off as a crass utilitarian. But I think his emphasis on social cooperation and peaceful co-existence actually makes him something of a forerunner to the contemporary public reason theorizing of Jerry Gaus. Natural rights libertarians will find the approach off-putting, but I think there's a lot to learn from here.
  
  The section on liberal economic policy is probably the most disappointing section of the book. There's a lot of wisdom in it. But as someone with broadly Hayekian leanings, I find the rationalistic approach Mises takes to these issues to be highly implausible and misguided. One of the central arguments of the section, for instance, is that capitalism is the "only possible system of social organization." Socialism is impossible because of the economic calculation problem. And interventionism, or the mixed economy, is likewise impossible because interventionist efforts will always be self-defeating and will require either more interventions (thus leading to socialism and collapse) or the repeal of all interventions (thus leading to capitalism). Since neither socialism nor interventionism is possible, capitalism is thus left as the last man standing. This argument seems so badly wrong to me that I wonder if I've misunderstood it. The United States economy is, for instance, neither purely capitalist nor socialist. And it exists. And it has existed this way for quite a long time. And the way I see it, the fact that something exists is a pretty good refutation of any argument that purports to show that it is impossible for that thing to exist.
  
  Moving on though, Part 3 on foreign policy is probably my favorite part of the book. And, paradoxically, I think it's the same intransigence that I found off-putting in the section in economics that makes this section so attractive to me. Mises is anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-protectionism, and pro immigration. And his statements and defenses of these principles is clear, eloquent, and inspiring. Sure, all of these issues are considerably more complicated than Mises' brief treatment makes them out to be (though he does seem to hedge a bit at the end of his discussion of immigration, suggesting something not dissimilar to Milton Friedman's famous claim that open immigration and the welfare state are incompatible). But the vision he describes of a cosmopolitan, universalist liberalism is so beautiful, so important, and so needed in today's world that I'm willing to forgive him his oversimplifications.
• 
  Amir

  پیش از آنکه حقیقت بتواند بند کفش هایش را سفت ببندد، دروغ دنیا را زیر پاگذاشته است. سرنوشت لیبرالیسم در کشور ما، حتی در کل جهان با اندکی اغماض، در همین یک جمله خلاصه می شود. در ایران و در قرن اخیر سوسیالیسم و مارکسیسم غوغای بسیاری بر پا کرد. ایمانی تازه بود در دل جوانان پاک نیتِ سرسپرده‌ی روشنفکران نوظهور؛ مبلغان ارتجاعی با رنگ سرخ. این نویدِ آخرتی که مومنان خویش را به آینده حواله می دهد، نه به جهانی دیگر، افیونی بود هوش ربا برای توده‌ای که پس سالها خواب غفلت می خواهد مستی اش را با مستی ای دیگر جبران کند.
  
  از همین رو، در ایران، سخن گفتن از لیبرالیسم در چنان فضایی که با نفسِ روشنفکرانی که خود را معلمانِ انقلابی تازه می دانستند آلوده شده بود، سخت دشوار می‌نمود. آرمان های لیبرالیسم و اصول آن هر چند ناشناخته بود و مبلغ نام آشنایی نداشت، همانطور که حالا نیز ناشناخته است، اما این موضوع باعث نشد که از طرف روشنفکران، لیبرالیسم به عنوان ام‌الفسادی که منشا تمام ناامیدی ها و حقارت های توده بود، معرفی نگردد. اما امروز که چندی است دیوار توهمات فروریخته، تشت رسوایی روشنفکران فروافتاده، فرصتی فراهم شده تا بتوانیم با لیبرالیسم بی واسطه آشنا شویم.
  
  لیبرالیسم اثر فون میزس، اقتصاد دانِ اتریشی‌، با ترجمه روان مهدی تدینی، بنا بر تصریح خودِ مترجم می توان مانیفستی بر این ایدئولوژی شمرد. میزس که خود را تماشاگر انحطاط اروپا می دانست، در این اثر تلاش کرده تا اصول فراموش شده لیبرالیسم را بار دیگر احیا کند. او تلاش می کند تا در این اثر نشان دهد که لیبرالیسم تنها ایدئولوژی ای است که می تواند مبنای سازماندهی جامعه قرار بگیرد و در سطح جهان صلحی پایدار رقم بزند. میزس سعی‌کرده تا ثابت کند که لیبرالیسم بر خلاف تصور ایجاد شده توسط روشنفکران، منفعت سرمایه داران را نمایندگی نمی کند بلکه به کارگیری اصول آن، همزمان رفاه و ثروت را برای تمام اعضای جامعه فراهم می آورد. او با زبانی گویا و روشن نشان می دهد که چگونه دیگر ایدئولوژی ها همچون سوسیالیسم و مداخله گری، از اساس کودکانی گورزادند و هیچ گاه نمی توانند آنچه را نوید می دهند محقق کنند.
  
  بنابر نظر میزس، لیبرالیسم نه به دنبال بر پا ساختن بهشتی بر روی زمین است، نه تاریخ را صحنه مبارزه نور و تاریکی، دارا و ندار، کارفرما و کارگر می‌بیند، نه قصد دارد طبقه ای (اگر اصلا چنین مفهومی معنا دار باشد!) بر علیه طبقه ای دیگر متحد کند، نه به کارگیری زور را به رسمیت می شناسد، نه با مغلق گویی هایی روشنفکرانه می خواهد حقیقت و دروغ را در هم آمیزد. لیبرالیسم جامعه ای را تصویر می کند که در آن تک تک انسان ها، آزادانه، حق تعیین سرنوشت خویش را دارند و توسط دولتی پدرسالار که صاحب ابزار تولید است به صغارت محکوم نمی شوند.
• 
  Pedro Jorge

  An important book, with many relevant insights, in the famous Misesian uncompromising fashion.
  Although one or two misleading quotations tend to be malevolently excerpted from it, namely in relation to a slight sense of appraisal for Fascism for having stopped, at least for a moment, the uprising of Communism and Bolshevism, the impartial reader will be more than assured of Mises's intransigent defense of democracy and his premonition that Fascism would ultimately fail due to its inner contradictions and its belief in the prevalence of force over ideas.
  In fact, the whole point of this book is trying to show that it is ideas which command History and, more specifically, that it is the ideology of the majorities which determines the long-run possibility of any and all political orders. For Mises, democracy is not good in a superstitious or moral sense - it is simply the only way in which the majority can express its political will without the need for revolution and civil war. Since the free market - and thus the prosperity and welfare of the people - depend on the prevalence of lasting peace within and between nations, the liberal believes democracy is the only "scientific" political arrangement that can foster the interest of those who wish to increase the standard of living of the masses.
  Moreover, Mises tries to make his point as to why Socialism and Interventionism would not work for the same purposes and why every attempt to extend the functions of government beyond the mere protection of people's life and property will lead to consequences which are undesirable even from the point of view of those proposing them.
  The book drags a bit when dealing with international relations and internal politics. Also, there are some "dogmatic" assertions, such as the author's despise for all things Russian, which tend to feel a bit awkward, even for those who are accustomed to Mises's writing. So it is perhaps not the best book to bring unconvinced leftist friends to your side... With respect to the more right-wing ones, I'm not sure - that is, after all, the classical problem of liberalism...
  In spite of this, all in all, this is a fervent exclamation for true classical liberalism, written in the age (1927) where the "liberal" term unfortunately seemed to be receiving and embracing more softened, "modern" connotations. To this, Mises brilliantly and inspiringly responds:
  
  

  Precisely because the word "liberal" has a bad connotation in Germany, liberalism must stick to it. One may not make the way to liberal thinking easier for anyone, for what is of importance is not that men declare themselves liberals, but that they become liberals and think and act as liberals.
• 
  Malihe63

  کتاب ساده و خوبی درباره لیبرالیسم بود که خوندنش توصیه میشه چون از تکلف سایر کتابها دور هست
• 
  Salar

  کتابی کامل و جامع و با ترجمه شیوا و رسا از تدینی که به مبانی اصول کلاسیک می رسد. کتاب پیشنهادی است به همگان حتی چپ ترین چپ های جهان البته
  فون میزس قبل از به ثمررسیدن فاشیسم و کمونیست به جدال آنها می‌رود روشنگری دقیق و تیزبین وی باعث می‌شود تا کامل به کلیه حیطه‌های لیبرالیسم و آزادی جزئیات دقیقی را برای ما ترسیم کند.
• 
  Julian

  A load of nonsense. For one, whenever Mises reaches for the historical record to make a point he gets his basic facts ludicrously wrong: he claims that everyone lived prosperously during the Industrial Revolution and that the US only had a couple of wars during the 19th Century. Apparently in Austrian Fantasy Land children worked in mines and factories for fun, working-class slums were wonderful, and the wars of 1812 and the American Civil War weren't a thing. The only thing worse than his view of the past is his view of his (then) present and the future: according to Mises, fascism in 1927 wasn't all that bad, and it was just going to be a fad that wouldn't cause much damage anyway.
  
  Yeah.
  
  The rest isn't all that better, from the annoying skulduggery of claiming his opponents might be motivated by mental issues to an Olympic Game's worth of leaps of logic and because-I-say-so arguments. The last century or so hasn't been kind to the idea that unfettered capitalism is all we need to become prosperous, but even if it wasn't the case and we lived in a Libertarian Utopia this would still be a terrible book written by an intellectually dishonest hack.
• 
  Morteza Abdollahzadeh

  انتظار نداشتم کتاب خبری از شوخی و کنایه نباشد و فکر می‌کردم متن خیلی خشک‌تر باشد اما خب این طور نبود و تیکه‌های به جای فون میزس به چپ‌ها و روس‌ها و ... به جذابیت کتاب اضافه می‌کنه به نظرم
• 
  Todd

  A classic work, it is von Mises' concise description of what Liberalism is, and what it is not. In this day and age where "liberal" is misused to describe anti-Liberal Progressives, and Liberals are referred to as "conservative" (along with social and religious Conservatives and other non-Liberals), a return to the real meaning and ramifications of Liberalism is always timely. The work admirably accomplishes what von Mises intended for it, giving a brief but complete look at Liberalism, as well as a refutation of several misconceptions or propagandistic criticisms of it. However, this work falls into the same category as most of von Mises' other popular works, namely that he takes an overly reductionist, all-or-nothing, black-or-white oversimplification of a number of more complicated issues. People with experience in the real world will tend to view some of von Mises more sweeping claims with skepticism, which may result in their rejecting even his more sound logical reasoning.
  
  Von Mises does show that Liberalism is not a special interest, which probably explains its retreat since the rise of the bureaucratic state beginning with Bismarck. He shows how special interest parties and ideologies inevitably pursue zero-sum outcomes and are unable to make long-term converts out of anyone outside their core base. However, he expresses a cheery optimism that the logic, positive outcomes, and lack of viable alternatives make Liberalism's ultimate victory assured. History has shown humanity prefers to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory rather than permit such an outcome.
  
  One of the special interests that non-Liberals often associate with Liberalism include the wealthy, big business, etc. However, von Mises clearly shows that the established frequently prefer interventionism with the intention of preserving their favored position, in light of the fact that true Liberalism forces business people to work for their wealth and position or lose it.
  
  Von Mises correctly points out that Liberalism is the only known ideology that permits for peace, all the others making such competing and exclusive claims on at least some groups of people as to engender a never ending cycle of Hatfields and McCoys, vendetta and retribution. "The liberal does not expect to abolish war by preaching and moralizing. He seeks to create the social conditions that will eliminate the causes of war." (p 111)
  
  Von Mises' reason and logic are usually methodical and transparent. However, when he ventures into moral philosophy, it becomes evident that he had not thoroughly thought through all of his propositions to the full. For instance, he states, "Everything that serves to preserve the social order is moral; everything that is detrimental to it is immoral." (p 34) This sweeping statement is clearly chock full of the possibility of widespread abuse. Even when one realizes the context in which von Mises suggests this is the social order of peace and the preservation of private property (so not just any social order), this statement is still too broad and open to interpretation. Most people would agree that racial prejudice is detrimental to the kind of Liberal social order von Mises envisioned, but one is left in doubt that von Mises would have endorsed mandatory hiring of minorities by employers, or coerced provision of goods and services to minority customers, etc. Contrast the aforementioned sweeping statement to his much more limited one later in the book, "the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil." (p 52)
  
  Von Mises was no Anarchist (contrary to many vocal contemporary Libertarians, Anarchists, etc., who like to claim Liberal thinkers as their own): "Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism." (p 37) As von Mises indicates, "We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government." (p 35) He raises intriguing points in conjunction with this:
  
  Life in society would be quite impossible if the people who desire the continued existence and who conduct themselves accordingly had to forgo the use of force and compulsion against those who are prepared to undermine society by their behavior. A small number of antisocial individuals, i.e., persons who are not willing or able to make the temporary sacrifices that society demands of them, could make all society impossible. Without the application of compulsion and coercion against the enemies of society, there could not be any life in society. (p 35)
  
  Further: "Liberalism neither wishes to, nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstance, do without." (p 58)
  
  Unfortunately, von Mises does not further develop these ideas. For instance, was the United States justified in excluding Communist Party members from positions of national security significance during the Cold War, especially in light of Communism's openly declared aim to violently overthrow non-Communist regimes and expropriate private property upon doing so? Would the U.S. have been justified in outlawing the Communist Party and jailing its members? What about modern-day Islamists who favor the violent establishment of a Caliphate? What about Nazi Party members? And so on.
  
  Von Mises develops the interesting idea that all governments have the sanction of public opinion, as those lacking it collapse before long. This need not be enthusiastic support, sullen resignation will do. However, "popular" government is certainly not the sole preserve of representative government (not that representative government alone sufficient to establish Liberalism, though von Mises himself was of the view that non-Liberal governments could not long remain truly democratic). The only unique claim representative government has to make in this regard is the institutionalized way in which peaceful transfers of power are the norm, which makes it well-suited for Liberalism, which requires peace to properly operate. However, von Mises remained skeptical of popular will as well: "All mankind's progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all." (p 54)
  
  The way to bridge the need for peaceful transfers of power through democracy and the need to give minorities space to innovate was tolerance:
  
  Liberalism demands tolerance as a matter of principle, not from opportunism. It demands toleration even of obviously nonsensical teachings, absurd forms of heterodoxy, and childishly silly superstitions. It demands toleration for doctrines and opinions that it deems detrimental and ruinous to society and even for movements that it indefatigably combats. For what imperils liberalism to demand and accord toleration is not consideration for the content of the doctrine to be tolerated, but the knowledge that only tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past. (p 56-57)
  
  However, returning to the crucial Liberal question of what to do with anti-Liberal movements and ideas, von Mises alludes to a principle without fleshing it out: "Liberalism, however, must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance." (p 55) Intolerant how?
  
  Von Mises' unshakable optimism in the ultimate victory of Liberalism is rooted in his appreciation of the power of ideas:
  
  Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect--better because they alone give promise of final success...It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales. (p 51)
  
  What von Mises underestimated was the power of competing ideas, particularly those tied to Socialism and its little brother, Interventionism (mostly carried as part of Progressivism today) in winning hearts and minds, even in spite of Socialism's inevitable Venezuela-style and scale failures. Von Mises likewise oversimplifies the position of Interventionism as a mere way station on the way to either full Socialism (and inevitable collapse) or to a Liberal order. In fact, so many of the world's developed countries have sustained a version of Interventionism for decades and appear reasonably stable that way. It may be true that eventually the cost of having one's cake and eating it too will catch up and the Interventionist systems of Europe and the United States will collapse under the weight of massive debts, but the process has taken so long already that Interventionism has proven itself more resilient and stable than von Mises gave it credit.
  
  Being an economist, von Mises does pay special attentions to question of property and economy: "Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state." (p 67) Even the state and society writ large benefit from private property:
  
  Capitalist economic calculation, which alone makes rational production possible, is based on monetary calculation. Only because the prices of all goods and services in the market can be expressed in terms of money is it possible for them, in spite of their heterogeneity, to enter into a calculation involving homogeneous units of measurement. In a socialist society, where all the means of production are owned by the community, and where, consequently, there is no market and no exchange of productive goods and services, there can also be no money prices for goods and services of higher order. Such a social system would thus, of necessity, be lacking in the means for the rational management of business enterprises, viz., economic calculation. For economic calculation cannot take place in the absence of a common denominator to which all the heterogeneous good and services can be reduced. (pp 71-72)
  
  However, despite the obvious advantages of private property, it comes under successful attack all too easily and too often: "politically there is nothing more advantageous for a government than an attack on property rights, for it is always an easy matter to incite the masses against the owners of land and capital." (p 69) And once the rights of private property have been abridged, so too has that sphere of freedom from government intervention.
  
  Von Mises contrasts Liberalism, the ideology of all, against various ideologies of special interest, of limited groups making zero-sum claims against other groups. In the first instance, he notes the importance of various forms of chauvinism, not to mention their demands for internal unity. This chauvinism and forced unity are best pursued through state-controlled education and therefore propaganda: "school is a political prize of the highest importance. It cannot be deprived of its political character as long as it remains a public and compulsory institution." (p 115) Further, "continued adherence to a policy of compulsory education is utterly incompatible with efforts to establish lasting peace." (p 114)
  
  However, the other powers of the state, including its essential ones, are quite within the realm of abuse when there are differences among the people: "even the judicial and police activities performed in the service of these ends can become dangerous in areas where any basis at all can be found for discriminating between one group and another in the conduct of official business." (p 116) Overall, the case for the least possible government intervention, even in the name of the most worthy-sounding causes, can be laid out: "No one has a right to thrust himself into the affairs of others in order to further their interest, and no one ought, when he has his own interests in view, to pretend that he is acting selflessly only in the interest of others." (p 127)
  
  The politics of special interests corrodes cooperative society: "Society cannot, in the long run, exist if it is divided into sharply defined groups, each intent on wresting special privileges for its own members, continually on the alert to see that it does not suffer any setback, and prepared, at any moment, to sacrifice the most important political institution for the sake of winning some petty advantage." (p 175) Presaging
  Isabel Paterson and one of her major points in
  The God Of The Machine, von Mises notes, "Anticapitalism can maintain itself in existence only by sponging on capitalism." (p 183)
  
  In another unfortunate bit of ambiguity, von Mises insists the solution to the problem of minorities is self-determination, where feasible, without really defining feasible. In fact, von Mises would prefer the question of citizenship to become almost meaningless and easily exchangeable owing to such limited government and freedom of movement. But if the first principle is extended, it allows for the individual secession from any political body, leading to the very anarchy von Mises would seek to avoid. The latter principle may be an admirable goal, but for reasons even von Mises emphasizes (linguistic and cultural differences, for starters), is not likely to be on offer anytime soon.
  
  I recommend it, well worth it; it is clearly written, easy to understand, and concise. It lays out the basic case for Liberalism, though von Mises' oversimplification and overreach in parts reduce his potential to persuade the skeptical. It make a good precursor to reading von Mises'
  Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, which is a blistering but somewhat less well-organized critique of socialism, and presumes more familiarity on the part of the reader with the basic concepts involved. Truly, von Mises' greatest work is without doubt
  Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, but being a longer book, is more of an investment. If anything, that latter work is the only one I've read from von Mises that does not suffer from his tendency to over reduce everything to simple black and white dichotomies, but really gives a number of important ideas full work-ups, but that means a greater investment on the part of the reader. For a person new to Liberalism or von Mises in particular,
  Liberalism makes a fine start.
• 
  Oto Bakradze

  ეს არის სამეცნიერო ნაშრომი, რომელიც მხატვრული ლიტერატურასავით იკითხება. თუ რატომ არის ლიბერალიზმი შეიძლება არა იდეალური, მაგრამ საუკეთესო ალტერნატივა სხვა იდეოლოგიებს შორის, გაიგებთ ამ წიგნიდან, რომელიც საკმაოდ მარტივი ენით არის დაწერილი.
  
  ავტორი კიდევ არის ისეთი, ვისაც ავსტრიული ეკონომიკური სკოლის ჩამოყალიბებასა და განვითარებაში უდიდესი როლი აქვს შეტანილი. ასობით სტუდენტი ჰყავდა, ვინც მეოცე საუკუნეში ლიბერალიზმის გავრცელების კუთხით, თავიანთი სიტყვა თქვეს. მათ შორის ყველაზე ცნობილი, ფრიდრიხ ჰაიეკი, რომელიც იყო ტეტჩერისა და რეიგანის მრჩეველი ეკონომიკურ საკითხებში.
  
  მოკლედ ჩემი გუდრიდს მეგობრების უმეტესობა ალბათ ლიბერალი იქნებით, ამიტომ გირჩევთ ამ წიგნს აუცილებლად სოციალისტებთან კამათისას დასაპირისპირებლად. ვინც სოციალისტი ხართ, თქვენც გირჩევთ წაიკითხოთ და შემდეგ თუ არ დაეთანხმებით რამე თემაში, თქვენს საპირისპირო აზრებს სიამოვნებით მოვისმენ. 😁
• 
  Juan

  "El liberalismo en nada se parece al anarquismo, ni, desde luego, comulga con sus principios. Sin un aparato de compulsión, evidentemente, peligraría la convivencia social; la amenaza de la fuerza, por desgracia, ha de gravitar constantemente sobre quienes pretenden alterar la cooperación pacífica de los seres humanos. El edificio social, en otro caso, queda a merced de cualquiera. Tiene que haber una institución investida de poder suficiente para controlar a los que no se muestran dispuestos a respetar la vida, la salud, la libertad y la propiedad de los demás"
  
  LO BUENO: Sensatez, conocimiento, convencimiento, apologia etc...
  
  LO MALO: A veces Mises es muy pretencioso
  
  LO FEO: Ensayo muy corto, ni modo, a leer mas libros de MisesGOD
  
• 
  Izzat Isa

  Bacaan yang agak berat juga untuk dihadam. Barangkali kerana saya bukan mempunyai asas dalam bidang ekonomi dan falsafah sosial. Namun, semestinya karya ini baik untuk dibaca untuk memahami senario ekonomi dunia dan kesan kepada institusi kemasyarakatan. Huraian dan contoh yang diberikan sangat menarik misalnya; sistem kehidupan masyarakat feudal, kelas sosial, isu migrasi di Australia, amalan sosialisme di Rusia, peperangan, politik di Eropah, kebahagian di timur dan Asia.
• 
  Amin Entezary

  عالی
• 
  Bakunin

  Even though Mises can be a bit long winded at times his defense of the free market and the need to liberalism is a refreshing read. Mises basic argument is that only liberalism can provide continual material growth, peace and prosperity to mankind. Private property creates an opportunity for the division of labor which is a prerequisite for higher standards of living. Through private property - money - the entrepreneurs can calculate their losses and gains from their enterprises. A socialist system cannot as it lacks money and therefore agents cannot rationally calculate losses and gains. Like the classical liberals Cobden and Bastiat, Mises defines the role of the state consisting entirely in "guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty and private property against violent attacks".
  
  Unlike anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe, Mises defense of the free market is based on a utilitarian ethics. Provided that all man wish for prosperity, liberalism is the only alternative which will succeed in the long run. Some critics (like Rothbard) ask the following question. sure, but what if we don't favor prosperity? We might be religious fundamentalists who favor the survival of a certain creed over the advantages of a material lifestyle. We also might be factory workers who want higher wages. Mises can no more guarantee the survival of a creed in the capitalist world as we can guarantee the the rise of workers wages. [Historically is has been a fact that workers wages have risen over time, but one can imagine a situation where the local company can't keep up with the international competition: the worker will then be forced to look for work elsewhere.]
  
  Mises critique of the party system is quite interesting. I especially liked the following quotation: "The parties of special interest, which see nothing more in politics than the securing of privileges and prerogatives for their own groups, not only make the parliamentary system impossible; they rupture the unity of the state and society" This description of party politics can be compared with view which economists of the public choice have. Their reasoning runs along the following lines: given that man is essentially selfish, how can we create a public system which protects individuals and provides long term security? Mises answer to that question was to write an apologia for classical liberalism and to believe firmly that rational men will accept his arguments.
  
• 
  Saleem

  Ludwig von Mises at his best. Today the word liberalism means something different than it does in this book. It is not a book about political persuasion. A must for anyone interested in Libertarian thought and trying to understand the reality of what public policy can achieve and what is impossible.
  
  Von Mises refrains from adding too much technical jargon and stick to a real substance that anyone with a classic liberal mindset can learn from. Some of his comments are "Governments tolerate private property when they are compelled to do so, but they do not acknowledge it voluntarily in recognition of its necessity." and, "The earlier opponents of the system of private ownership of the means of production did not attack private property as such, but only the inequality of income distribution.", " It [Liberalism] has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory." Well written and insightful!
  
• 
  AttackGirl

  So, I have just re-read this again, 3 times now and no matter how many times and with the most open of intents I think this book should be a mandatory reading in High School Government, Civics class.
  
  I wonder if this would be read by all those now screaming about the inconsistencies in pay, capitalism, socialism then add in... aka mandate the book; The Evolution of Desire Strategies of Human Mating by David M. Buss
  
  Then lets watch the world grow!
• 
  Davood

  کتاب عالی و با محتوای فوق العاده و ترجمه بسیار خوب جناب تدینی. کتابی هست که هر آدمی که منطقی به مطالبش توجه کنه میبینه که در شرایط حاضر بهترین راه حل برای برون رفت از این وضع اقتصادی هست. البته باید گفت که خیلی از موارد تو این کتاب هنوزم که هنوزه تو هیچ کشوری تجربه نشده و هنوز مونده که به این موارد برسیم.
• 
  Marcus Goncalves

  Excellent read, a must for anyone wanting insight on the reality of what public policy can achieve and what is impossible. A life changing book.
• 
  Iel

  Dogmatic and rambling. Hayek was much more insightful, Robert Nozick was much better at argumentation, christ even Murray Rothbard was better at missing the point persuasively. I was disappointed.
  
  Mises argues private property is central to liberalism. I was trying to work out how he could be so so uncompromising. I think its rooted in a deep aversion to conflict of any kind. From Mises' perspective, conflict is a waste of resources whether its a war between nations or a lazy bureaucrat who is in conflict with the goal of maximising output. Laughably, this is the only reason he sees for abolishing slavery, namely that slaves would work harder if they received the fruits of their labour. He sees total respect for the existing distribution of private property as the only way to avoid wasting resources. His narrow perspective is only concerned with local optimisation and he cannot think about shaking up the system and creating more resources as a result.
  
  More generally, he doesn't acknowledge the amount of coercive force needed to maintain an unequal system of private property, e.g. its a claim against every other human on earth. If even one human doesn't respect your claim, then only coercion can solve the problem. This can be seen in incarceration rates in the US.
  
  Still, parts of the book in the section on the economy were ahead of his time and, afaik, ended up influencing Haeyk, Friedman and the neoliberal turn. I wonder how I'd have reacted to this book a few years ago when I liked libertarian-ish ideas more.
• 
  Edwin Piston

  Me quedo con esta frase sobre la politica en general (no importa si es de derecha, izquierda, centro)
  
  "La tendencia a reprimir la propiedad privada, a abusar del poder político y a despre­ciar todas las esferas libres de la injerencia estatal, está pro­fundamente enraizada en la mentalidad de quienes contro­lan el aparato gubernamental de compulsión y coerción para que puedan resistirla voluntariamente. Un gobierno espontáneamente liberal es una contradictio in adjecto. Los gobiernos tienen que verse obligados a ser liberales por el poder unánime de la opinión pública. No se puede contar con su liberalismo voluntario."
• 
  Štěpán Vácha

  “Sister-book” to a much longer (and more difficult) Socialism. Still, not that chill of a read and I struggled a bit when reading it tired in the evenings. It’s a nice and relatively short summary and explanation of what “liberalism” in the traditional sense is, what it means and why it is basically the only “ideology” that makes sense. Also concerns how the meaning of the word is changing for the wide audience, which is still relevant now, even though it was written almost 100 years ago. And that’s not the only timeless idea in the book.
• 
  Bálint Táborszki

  I just finished translating this book and it was a strange book. I'm torn between 3 and 4 stars. The fact that it was written in 1927 for a german audience makes quite a few of its points irrelevant to today's reader. Regardless, it is a great book, a fine introduction to the utilitarian approach to classical liberalism and even to economic thinking in some degree. It was extremely sad to read it with the knowledge that Hitler, WWII and rivers of blood was what followed the time of its writing. Everything that was needed to prevent that was laid down in this book and Germany paid with the lives of millions for rejecting its message.
• 
  Rubén Labrador Becana

  Si tienes una percepción o idea sobre el liberalismo, sea positiva o negativa, este libro aclarará tus ideas y te explicará con ejemplos y punto por punto los fundamentos del liberalismo. Eso si, no es un libro introductorio y no es fácil de digerir. Si es la primera vez que escuchas el termino liberalismo deberias empezar con algo mas "light".
• 
  Juan Sebastian Salazar Tovar

  Libro de Mises dónde pública en unas cortas 279 paginas de manera resumida, los fundamentos de la política liberal, tanto económicos como políticos. Debatiendo siempre frente al socialismo
• 
  Sam Mirkazemi

  گسترده درباره لیبرالیسم.
  بیانی به دور از تعارف و البته محکم.
  بنظرم مبانی لیبرالیسم و نظرات این مکتب در عناوین مختلف رو مشه داخل این متن پیدا کرد. بعلاوه اینکه بعضی از فکت‌های کتاب در روزگار بعد خودش نقض شده و قابل نقده اما در کل کتاب محترمیه.