The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
As a continuation of the older tradition of classical liberalism, libertarian thinking draws on a rich body of thought and scholarship. Contemporary libertarian scholars are continuing that tradition by making substantial contributions to such fields as philosophy, jurisprudence, economics, evolutionary psychology, political theory, and history, in both academia and politics. With more than 300 A-to-Z signed entries written by top scholars, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism is purposed to be a useful compilation of and introduction to libertarian scholarship. The Encyclopedia starts with an introductory essay offering an extensive historical and thematic overview of key thinkers, events, and publications in the development of libertarian thought. The Reader’s Guide groups content for researchers and students alike, allowing them to study libertarianism topically, biographically, and by public policy issues.
What people are saying - Write a review
I didn't know whether to give this book a 5 or a 1. So let me explain the poor rating I decided on.
It pretty much deserves a 5 because it does present the libertarian viewpoints on a wide variety of subjects.
It got a 1 because of a wide variety of misrepresentations of opposing viewpoints. It got a 1 because of serious failures in argumentation (reading the entry on "Democracy"). And it got a 1 because of sheer cluelessness (the entries on Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls stand out in my memory).
And I haven't read the entire book from cover to cover - I've been going from topic to topic depending on degree of interest, and of course, reading the entries that I did not expect (Hobbes, Rawls), but know of because I am familiar with their work.
So the Encyclopedia has been a bit of an Alice in Wonderland experience, but it certainly is reflective of contemporary libertarian thinking.
So as a source book for libertarian thinking, it is a good resource. As to the entries on non-libertarian thinkers, caveat lector.
This looks like a great read... too bad the scan is so low resolution. It's illegible.