Reddit reviews The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition (Volume 17) (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)

Read

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market - Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.amazon.com/Economy-State-Market-Scholars-Edition/dp/1933550996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343088180&sr=8-1&keywords=Man%2C+economy%2C+and+state+with+power+and+market

Human Action by Mises
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0865976317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343088245&sr=1-


Principles of Economics by Carl Menger

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-Carl-Menger/dp/B001E4S756/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343088284&sr=1-1&keywords=carl+menger

The Constitution of Liberty by Hayek
http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Liberty-Definitive-Collected-Works/dp/0226315398/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343088351&sr=1-1&keywords=the+constitution+of+liberty

Your question highlights one of the most important divisions in American society. Allow me to explain.

In the early 20th century progressives broke from the classical liberal understanding of liberty by distinguishing between effective freedom and formal freedom. Formal freedom, or freedom per the classical liberal tradition, is defined as the ability of a man to pursue his goals without interference by others. In other words, formal freedom represents "a clear road, cleared of impediments, for action."

Progressives argue that the ability for a man to pursue his goals requires more than just a lack of impediments, but the possession of material and mental means to get him where he wants to go. For example, having the freedom of speech doesn't mean much if you're mute, and having the freedom to travel doesn't mean much if you don't have a car. Thus, progressives argue that true liberty (aka effective freedom) understands material lack to be the true impediment of liberty, not government/social restrictions. Combining this progressive understanding of liberty with an unrealistic trust in the abilities of social science yielded massive increases in the scope of government.

Classical liberals deny the existence of effective freedom in natural law, and argue that ensuring that everyone has the material means to pursue their dreams requires violating fundamental principles of formal freedom. Thus, in the minds of classical liberals, progressives are the enemies of liberty.

Meanwhile, progressives perceive classical liberals as selfish or prejudiced because classical liberals refuse to use the state to redistribute wealth. Such characterizations are asinine. Taking the formal freedom position does not preclude individuals from donating to causes they think worthy.

You'll find no better defense of the classical liberal definition of liberty than Hayek's Constitution of Liberty.

There's Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which has a sort of Lockean natural-rights bent and Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty which might be more straightforward. I'd also recommend Free Market Fairness by Tomasi; it takes a look at libertarianism with a Rawlsian social justice twist. Finally, I'd take a look at The Logic of Liberty by Michael Polyani. Hope none of these are too basic.

First, I think it's instructive to understand the difference between classical liberal's conception of freedom and the progressive perversion of freedom. The following is some copy-pasta I wrote a few months ago:

>In the early 20th century progressives broke from the classical liberal understanding of liberty by distinguishing between effective freedom and formal freedom. Formal freedom, or freedom per the classical liberal tradition, is defined as the ability of a man to pursue his goals without interference by others. In other words, formal freedom represents "a clear road, cleared of impediments, for action."

>Progressives argue that the ability for a man to pursue his goals requires more than just a lack of impediments, but the possession of material and mental means to get him where he wants to go. For example, having the freedom of speech doesn't mean much if you're mute, and having the freedom to travel doesn't mean much if you don't have a car. Thus, progressives argue that true liberty (aka effective freedom) understands material lack to be the true impediment of liberty, not government/social restrictions. Combining this progressive understanding of liberty with an unrealistic trust in the abilities of social science yielded massive increases in the scope of government.

>Classical liberals deny the existence of effective freedom in natural law, and argue that ensuring that everyone has the material means to pursue their dreams requires violating fundamental principles of formal freedom. Thus, in the minds of classical liberals, progressives are the enemies of liberty.

>Meanwhile, progressives perceive classical liberals as selfish or prejudiced because classical liberals refuse to use the state to redistribute wealth. Such characterizations are asinine. Taking the formal freedom position does not preclude individuals from donating to causes they think worthy.

>You'll find no better defense of the classical liberal definition of freedom than Hayek's Constitution of Liberty.

I agree with the classical liberal definition of freedom, but classical liberals and libertarians make the mistake of assuming freedom is sufficient for a good life and good society. It is not. Freedom is necessary for living a moral life in that it allows one to choose good. A proper understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, is also necessary for moral life. Conservatives advocate that our understanding of morality should not come from government, but from churches, schools, families, and other voluntary civic institutions.

Read Evan's classic essay, A Conservative Case For Freedom for more on the differences between classical liberals and conservatives with respect to freedom.

@Destiny @exskillsme

The definition of good economic governance/lobbying is that which protects and incentivises competition.

The definition of bad economic governance/lobbying is that which produces financial security, allowing any individual, group or company to exist outside meritocratic influence.

Good governance thereby mitigates corruption.

Bad governance maximises it.

Further reading (if either of you give a fuck): The Constitution of Liberty written by nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek.