Talk:The Market for Liberty

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy

2007 comments

This article says, "Unlike Murray Rothbard who advocated the establishment of a libertarian legal code for anarcho-capitalist societies, the Tannehills oppose statutory law."

What a misrepresentation of Rothbard's views! Rothbard, likewise, opposed statutory law. What he argued for was, essentially, the same thing as the Tannehills: viz. a system whereby private arbitors decide matters for those who wish to have matters decided by a third party. It's not that Rothbard was aiming to establish statutory law; rather, when Rothbard discussed there being a libertarian legal code, he was attempting was to illustrate what sort of decisions, on the basis of the non-aggression axiom, such arbitors would be inclined to make. Both Rothbard and the Tannehills believed in natural law as a basis for a stateless society, and further, Rothbard was an influence on the Tannehills.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Allixpeeke 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made a change. Hopefully it's a satifactory one. It still notes a difference in Rothbard's and the Tannehills' approach, but does not go so far as to incorrectly claim that the libertarian legal code Rothbard discuses constitutes somehow statutory law.

Allixpeeke 05:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover image

We should probably get an image of the cover that has the big A in a circle (as in the softcover edition). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8-to-5 grind

In reference to the paragraph on page 24 (in Chapter 3, The Self-Regulating Market) about government regulations freezing people into an 8-to-5 grind, what regulations is he talking about? Just the fact that employees are paid by the hour? But couldn't the same effect (freeing people from the 8-to-5 grind) be achieved through contracting, in which people are paid by the job? EVCM (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech?

Is freedom of speech, its importance and its preservation treated in the book? It seems like an obvious flaw or weakness in the argument - its heavy dependence on 'reputation' - that they assume everyone can find out the truth about other people's dealings, which requires complete and accurate reporting. Which at the very least requires a reliably protected right of speech. --Tdent (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of freedom of speech is incoherent in a propertarian judicial system. Whether or not certain types of behaviour (e.g. criticism of institutions) is allowed in a given area or medium is up to the owners of that area or medium. Skomorokh 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems clear, but it also seems like a fatal flaw in such systems, at least if one wanted them to be compatible with usual notions of morality: bad deeds will not be punished if they cannot be spoken of. Anyway, the point was whether the book makes any clear statement on speech rights. --Tdent (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference

There was a section (third paragraph in the intro) that had (7) as its reference. I checked that reference and its gone, I looked around on the internet for anything similar to what that paragraph said, and I cannot find it anywhere. So I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.156.17 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and fixed the reference, thanks! Skomorokh 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]