Jan Narveson is one of the most significant contemporary defenders of the libertarian political position. Unlike other libertarians who typically defend their view with reference to natural rights or an appeal to utilitarianism, Narveson's main contribution has been to offer a philosophical defence of libertarianism based on a Hobbesian individualist contractarian ethic. Critiques of Narveson's contractarian libertarianism fall into three categories, those that reject contractarian moral theory, those that reject any link between contractarianism and libertarianism and those that accuse libertarians of conflating liberty with property. In this book Malcolm Murray brings together the most significant of Narveson's critics and presents their work alongside replies by Jan Narveson.

Jan Narveson is one of the most significant contemporary defenders of the libertarian political position. Unlike other libertarians who typically defend their view with reference to natural rights or an appeal to utilitarianism, Narveson's main contribution has been to offer a philosophical defence of libertarianism based on a Hobbesian individualist contractarian ethic. In this book Malcolm Murray brings together the most significant of Narveson's critics and presents their work alongside replies by Jan Narveson.

Are the political ideals of liberty and equality compatible? This question is of central and continuing importance in political philosophy, moral philosophy, and welfare economics. In this book, two distinguished philosophers take up the debate. Jan Narveson argues that a political ideal of negative liberty is incompatible with any substantive ideal of equality, while James P. Sterba argues that Narveson's own ideal of negative liberty is compatible, and in fact leads to the requirements of a substantive ideal of equality. Of course, they cannot both be right. Thus, the details of their arguments about the political ideal of negative liberty and its requirements will determine which of them is right. Engagingly and accessibly written, their debate will be of value to all who are interested in the central issue of what are the practical requirements of a political ideal of liberty.

Examines the history of the liberty of contract and shows how this right has been continuously diminished by court decisions and by our country's growing regulatory and welfare state.

The State is a brilliant analysis of some of the fundamental issues of modern political thought from the perspective, not of individuals or subjects, but of the state itself. The author poses the query, "What would you do if you were the state?" The state usually is understood as an instrument, not a personality, and it is presumed to exist so that people can achieve their common ends. However, Jasay asks, what if we suppose the state to have a will and ends of its own? To answer these questions, the author traces the logical and historical progression of the state from a modest-sized protector of life and property through its development into an "agile seducer of democratic majorities, to the welfare-dispensing drudge that it is in many countries today ... Is the rational next step a totalitarian enhancement of its power?" The State presents what has been termed "a disturbingly logical 'agenda' for the state in pursuit of its 'self-fulfillment.'"--Inside jacket flap.