Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle Paperback – January 1, 1993

There are two books I recommend as introductions to libertarian thought. One of them is Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_. This is the other.Dr. Mary Ruwart's _Healing Our World_ is in some ways a better general introduction suitable for a broader audience, in large measure because it appeals to the better nature of everybody from conservative Christians to hippie mystics: she really _does_ mean, and quite rightly, that libertarian principles are the means for healing our world. Her essential point is that, _whatever_ our goals and beliefs, we can best serve them by honoring our neighbors' choices so long as they aren't threatening our lives or property. For when we do so, everybody wins; my gains aren't your losses, and there really is a common good at which we can both aim.Moreover, Ruwart carefully and compassionately explains why the libertarian approach is a better way to bring about the (entirely legitimate) goals of the more modern sort of liberal: for example, improving the quality and availability of medical care (including alternative medicines), reducing pollution, saving the environment, and so forth. Readers of, say, the Objectivist/Randian literature might come away with the impression that concern for the well-being of persons other than oneself (let alone the "environment"!) is just incompatible with libertarianism. Ruwart argues that in fact libertarianism offers not only the best way to _promote_ such concern but the only viable way to put it into practice. (On this ground alone, there are probably lots of _libertarians_ who could profit from a close reading of Ruwart's book just to pick up its tone and tenor. Her example of tolerant understanding could lead more "brittle" thinkers to enter empathically into values that haven't exactly been common among libertarians.)Lurking in the background of Ruwart's exposition is her clear sense of the "market" as simply voluntary human interaction within a framework of obligatory respect for others' well-being. This view should appeal even to readers who don't care for the term "market"; it might, for example, be attractive to various sorts of communitarian and others who worry about the reduction of social life to economic exchange. The essential point is that human society, community, is an organic network of interacting centers of voluntary activity, not a bureaucratic order that imposes mechanical top-down rules via statute or regulatory agency -- and that trying to turn it from the former into the latter is just a fancy way to destroy it.Ruwart's outlook should delight everybody from Calvinists to Hayekians to Taoists. And there has never been a time at which it's been more important to get the word out on liberty. Get this book at once and pass out copies to your friends; Ruwart's libertarianism has something to say to people of every political and/or religious persuasion or none.By the way, you can pre-read it online if you know where to look. Amazon doesn't permit URLs in reviews, but write me if you want to know.

First of all, I'll concede that it's tough to find someone who argues better for libertarianism in practical, understandable terms than Mary Ruark. Moreover, her book's a very simple read and paints vivid examples of what a libertarian world *might* look like.But this brings me to my first minor critique. Ruark provides examples of the way a free nation might run, but she elaborates on them in such detail that one begins to get the impression that she's arguing for the examples themselves. When she discusses a system of free-market private schooling, she describes the schools she envisions in intricate detail, and they don't remotely resemble what I think schooling in a libertarian country would look like. Now - Presuming I weren't a libertarian and even slightly objected to the school system she describes, I might simply reject all her ideas based on my objections to her illustrations of them.Secondly, I just disagree with Ruark's anarcho-capitalistic version of libertarianism. I really am - as some libertarians would say - myopic enough to believe that we need government to provide public goods (I'm talking about the real ones like defense, police protection, and criminal justice). And call me a statist, but I think we'd have to fund these government activities with taxes. Of some kind. Somehow. Of the unvoluntary sort. With - yes - government force to ensure compliance.Otherwise, though, this book should make an interesting read for libertarians and non.

This book was mindblowing to read. The ideas presented in this book feel like logic that should be taught in schools, but sadly its not.I dare you to read this book and disagree with its philosophy.

I love this book. Really.Dr. Ruwart's political philosophy's foundation is about non-aggression. This is nothing new in the libertarian creed, and the difference is that instead of concentrating on arguments of property rights, she really drives home with the non-aggression principle. She avers that by using aggression (i.e. force) to solve our problems, we end up only worsening our lives. We create a world of zero-sum games instead of a system that respects individual choices so long as they do not harm our person or property.What also makes this book a pleasure to read is that it its tone is very friendly and accommodating. Many people (rightly) expect books on political philosophy to be badgering or aggressively written, so I like that Dr. Ruwart ditched the popular approach. Plus, her compassionate way of writing makes it difficult to call her a bloodthirsty free-market fan -- she does care about matters like helping the poor and making healthcare accessible.Every issue she looks at shows the failures of aggression (i.e. government) to be effective, and conversely non-aggression (i.e. voluntary, private cooperation) has been more successful. Healthcare intervention? It's aggression, and it's bad for our health (and our wallet). The Federal Reserve? Central banking is aggression that monopolizes the money supply and creates the "boom & bust" cycle. The public school system? It might be obvious that the Department of Education doesn't actually educate anyone, but the whole setup is aggressive too, and children suffer because of it.The principle of non-aggression is also applied to pollution, crime & punishment, the FDA, gun ownership, and -- the one especially important these days -- foreign policy. Non-aggression wins every time, and very few issues go untouched.A cool touch to Dr. Ruwart's book is that she puts tons of great, great quotes in the margins, which work wonderfully with the topic at hand. One of my favorites comes from the first chapter (about the basis of non-aggression): "...we are living in a sick Society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them," says William L. Comer. That's classic! There's a lot of great ones, many of which I didn't recognize.Please, read this book. This is a world where governments keep getting bigger, and that will always mean more aggression as the State invades more aspects of our lives. Know what's scary? In Chapter 19, "The Communist Threat Is All In Our Minds", Ruwart shows that the United States has implemented eight of ten policies The Communist Manifesto declared necessary for a transition into socialism. Darn. So, getting the word out on liberty is always a good thing. Please see Scott Ryan's excellent review of this book too.