I would love for all the people that claim to be libertarian but really just dont want to pay taxes to read this book. There is so many misconceptions about Libertarianism these days. I am really glad the author published this book of libertarian philosophy. I received an ARC of this book for my honest review.

TL;DR

Burning Down the House is an erudite, well-reasoned examination by Andrew Koppelman of how modern libertarian philosophy was corrupted. Koppelman builds his argument by defining his vision of libertarianism and then critiques other, ‘corrupted’ visions of it. His analysis is astute, surprising, and worth the read. This book isn’t just for libertarians. I’d recommend it to all political junkies, especially those interested in political philosophy. Highly recommended.

Disclaimer: The publisher provided a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Any and all opinions that follow are mine alone.

Review: Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman

Libertarians are the worst. I am incredibly biased against libertarians for reasons that should probably be a blog post all its own, though I’m sure some will pop out in my analysis. Overall, when reading Libertarian writing, I’m very aware of my own negative biases, but the more I age, the less I agree with libertarians. So with this all in mind, when I say that I enjoyed Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman, you’ll know that it’s because the book makes strong solid arguments. I may not agree with Koppelman’s conclusions, but I understood the arguments and how he came to his conclusions. In my experience, this is rare for libertarians, specifically, and politics, in general. Too many people – right, left, libertarian, socialist, green party, whoever – believe their arguments are self-evident and thus require no explanation. Koppelman takes the opposite route. He explains, in depth, his personal philosophy of libertarianism, and it’s because of this, I am doing something I never thought I’d do. I’m highly recommending Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman as an excellent analysis of the modern libertarian party and as a way to understand why Libertarianism is attractive to some.

Andrew Koppelman opens Burning Down the House, or How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed with the story of Gene Cranick’s house being allowed to burn down as a show and defense of libertarian values. He claims that the libertarianism that let that house burn is a corrupted version of the philosophy. (At least, it shows the heartlessness of modern libertarians.) Koppelman then spends time defining what he means by corruption of libertarian philosophy. He uses modern pundits like Glenn Beck, Kevin Williamson, and Jonah Goldberg to make his point. He references Beck again and again because Beck claims to be influenced by Frederick Hayek and Ayn Rand. Koppelman places the fight over the libertarian party’s soul between these two. He claims that modern American libertarianism began with Hayek but that Rand’s philosophies have steered it off Hayek’s course. This is an intriguing argument that the book works heavily toward again and again. Koppelman is clearly a student of Hayek’s, and he’s an excellent advocate for Hayek’s work. Throughout the book, Koppelman works from Hayek’s principles to integrate modern libertarianism with a social safety net. If I understood him correctly, he wants the government to help the poor without capping the rich’s ability to become even richer. Koppelman sees in Hayek’s philosophy a way to protect those most vulnerable in our society through both market and government solutions. In my personal philosophy, I’ve always seen socialism as the net below the trapeze artist. It protects those who are falling but doesn’t impede those who are soaring. Koppelman thinks Hayek would agree to this; though, neither Hayek nor Koppelman would call that socialism.

When I first saw this book on the various reviewer requesting sites, it perked my interest. I requested, and as I began to read it, I found it wasn’t the book that I thought it would be. I had suspected it would be a history of Libertarianism from outside the party itself. Instead, it’s a libertarian looking how the modern party evolved. The introduction angered me. I have 32 highlights and notes there alone. That’s five times the number of highlights that I put in On Critical Race Theory’s introduction, the last political philosophy book I reviewed. In the first chapter, I have 74 highlights and notes. This is a book that angered me, but it’s also a book that I can engage with. To be clear, not all of those highlights are negative, just most. But each chapter tamped down the anger more and more so that I was able to engage intellectually with the book. Koppelman opened my mind with a few sentences at the end of the introduction. The goal of his book was to mix the best of libertarianism with the best of the political left’s policies. Between the introduction and the first chapter, I began to find more and more common ground with Koppelman.

Chapter two dives into the philosophy of rights with a Hayekian interpretation of John Locke and John Rawls. This was the chapter I found most enlightening; though, I believe I read too fast through it and should probably go read it again to digest more of what Koppelman’s aiming to do. (More on this below.) Chapter three examines the arguments of prominent libertarian philosophers Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Koppelman looks at their arguments and how extreme they are. For example, Koppleman claims that under Rothbard’s philosophy a person has no legal obligation to his children whether feeding, clothing, or educating. While Rothbard considered not doing those thing immoral, he thought state coercion worse. To be clear, Rothbard thought that a parent has the legal right to let a child die through inaction by not feeding or sheltering. Welcome to the individual that brought the Koch brothers to libertarianism. Chapter four has Koppelman addresses the Libertarian rejection of restrictions upon one’s freedoms. For this, he examines whether all drugs should be legalized. Should heroin be purchasable alongside alcohol at the gas station? Libertarianism would say yes. Should cigarettes be sold to children under the age of 18? Libertarians would say yes. That decision should be made by the parents and not the state. Koppelman makes the case for legal restrictions upon a person’s freedoms for their own good. Chapter five looks at the libertarian view of anti-discrimination laws. Modern libertarian adherence to strict property rights says that yes, property owners have the right to discriminate against anyone. Racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, transphobia,etc. are all acceptable to libertarians in a legal sense. They may personally abhor all those -isms and find them morally reprehensible, but they don’t believe the state should force someone into property transactions against their will for any reason. Koppelman makes a case for limited state intervention when it creates more freedom. (This seems like a very utilitarian view of freedom. The business owner who loses the freedom to discriminate is overwhelmed by the additional freedom of all people of color to use said business.) Chapter 6 addresses the Randian concept of moochers. Libertarians fear and loathe paying for benefits that they themselves do not receive. Koppelman looks at this impulse via the Presidency of Barack Obama, where libertarian racism framed him as a socialist despite all objective evidence that he isn’t. Of course, all right-leaning and conservative people call anything they don’t like socialism, they had it extra bad for Obama despite all his pro-business policies. His signature health initiative, the ACA, benefited private insurance industry. How is that socialism? Hint, it’s not. In this chapter, Koppelman also looks at Charles Koch, the man most responsible for shifting the Overton window towards a heartless brand of libertarianism.

So, why read Burning Down the House? Because it’s intelligent, and you will learn something. I have never read Hayek before, but I plan to as my review stack gets smaller. Koppelman has shown that Hayek’s ideas are worth examining regardless of your political party. Koppelman places Hayek in a philosophical continuum from John Locke to John Rawls in a way that keeps free market idealism while making the case for small amounts of redistribution and regulation. This is brave for a libertarian because the modern party has become extreme property rights fanatics. Koppelman, however, seeks to reclaim libertarian sensibilities for left-leaning individuals. Because of this book, I’ll have more patience with libertarians to see if they’re in the Hayekian tradition.

Conclusion

Andrew Koppelman’s Burning Down the House is a smart, well-written, well-argued attempt to realign modern libertarian philosophy in a tradition of Frederick Hayek and John Rawls. Koppelman’s analysis of how libertarians evolved from Hayek to the modern interpretation favored by Glenn Beck is excellent and thought-provoking. Despite all the biases I had prior to reading this book, Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman won me over. With each chapter, my curiosity grew, and I became more and more impressed with Koppelman’s dedication to his Hayekian principles. This is one of the best political books that I’ve ever read. Now, I need to find time so that I can read it again. Highly recommended.

Severely Flawed Overall Reasoning Yet Good Introduction To Left Libertarianism. This is a book whose goal, as the author states near the end of Chapter 1, "is not only a critical description of libertarianism. It aims to marry what is best about libertarianism with the agenda of the left." Thus, the author makes such radical-to-anyone-who-actually-studies-American-history-and-politics claims as that Rothbardian libertarianism has come to dominate the Republican Party, and the usual and at this point banal attacks on Charles Koch as a standard boogeyman. And yet, despite the rampant strawmen and cherry picked history and analyses, this book truly does serve as a reasonably well argued and written look into the general forms of "left libertarian" philosophy. At 36% documentation, it is actually on the strong side of well-documented (though still not the *best* I've ever encountered), so even with its cherry picking, at least it does in fact cite most of its arguments quite well. (Despite several of its more plebian-according-to-leftist-standards comments being undocumented.) Thus, while there is nothing of the structure of the book to hang a star deduction on, it is still one whose arguments should be considered critically and indeed, one should actively study the same philosophers and economists Koppelman often cites - from Hayek, Mises, and Friedman to Locke, Rothbard, Rand, and even Lysander Spooner. Still, for what it is and for the education it could bring (as even reading Mein Kampf is quite educational, in seeing how even the worst thinkers known to man think), this book is very much recommended.

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE by Andrew Koppelman claims that American libertarians have distorted Hayek’s ideals. strengths include accessible writing, defining terms, and charitable philosophizing.
.
.
Koppelman’s opening lines are stunning: “The fire department was run by idealists. That is why it ignored the homeowner’s pleas and watched the house burn down.” this vignette is no metaphor. Gene Cranick of Obion County, Tennessee, lost his home in that fire. flames spread to the home of his neighbor, who had paid his fees.
.
.
BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE explores how libertarians today understand Hayek with explicit goals to make libertarians appreciate government more and to make liberals resent libertarians less. for example, on the pressing issue of climate change mitigation, most libertarians trust the market and rebuke government intervention. Koppelman interjects that Hayek sought government intervention to curtail forces outside the market. climate change constitutes a force outside the market.
.
.
BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE paradoxically exposes the corruption and greed of twenty-first century libertarians while assuming best intentions to a fault, aiming to purify libertarians’ understanding of Hayek. rather than unpack the fetishization of Hayek, Koppelman argues that libertarians ought to revere him for different reasons than they do. Koppelman likes Hayek too much.