Still a Cosmopolitan, Left-Libertarian Manifesto: Review of David Boaz, The Libertarian Mind

by Stephan Kinsella on September 10, 2026

Still a Cosmopolitan, Left-Libertarian Manifesto:
Review of David Boaz, The Libertarian Mind

September 10, 2026

[Editor’s note: In my PFS post Were the French and American Revolutions Libertarian?, PFS Blog (Aug. 23, 2026), I quoted Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute, in Ryan McMaken, in “Why the French Revolution Was Not a Libertarian Revolution,” Mises Wire (08/20/2026), as writing: “David Boaz—a libertarian, although of the ultra-milquetoast regime-libertarian variety—lists the French Revolution among [the triumphs of liberalism].” This reminded Laurence Vance that he had written a review of Boaz’s The Libertarian Mind when it came out in 2015. Vance explained to me that he had submitted it for publication at LewRockwell.com but it was one of the only one or two of his submissions, out of over 900, that was rejected. Vance surmised that it was rejected because (1) it mentions and quotes Jeff Tucker favorably (this was after Tucker parted ways with the Mises Institute, and not on the best of terms; see more on this at Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal [May 2, 2026]); and because (2) Vance is critical of Boaz in the review. As it has never been published, we publish it here, with a few explanatory notes as it is somewhat dated. Note also that Cato re-issued this book in 2025 with a new preface by the author. —SK]

Review of David Boaz, The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom (Simon & Schuster, 2015), ix + 417 pgs.

The dust jacket terms this book “a revised, updated, and retitled edition of David Boaz’s classic primer on libertarianism.” Boaz is the longtime executive vice president of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. His “classic primer” is Libertarianism: A Primer, which was published in 1997. The publisher has apparently retitled this new edition to position the book as an alternative to Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind.

Since the book is a new edition, and Jeffrey Tucker wrote a very thorough review of the first edition for the Journal of Libertarian Studies as part of his review of a trilogy of books on libertarianism,² I aim to do four things in this short “review”: 1. Provide a brief overview of the book; 2. Present some of Tucker’s observations on the first edition; 3. Explore the differences between the two editions; 4. Make some brief comments about the new edition.

1. Brief Overview

The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, as Libertarianism: A Primer, has twelve chapters:

The Coming Libertarian Age
The Roots of Libertarianism
What Rights Do We Have?
The Dignity of the Individual
Pluralism and Toleration
Law and the Constitution
Civil Society
The Market Process
What Big Government Is All About
Contemporary Issues
The Obsolete State
The Libertarian Future

The chapters are very unequal in length, with some chapters four times as long as others. Each chapter is divided into sections, most of which are further subdivided. This makes the book very easy to read and the segments very easy to digest. The chapters are followed by an appendix that asks a series of questions that the reader can answer and plot the results on a Nolan chart, books for further reading organized by chapter, acknowledgments, and an index. There are no footnotes.

2. Tucker Review

Here are some of the highlights of Tucker’s review of the first edition:

David Boaz’s primer may not be the prime example of applied left-libertarianism (the post-Goldwater works of Karl Hess better deserve this moniker) but it nonetheless fits comfortably in that category. The reader is left with no doubt about where Boaz stands on lifestyle issues (drugs, sex, speech, etc.) and the policy concerns of the punditry class (how this or that program can be improved), but is left to speculate on precisely how strict Boaz’s utopia would be with regard to the protection of property rights, or how or on what level of society those rights would be enforced. [Tucker, p. 109]

Boaz is no anarcho-capitalist, he is by no means a political decentralist, and he is certainly not a radical. Even from the opening pages, the reader is encouraged to believe that libertarianism is consistent with mainstream thinking. [p. 110]

On health care, Social Security, education, and foreign policy, we don’t get principled theorizing so much as we get half-way and halfbaked policy plans for vouchers, Medical Savings Accounts, free immigration, the line-item veto, and revenue diversions of Social Security from bonds to stocks. [p. 111]

In short, Boaz presents libertarianism not as a radical and fundamental challenge to the socialist and social-democratic consensus that has dominated this century and erected the largest and most intrusive governments in human history. On everyday matters of policy, libertarianism, rather, is a workable policy option that lawmakers ought to bone up on and come to terms with because all trends point to a libertarian future. [p. 111–112]

Sometimes, Boaz’s progressivism runs headlong into libertarian doctrine itself. [p. 113]

Aside from a vague criticism of quotas, the right of property owners to discriminate doesn’t figure into Boaz’s libertarian calculus. Moreover, since when has the purpose of libertarianism—a political theory delineating the boundaries of property rights—been to progressively extend “dignity” to whole groups? This is indeed an innovation in libertarian theorizing. [p. 113]

What the subject of race draws from our author—that his libertarianism is really a frame of mind and a spirit of life, rather than a strict legal position delineating property boundaries—is in fact the subtext of his book. [p. 114]

Another very serious oversight in his narrative is the issue of what level of government should be responsible for the enforcement of libertarian rights. He often cites the U.S. Constitution, but neither condemns nor upholds federalism and states’ rights. [p. 115]

In his brief discussion of the War Between the States, he celebrates Northern abolitionism while failing to even mention the invasion of the South by the North that made the present consolidated state possible. [p. 115]

[I]n general, there are no new insights or scholarly discoveries here, and it contains more than its fair share of compromises with libertarian principle. In short, it is a prototypical merging of pop-determinism, left-libertarian moral doctrine, and pragmatic think-tank policy maneuvering. [p. 116]

3. Edition Differences

Most of the second edition is an exact reprint of the first. The reason the second book is about a hundred pages larger than the first has more to do with increased leading than with additional material. There are subtle changes throughout the book like altering the source of a Jonathan Rauch quote from his book Demosclerosis to the revised edition titled Government’s End. (p. 196/253) and the source of a Tom Palmer quote from a 1983 Cato Policy Report to his book Realizing Freedom, which includes the original Cato piece (p. 258/331). There are also changes necessitated by the passage of time like Hillary Clinton being referred to as “former senator and secretary of state” (p. 130) instead of “First Lady” (p. 102). Figures are also brought up to date like the Code of Federal Regulations now being over 175,000 pages in 238 volumes (p. 223) instead of the 131,803 pages in 202 volumes it was in 1994 (p. 173). The Libertarian Mind is certainly a very careful revision of the earlier volume.

The major differences between the two editions vary by chapter. The Libertarian Mind adds a preface that the original edition did have. The first half of chapter 1 is expanded and radically rewritten. The second half reads almost verbatim, except for one paragraph near the end. There appear to be only cosmetic changes in chapters 2 and 5. Chapter 3 contains some minor additions, omissions, rewording, and the replacement of some paragraphs in the section “Do You Have to Believe in Natural Rights to Be a Libertarian?,” along with some relocated paragraphs on the consequentialist or utilitarian argument for liberty. Chapter 4, even though it is one of the shortest chapters, reorders a couple of sections, makes some minor omissions and additions, and contains the major additions of some paragraphs on cooperation and a section on “Sexual Orientation.” Chapter 6 reorders a couple of sections, adds some paragraphs on judicial review, the NSA surveillance program, bad legislation like the Patriot Act, TARP, and Dodd-Frank, and adds a new section on “Overcriminalization.” Chapter 7 adds some paragraphs on the private welfare system of the Mormon Church. Chapter 8, one of the longest chapters, looks like it just has some minor rewording and the addition of a new short paragraph. Chapter 9 has many additions: the opening few pages, a paragraph on the evils of the U.S. government in response to 9/11, and the closing few pages. Chapter 10 adds a section on “Inequality,” has some rewritten paragraphs, omits a paragraph on the negative effects of divorce, and omits two whole paragraphs and some sentences in the section on “Reducing Racial Tensions.” Chapter 11 adds some paragraphs on technology in education and adds a section on “Money.” Chapter 12 contains a great many additions, omissions, and revisions.

4. Brief Comments

I have carefully read The Libertarian Mind and carefully compared it with the previous edition. Unfortunately, the book is still a cosmopolitan, left-libertarian manifesto. It is “better” than the first edition in the sense that it references current and post 9/11 events. But Tucker’s review still stands, whether he would stand by it today or not.³ No concerns he mentions are addressed by any of the changes or additions to the new edition.

In spite of its length, the book is incomplete when it comes to libertarianism and property rights, the state, war, and U.S. foreign policy. I am especially perplexed why Boaz added this sentence to the new edition at the end of chapter 10: “We support maintaining the world’s largest and most powerful military, by a wide margin, although less wide than the foreign policy establishment” (p. 328). Not perplexing are the additional references scattered throughout the book to the importance of the government recognizing same-sex marriage. Boaz appears to be the original “thick” libertarian. Both editions contain these lines in the section on “Reducing Racial Tensions”:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a complete moral code. It prescribes certain minimal rules for living together in a peaceful, productive, society—property, contract, and freedom—and leaves further moral teaching to civil society. But on this issue it seems necessary to express a few moral sentiments that go beyond the bare description of libertarian policy. Although we have made great strides toward a society of equal dignity for all, Americans of all races need to affirm their commitment to rise above racial prejudice. We must reject overt and hateful racism from whatever source (231-232/299-300).

But in the new edition, his mention of “the murder of a young Kentucky man with a Confederate flag on his pickup truck” as an example of “racially motivated violence” that must be condemned is omitted.

Boaz writes in his preface that “this revised edition is for those leaning toward libertarian views and anyone looking to understand the changes in American political thought.” I think rather that better introductions to libertarianism are the old work Libertarianism in One Lesson (originally published in 1984, but updated several times), by David Bergland, and the more recent work Libertarianism Today (2010), by Jacob Huebert, which I reviewed previously.⁴

Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Mises Institute, a contributing columnist for the New American magazine, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. See also the PFS Blog post announcing this article. [↩]
Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Book Reviews of Libertarianism—A Primer. By David Boaz. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Libertarianism: A Reader. David Boaz, ed. New York: The Free Press, 1997. What It Means to Be A Libertarian. By Charles Murray. New York: Broadway Books, 1997.,” J. Libertarian Stud. 13, no. 1 (Summer 1997): 109–120. [↩]
Ed. note: Vance no doubt has in mind here the impression Tucker gave to some libertarians around that time that he was beginning to distance himself from some of his previous affiliations and views, some of this no doubt as a result of his recent separation from the Mises Institute and Rockwell as discussed in Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute.” See, e.g., Jeffrey A. Tucker, Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty (Foundation for Economic Education, 2017); but see his later writings recanting some of this, e.g. idem, “Why I Changed My Mind on Trump,” Daily Sceptic (Nov. 5 2024); idem, “How the Pandemic Response Changed My Thinking,” Brownstone.org (May 31, 2022). —SK [↩]
See Laurence M. Vance, “The Best Introduction to Libertarianism,” Future of Freedom Daily (April 1, 2011); see also Stephan Kinsella’s review of Libertarianism Today, “The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever,” The Libertarian Standard (July 16, 2010). [↩]