Is a curious newbie who likes Vinge eligible to join?

Of course. Simply turn your shields off before docking, and deposit your sidearms with security before coming aboard.

Can I trust you?

To get things started, here is my list of the ten most enjoyable librertarian science fiction novels--not necessarily the best, but the one's I found the most fun. Non-genre and very near future novels are included, such as Atlas Shrugged and Alongside Night, but I left out undoubtedly classic dystopian works such as We or 1984. I also intentionally did not pick more than one book from the same author. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
2. Harvest of Stars by Poul Anderson. I think this book is just briliant. It suprises me that others whose opinions I respect, such as Ben and my brother, never warmed to it.
3. Alongside Night by J. Neil Schulman. A novel about a libertarian revolution in New York City cannot miss.
4. Black Wind by F. Paul Wilson. Here is another brilliant work that seems to have been almost forgotten. A sort of alternate WWII novel. It is thrilling, profound and moving.
5. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein.
6. A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. Not blatantly libertarian (some of his short stories--"The Ungoverned," etc.--are much more so), but a libertarian sensibility is present throughout.
7. Henry Martyn by L. Neil Smith. I enjoyed this much more than The Probability Broach, even though the latter is THE classic of alternate history anarcho-capitalist fiction. Henry Martyn is Rafael Sabatini in space with a libertarian ethic. How could it get any better than that?
8. The Cassini Division by Ken MacLeod. I have no idea what Macleod's politics are. (I suspect he votes Labour.) But he takes libertarian ideas seriously. Though, more precisely, he takes "extremist" ideas in general, seriously. His futures teem with anarcho-capitalists, radical greens and retro-communists. Fun.
9. The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester. Not usually thought of as libertarian, the ending is cathartic and radically anarchist--WMD's--in the form of grains of incredibly high yield explosive--in the possession of EACH INDIVIDUAL please!
10. Moon of Ice by Brian Linaweaver. An alternate history WWII where the Nazis (and the libertarians!) won--sort of.

Cheers! Any comments or criticisms, or any alternative suggestions?

I protest the lack of touchstones. So, in brief, here's the list with them:

1. Atlas Shrugged
2. Harvest of Stars
3. Alongside Night
4. Black Wind
5. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
6. A Fire Upon the Deep
7. Henry Martyn
8. The Cassini Division
9. The Stars My Destination
10. Moon of Ice

As a novice, I can primarily say - thank you for starting with a list! I enjoyed A Fire Upon the Deep a great deal, and have been tempted to buy Black Wind and even Harvest of Stars, based on your reviews; but I'm afraid the description of Henry Martyn captivated me. A libertarian Rafael Sabatini? In space?! - When I get a moment's breather, that will be the one.

I look forward to hearing everyone else's suggestions and discussion as the group fills up.

Tim - thank you. But I protest - I was the first to protest! ;)

Message 4: Ken Macleod's politics are socialist: see his blog at
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/

It might be a case of if you have to ask then ... but what is libertarian science fiction anyway? This is probably clearer to folks living in the US but does this mean "libertarian" in its narrower political sense and therefore includes right wingers like Rand as well as left wing anarchists? But then hard to see how Macleod fits in here. Or is it defined more broadly -- something akin to "utopian"? How about the wave of feminist writers: Ursula Le Guinn, Octavia Butler, Marge Piercy, McKee Charnas, Suzette Elgin. Just asking.

No, I would say more narrowly, otherwise you end up merely being in favor of revolution or radical political or social change--which probably describes most political science fiction. I would like to include some of Macleod's works because he takes libertarian views seriously and appears to have some sympathy with them. (See the last part of The Cassini Division where an anarcho-capitalist society is described somewhat fondly and with humor.) I would not include the feminists, per se. Fighting against perceived oppression is not, in and of itself, libertarianism. (It matters what one is fighting for.) But LeGuin is an interesting choice and her Dispossessed would go on my list. The Dispossessed is a thought-provoking meditation on the meaning of freedom--with a left-wing anarchy going up against a capitalist state. On the whole, she tackles the issue relatively fairly, conceding pros and cons to both sides. (Though, in the end, I would fault her for linking military repression with capitalism and for sort of wimping out on describing how the left-wing anarchy really works.)

P.S. to Plumpesdenken: I would very much like to know how a left-wing anarchy really works. Do you or any of your friends at Resistance is Futile have any science fiction recommendations?

Vinge's libertarianism comes out most clearly in Marooned in Realtime, I think. Which is an under-read but really excellent Vinge.

Maybe a question for this thread is why science fiction is so commonly libertarian, and fantasy almost never is (am I wrong?).

Hypothesis 1: Founder effects. Heinlein and other golden age sci-fi writers (query? How many? Most?) are libertarian; Tolkein and Lewis are not.

Hypothesis 2: Quasi-historical settings of most fantasies. Princess this, King that. Hard to have these fantasy staples in a libertarian society.

Hypothesis 3: Problem solved. If government really is the solution to collective action problems, maybe it just is very plausible that with sufficient technological advances, other solutions than government become efficient ways to solve this problem. This, incidentally, appears to be what Vinge believes.

Hypothesis 4: The market, possibly a founder-effect echo.

Hypothesis 5: Science fiction is an "alternative" genre, eager to be the "other" intellectually-engaged literary form (in a way Romance or Mystery do not). Mainstream literary writing is, on the whole, left-liberal, so science fiction swings the other way.

Interesting question. One could argue that the POINT of fantasy is to get away from thinking about politics--libertarian or otherwise--except in its most superficial form--i.e. let's depose the evil king. After all, it's supposed to be escapist (in a good way), and isn't it nice just to get away from political issues occasionally? Alternatively, one could argue that the "good" monarchies in fantasy exemplify a libertarian ethos--presumably their subjects give the king their allegiance voluntarily (allegiance being a two way street, as it were). Though, we don't get much discussion of the political issues perhaps because medieval people (and fantasy people) don't exactly go around thinking about the questions in the modern way. (But that doesn't mean that the issues are not real to them. They just express things in a different language.) Some libertarians--notably, David Friedman--have perceived certain sorts of feudalism as somewhat libertarian. It sort of depends on the nature of the opt-out mechanism, I guess. Interestingly, Friedman has just written a libertarian quasi-fantasy book.

I would say science fiction is also left-liberal. We just notice the libertarians because they are 20% as opposed to 1%. It is also interesting to me how many science fiction authors can write essentially libertarian stories while remaining conventional liberals. They can't quite take the consequences of their ideas to their logical conclusion. A good example is John Varley's Red Thunder--a fun and inspiring Heinleinesque tale about a group of misfit kids who assemble a private spaceship in their backyard and then beat the bureaucratic statists to Mars. But you go to Varley's web page and it's filled with the same old liberal tropes.

Oh Damn. Red Thunder by John Varley

There's nothing intrinsically apolitical about fantasy, but the genre is a hybrid descendant of the 19th Century neo-Medieval romance (Ivanhoe) and Grimm's Fairy Tales; and thus often has a feudal backdrop.

Hey, I just thought of a good example of libertarian + fantasy: Dave Sim's Cerebus!

I'm sure there's plenty of libertarian SF out there, but the last Heinlein I read (Starship Troopers) isn't it, and I don't see Bester's The Demolished Man or The Stars My Destination fitting that description either. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'libertarian'?

Definitions of "libertarian":

1) Political definition: being in favor of a minimal state or a capitalist anarchy.

2) Philosophical definition: Belief in the principle that one should be free to do what ever one likes with one's person or property as long as one does not use physical force against the person or property of another.

3) Definition of having a libertarian sensibility: Respecting the freedom of others while having a general distrust or hostility to government actions or edicts; willingness to do privately things which are generally thought of as being in the domain of government--punishing a criminal, building a rocket and going to Mars, etc.; having a strong sense of personal responsibility for one's destiny along with having an individualistic or non-conformist outlook while at the same time respecting the freedom of others and in no case ever being in favor of "socializing" one's particular outlook via the power of the state.

That's it. No more definitions. And if any one quibbles with the ones I have offered, they will be instantly shot.

As I mentioned in my annotations for The List, The Stars My Destination is not really a libertarian novel, but it is a GREAT novel and its cathartic ending--with Gully Foyle wanting to put WMD stuff in the hands of each individual--embodies an explicitly libertarian idea. (An idea which may also be insane, scary and wrong headed--but that's another question.) I put the novel on the list because it is a GREAT novel and I wished to be provacative and big tentish.

Now, Heinlein is another matter. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is VERY libertarian. And I would argue that his fifties novels all exude a libertarian sensibility whether they are explicitly political or not. Obviously, though, he had other interests--religion, sexuality, the military, etc.--and one could argue that in the latter Heinlein, some of these sort of took on an outsized place in his novels and made parts of them bizarre, off-putting, creepy, fascist or what have you. I LIKED Starship Troopers, a lot, and do not think it is fascist, as some have thought. But, no, it is not exactly a libertarian novel.

if you want EXPLICIT libertarian politics, read anything by the "neil's"--J. Neil Schulman or L. Neil Smith.

Thank you, Grunin, for citing Cerebus. I had never heard of it, though it seems like a lot of people own it. I shall check it out.

Message edited by its author, Aug 9, 2006, 3:10am.

Once again, damn it all to Hell!
Bester, Heinlein, J. Neil Schulman, L. Neil Smith, The Stars My Destination, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Cerebus.

Libertarianism is Belief in the principle that one should be free to do what ever one likes with one's person or property as long as one does not use physical force against the person or property of another.

And if any one quibbles with the (definitions) I have offered, they will be instantly shot.

So: coercion, threats, and duress are ok - if you don't follow through? ;)

Actually, I'm not entirely joking; one can effect considerable damage with non-physical methods. Though I suspect the problems with that are largely outside the realm of science fiction. Or are they? And how, in a book, do you manage against hostile elements without them - and mother-wit?

Between WMDs in the hands of all, and no use of force against others, there's clearly a huge gap in approaches to violence. When, in a libertarian sense, is violence justified? And how do writers stay compatible with libertarianism, or show such a sensibility, short of total pacifism?

Little as I can add - and going now in fear of my life - I did want to say I've been enjoying 'listening' very much.

Libertarianism is Belief in the principle that one should be free to do what ever one likes with one's person or property as long as one does not use physical force against the person or property of another.

And if any one quibbles with the (definitions) I have offered, they will be instantly shot.

So: coercion, threats, and duress are ok - if you don't follow through? ;)

Actually, I'm not entirely joking; one can effect considerable damage with non-physical methods. Though I suspect the problems with that are largely outside the realm of science fiction. Or are they? And how, in a book, do you manage against hostile elements without them - and mother-wit?

Between WMDs in the hands of all, and no use of force against others, there's clearly a huge gap in approaches to violence. When, in a libertarian sense, is violence justified? And how do writers stay compatible with libertarianism, or show such a sensibility, short of total pacifism?

Little as I can add - and going now in fear of my life - I did want to say I've been enjoying 'listening' very much.

Sorry about the double posting. I'm still not sure how that happens.

Fraud is, alas, not encouraged by libertarianism, although I have a soft spot for it.

I tend to agree with grunin above that fantasy is not inherently apolitical. I do think that it often tends towards the politically simplistic: kings, queens, charismatic leaders of all types. Why might this be?

People in this group probably know Arthur C. Clarke's quip that a sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. It's a good line, but it doesn't really go far enough. Magic, if it were real, would *be* science. Actions a, b, & c (dare I say v, m, s?) would lead to a person turning into a toad: it would be a system of law-like regularities. It would be used analogously to the way we now use electrical engineering, or medicine, or what have you.

Fantasy novels almost never go down this road. Magicians are almost always (Harry Potter excepted) rare, and the use of magic is relatively unintegrated into society. People can't do minor alchemy in their basement, and while there may be magic swords in some plenty, magic shovels, enchanted saucepots, and ensorcelled lanterns are thin on the ground. Magic -- or at least the magic of fantasy novels -- almost always is of a piece with a kind of romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized. Technology creates objects everyone can use, and which radically equalize power, canonically, the firearm. If you've got a gun, you can kill the bad guy. Magic could be like this, but it almost never is. Wizards are almost always hard to kill.

This aspect of fantasy seems like an bulwark of political simplicity -- if you have radical human inequality, heirarchical systems make more sense. Now, the same romanticism also can be acheived with scientific description. So here's a question: is science fiction which is more "romantic" in tone typically less libertarian, or more. The first that comes to mind for me is Dune, which fits the romantic mode nicely (and has Dukes, Emperors, and all that jazz). Are there others?

That was brilliant.

Ben: Yes, good about magic, but then you lost me on your definition of romanticism--"romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized." Which is it?

Argh, Eurydice!! I KNEW this site would get bogged down in discussions over definitions. (Unlike the Political Philosophy Group--32 members, well, I can only dream--where we are bogged down on the issue of which Foucault selection to read.) I was too hasty. I should have said "the INITIATION of force''--leaving out the "physical," though there was a reason why I put it in. "Initiation" because libertarians are not pacifists--you blast me with your laser gun and I get to blast you back. Now, many (though, not all, libertarians) would put threat and fraud in along with physical violence. If you leave the "physical" out of force, then it can be assumed to include fraud and threat. I put "physical" in because I wanted to get away from formulations like: "my economic situation 'forced' me to become a prostitute," or, "your threat to compete with me 'forced' me to lower my prices." I also do not want to include actions which definitely cause HARM but do not constitute physical force. If I open up a Starbucks next to your local coffee shop, I may be HARMING you even more than if I had thrown a rock through your window, but that does not mean that I was using physical force against you, so it should be okay. There is also the question of how DIRECT the force is. If I hire someone to kill you, that's about as bad as attempting to kill you myself, but what if I publish a pamphlet saying that in my utopia all tea drinkers would be liquidated? This is probably immoral but perhaps not actionable. At some point, if it is not DIRECT it shouldn't count--another reason why I brought in the "physical." Now, some libertarians are real extremists when it comes to not going beyond physical force. For example, regarding fraud, Rothbard in his The Ethics of Liberty argues that fraud should not count as being prohibited. If I fraudulently sell you a product, you may ostracize me or boycott me, but you shouldn't be able to forcibly recoup your loss since I didn't technically use force against you. Regarding threat, in The Probability Broach, the good guys see the bad guys assembling and transporting a nuclear weapon with the probable intention of using it, but some of them feel that their libertarian principles prohibit them from doing anything (other than readying a defense) until the threat is in some sense actualized. While I would disagree with both of these positions, the motivations for them are understandable. Weasely assertions of alleged fraud and threat are often used simply to stop people from doing things which other people don't like, so perhaps it's better (so goes the argument) to draw the line more narrowly.

Please respond if confused (I wrote the above hastily), or if you disagree. I like talking about these issues, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify thoughts--yours or my own. But, in addition, LET'S READ SOME LIBERTARIAN SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, PEOPLE.

LET'S READ SOME LIBERTARIAN SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, PEOPLE.

Tell me what, tell me when. :)

(Or let's discuss it, at least.)

The latest is all quite clear, and I thank you for the pun (and personal snipe) about 'all tea drinkers' being 'liquidated.' Wouldn't (and here I am as much groping with meanings as revising your work ;) ) a construction such as 'personal use of force' fairly accurately meet the case?

Whether I disagree or not is a little fuzzy at this hour, but apparently (aside from a scurrilous fondness for reading about fraud and trickery - like Ben, perhaps, but worse at is very DEFINITELY prohibited by Christianity) I agree.

How about Freedom!, edited by Martin Greenberg, a book of libertarian science fiction short stories including some classics by Vinge and others? Conveniently, I have just purchased it. Touchstone alert: This book is not among the 250 (!) works pulled by that title. (No, I do not wish to read The ultimate weight solution : the 7 keys to weight loss freedom by Phillip C. McGraw.

Eurydice: I think probably the simple "initiation of force" is best. That's the terminology on my Party card, anyway.

Concerning Christianity and fraud: the Ten Commandments are as good a foundation for morality as any--correction, actually they are the BEST foundation. But the commandments leave unclear what is merely prohibited as opposed to what is prohibited with such prohibition being allowed to be enforced by others. For example, "Honor thy Father and Mother" is commanded, but we probably don't want the state or private vigilantes punishing those who are a bit mean to their parents. Ditto coveting, Sabbath breaking, adultery (maybe) etc. Though, of course, stealing and murder are different. Though, THAT fact cannot be derived from the Commandments themselves.

Oakes: I'll get back to you on most of this - hoping meanwhile that my consent to take your definition re: force, and my assurance that I'm all for Liberty!, will suffice.

AsYouKnow_Bob, reverends, bcquinnsmom: thanks for taking me up on the invitations. :) It will be good to have you.

I wish I was alert enough to agree and disagree with some of Oakes' points on what was intended, and what would be desirable, in enforcing even the Ten Commandments - and that without taking us too far off-topic! My personal feeling is, no, of course we don't want most of the commandments punished by vigilantes of any stripe. Yes, some infractions seem far more severe than others; and simply are more threatening.

All I actually had in mind about fraud and trickery was that it was worse for me (as a Christian) to enjoy reading about it, than for Ben-as-libertarian (presuming he is one :) ). Though what I enjoy is most often clever use of deception to more or less good ends - escape, defence of innocents, saving of planets, unmasking of villains. :) - And that though I rarely think ends justify means.

It might not be prohibited by libertarianism, but I agree that even at the minimum, there's a degree to which fraud (personal or corporate) ought to be punished for the safety of society - particularly where mere wariness is not enough protection. Oakes has heard me on this before, but I think medical fraud is a good instance. Medical treatment can be a necessity (thus reasonably ought to be protected) and while it is distinctly an imperfect science, we expect practitioners and pharmaceutical developers to gain a level of knowledge it is difficult (sometimes impossible) for us to gainsay. Wit and a little knowledge may not take you far enough, and many people (forgive me for saying so) may lack either.

Though my trip will make me a little tardy beginning, I'm looking forward to reading stories in the anthology you'd mentioned. Seeing ways a libertarian society MIGHT function fascinates me; doing so in kaleidescope of many small, overlapping, differing images, rather than the single possibility of a novel, seems ideal. And good for conversation. :)

Message edited by its author, Aug 8, 2006, 11:47pm.

With apologies to Tim for quoting...

In msg. 22, Ben said: Magicians are almost always (Harry Potter excepted) rare, and the use of magic is relatively unintegrated into society. ... Magic -- or at least the magic of fantasy novels -- almost always is of a piece with a kind of romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized. Technology creates objects everyone can use, and which radically equalize power, canonically, the firearm. If you've got a gun, you can kill the bad guy. Magic could be like this, but it almost never is. Wizards are almost always hard to kill.

Oakes replied:...you lost me on your definition of romanticism--"romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized." Which is it?

I assumed Ben meant that magical (supernatural, inexplicable) power tends to go hand in hand with the mythologizing or aggrandizing of the individual who possesses it. Which seems a logical statement. :) A 'great man' or Overman cast of mind (depending on the mind!) seems at work in that, with power based in or working through the individual, v. power consisting in accessible, acquirable technology, as focus. In that case, I'd not only agree - there's a romanticizing of power in the magician which goes far beyond what I've seen accorded to an engineer :) - but also think you can have it both ways.

Unfortunately, I've not read enough science fiction to answer Ben's question; but I look forward to seeing it discussed...

Message edited by its author, Aug 8, 2006, 11:49pm.

Greetings Eurydice and Oakes,

After reading all the posts today, I find it amusing and mildly ironic that the invitations to join the group came from the two of you. :) I have joined, gladly, with the hope that I will be able to contribute some reading ideas. It's going to require a bit of contemplation as I have not really thought of myself as a Libertarian and, as such, have not really gone out of my way to identify authors with Libertarian themes (plus the one author I knew for sure as a Libertarian, L. Neil Smith, has already been mentioned).

Just off the top of my head and without digging the books out of a box, I seem to recall some Libertarian ideas running through the ecologic works of L.E. Modesitt, Jr. The first of the books is The Ecologic Envoy, although it's not the first in the story arc.

Finally, I'm trying out touchstones for the first time here, so I apologize if there are any really strange punctuation errors (as opposed to my normal ones).

Let me make a number of points:

1. For Ben and Eurydice: I am against fraud (of course), and, unlike Rothbard, believe that above a certain level, individuals who are the victims of fraud have the right to enforce restitution and inflict punishment through the use of force. But this is a natural right of individuals, and exists independent of any societal benefits (though, those benefits are obvious). However, I believe government usually inflates the danger or alleged damages of fraud in a way that misdirects people’s energies and mandates unnecessary costs. Thus, while in my libertarian utopia, individuals would have the right to attempt to collect against certain kinds of fraudsters by force, that right would be exercised infrequently as there would be usually be less costly and more effective measures at hand--consumer boycotts, credit reports, public shaming, etc. In fact, many kinds of fraud are dealt with in this kind of way today--your two-timing boyfriend claims “I’m not dating anyone else.” We would condemn him, of course, but as yet we are not at a place where the two-timer could be slapped with a law suit. On the other hand, if you have evidence that the company selling you “low-carb” protein bars is intentionally falsifying its nutrition label, you can sue. So, why the difference? Don’t say it’s because of the level of harm involved. If we think carefully, most of us could identify “private” kinds of fibbing that were much more damaging to us than commercial fraud. Perhaps the difference is due to the costs--both monetary and otherwise of enforcement. I think this is closer to the truth, though, in any statist society it is likely that government will to some degree skew those costs so that the solution arrived at will be inferior to that which would have obtained in a market. But for a natural rights libertarian such as myself, who believes that individuals have rights against certain things (and not against others) independent of the costs, the “different responses to fraud” problem presents a problem. What is the magnitude of your right of enforcement against the two-timer? (And what if you have directed a good deal of your life resources based on the belief that he was telling the truth?) Can you slap him? Take his money--to the value of the gifts you bought him, perhaps? Cut off his right arm (or something else)? Or would you merely be allowed to lie back to him in return? (Yeah, right, like that be justice.) Another possible answer here is that we assess the case based on whether or not there is some kind of contract. But again, this seems to be a sort of utilitarian solution created by the (government skewed) market. And it is by no means clear why whether or not we have an enforceable natural right in a certain case should have anything to do with whether or not a pen and a piece of paper figured in the matter. (And besides, no contract was involved when you bought the protein bar.) For a natural rights libertarian, all rights are individual rights. All I am trying to show is that when it comes to fraud, it isn’t exactly clear what our rights are.

2. For Eurydice: government regulation of industry goes beyond protection against fraud. Technically, fraud can be dealt with as a tort. Whether or not practitioners have or should have a certain level of knowledge is beside the point. If the question concerns fraud then what we care about is whether or not they lie about that level of knowledge.

3. For Ben and Eurydice: “if you have radical human inequality, hierarchical systems make more sense.” I would say false. Or, rather, it depends what you mean by “hierarchical.” If it is voluntary hierarchy, then the statement is almost a tautology. If, on the other hand, you mean politically enforced hierarchy, then I would disagree. Ayn Rand, for example, in Atlas Shrugged and her other novels, would seem to argue that the existence of human inequality is a good reason for the state to keep its hands off--in large part so the “overmen” can have free reign to build better railroads or whatever. Libertarianism emphatically does not presume human equality in any sense other than that all individuals have equal rights.

4. For Ben and Eurydice: Not to be too argumentative, but I think there is a diversity in fantasy novels concerning the “exclusivity factor” of magic-- ranging from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings where there are only five wizards and they seem almost like (are?) non-human divine beings, to LeGuin’s Earthsea Trilogy or Harry Potter where the hero has a “gift” but must still go to college with hundreds of other aspiring wizards and attend mundane lessons, etc., to Jack Vance’s The Dying Earth or The Eyes of the Overworld where magic is basically a science and magicians are simply those people who have good memories, large book collections and the time to practice the accurate recitation of spells. Of course, any of these settings “works” to the degree that it is well-described and consistent.

Message edited by its author, Aug 9, 2006, 3:05am.

Oakes: Thank you. Interesting points on fraud - and not ones I'll argue with. (Anyway, I'm packing.) But on point two: that's important, but it isn't what I was getting at. My point is not (merely) that people will pass themselves off as knowing more than they do, but that the average individual, even being careful, cannot always know enough to protect themselves from innacuracy, misuse, 'experiments,' outright lies, or the many mistakes made: and not, of course, in medicine only. (It's just one of the more extreme and obvious examples.) Hence the very strong feeling we do need recourse, though it sounds from your argument as if it could be achieved in a non-governmental way. Very good.

On fantasy, magic, and so forth: as you know, I don't know enough to look at any claim about the genre in its totality. Only enough to recognize what Ben was describing and find it credible; but while I agree wholeheartedly that it is the fidelity of the author's coherence of imagination and description which makes any take on it work or not work, is there perhaps a strong - we may even say 'romanticizing' ;)drift toward the relatively rare and powerful, inexplicable wizard-type? I'm simply curious: I do not know much about the genre, but this seems familiar; and as you are well aware, not knowing does not keep me from talking about something. :) More's the pity, probably! However, I enjoy learning about all and sundry, even through my own failed arguments (etc.).

Message edited by its author, Aug 9, 2006, 2:58am.

I hadn't initially jumped to join this group because I don't consider myself a fan of libertarian science fiction per se, although I do like a lot of Poul Anderson's stuff. But I was looking at the "your books" view on the talk page, and saw that The Demolished Man and The Stars My Destination both popped up. I can see The Stars My Destination or The Deceivers, I guess, but The Demolished Man?

Ah, I see grunin had the same question. But what was it initially in reference to?

kukkurovaca: See Message 17, which references Message 4:

"As I mentioned in my annotations for The List (of nine “libertarian” novels), The Stars My Destination is not really a libertarian novel, but it is a GREAT novel and its cathartic ending--with Gully Foyle wanting to put WMD stuff in the hands of each individual--embodies an explicitly libertarian idea. (An idea, which may also be insane, scary and wrong, headed--but that's another question.) I put the novel on The List because it is a GREAT novel and I wished to be provocative and big tentish."

To my bemused frustration, I can now see that the epitaph, “Spalding falsely believed Bester to be a libertarian,” shall be on my gravestone.

Oakes, thanks for the invite and sharing your top 10 list. My 'to read' list grows and grows...

oakesspalding, I didn't mean to whip that dead horse, and I actually get where your're coming from on Stars, but I'm still not seeing how The Demolished Man in particular, which has a totally different tone and, I think, ideology than Stars, got into this conversation. I don't have any axe to grind here -- just curious.

Actually, I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the the Bester-Libertarian connection -- see the exchange between me and Tim on the Whedonverse forum, #s 12, 13, 14:

http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.ph...

No idea how The Demolished Man was introduced. I blame you and Grunin. I am innocent. I haven't read The Deceivers, partly because I have heard that it isn't anywhere near as good as the two Bester classics. Is that true? I love Firefly and, if it's okay, I will join that group right away. Though, I confess I won't have anything intelligent to say about Buffy, Angel or Firefly BOOKS.

Hey, it wasn't me. Grunin asked about it along with Stars My Destination in Message 16. :)

I would definitely agree that The Deceivers is not as good as Stars or The Demolished Man, but I enjoyed it a lot. It's more of a comedy compared to the relatively tragic Demolished man and Stars, and it shares some of the same bizarre sensibility as The Computer Connection.

Dhalgren by Samual Delaney covers a society floundering with no structure. I don't know if I would call it Libertarian, but it does give a lot of examples of how different people react to a void in structure.

I always saw Beyond This Horizon by Heinlein as one of Heinlein's most libertarian books (even if it's not one of his best). It also got me thinking about a society where everyone was willing to carry a gun and use it. What would that do to our souls?

The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk deals with revolution and maybe isn't libertarian since there is some leadership structure. There's definitely respect for personal freedom and the concept of governing oneselves as a collective. In my mind it's a more satisfying societal structure than the potential chaos of most libertarian visions.

I think Dhalgren may be more about anarchy than libertarianism. And it's okay for libertarians to be led, I think, just not coerced. :)

Has anyone asked about Iain Banks yet? The "Culture" is substantially libertarian, I think -- at least, there are the maximum in personal freedoms for all citizens (whether human or artificial or other), with etiquette replacing law for most purposes in most situations.

I would say that Dhalgren shows the early beginnings of replacing a sudden vacuum of structure with various forms of structure, most of them very much allowing for personal freedoms, some allowing for violence, as well, unfortunately.

I think the book is working through all of these levels at the micro level. With the absense of any kind of outside structure or control, some of the groups that are formed will be either more or less libertarian. Even at a level of micro society where personal choice is at the highest, what do people choose? What makes a person willing to stay inside of a group that does not allow personal freedom when there are readily available other groups to join with? Can a single micro society be libertarian for some of the group, but not for others?

I think at the most personal level, most libertarian societies can not be completely coercion free, since there are usually interpersonal relationships that will be very coercive. Do most libertarian societies really allow for women (for instance) to have the maximum of personal freedoms? What about children?

I think at the personal level, most societies get very messy in what kinds of freedoms people truly have.

Today on Marginal Revolution, Why do libertarians love science fiction?

I have to admit, I was wondering the same thing myself when Oakes invited me to this here group.

Reading the posts about Dhalgren and the question about Iain Banks, in particular, have interested me sufficeintly to ask whether anyone might be interested in doing a group read? While Oakes mentioned it earlier, I've no idea whether even he is currently interested. But I'd be curious, in my more skeptical way, to see others' opinions on a libertarian scenario I'd also become familiar with. My novitiate qualities serve me ill here. The concept of how a culture-based structure like etiquette would help provide needed boundaries is especially interesting. (To me.)

While I entirely agree with Bilbette that at the personal level, most societies get very messy in what kinds of freedoms people truly have, my reaction is ambivalent. This is deplorably true; yet it's much easier for me to see potential abuses of liberty than effective safeguards. Partly a result of inadequate libertarian science fiction reading, I'm sure. :)

Turbosaab: what do you think of the answers advanced on that question? Why do you think there's a correlation?

Message edited by its author, Aug 23, 2006, 12:22am.

1. Conspiratorial: (This sort of thing should be familiar to “9/11 Truth” people. :) ) It’s a plot to get science fiction readers hooked on libertarianism. Obviously it’s not working. At most, it has acted to boost interest in the works of Alfred Bester.

2. Geek: (This is similar to “Trivial” in “Marginal Revolution. ” But why is it “trivial”?) Geeks are nonconformists in literature and politics. But Geeks are not necessarily “white, upper-class males.” (See Melinda Snodgrass, Ayn Rand, Eurydice (!), etc. Also, what income qualifies one as being “upper-class”?)

3. Facts As They Are: There has never been a real existing libertarian society. (Well, with the possible exception of Medieval Iceland--but how many novels can be written about that?) So one must turn to science fiction to see the “dream” described.

But perhaps there is no connection. I just happen to like libertarianism and I just happen to like science fiction, so naturally I like libertarian science fiction. Does anyone have a problem with that? :)

My recommendation for a group read would be The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith. (The short story collection Freedom, edited by Greenberg, et al. is good but more obscure.) The Probability Broach is hard core libertarian--the real stuff. I read the novel many years ago and would benefit by reading it again. Does anyone else own it or is it easily obtainable?

Message edited by its author, Aug 23, 2006, 2:48am.

1. Which Ian Banks?
2. Thank you for the recommendation on Dhalgren. I loved Nova, also by Samuel Delaney, but was a bit scared of Samuel Delaney's later "experimental" reputation as well as of Dhalgren's length. I almost bought a copy of the new edition, but pulled back on the $18 price at the last minute. I am trying to turn over a new leaf (in terms of budgeting), and shall try to find it used.

Message edited by its author, Aug 23, 2006, 2:57am.

The Probability Broach sounds good to me, and is available quite cheaply, used. If we do decide on that, I might need as much as a week to get it - but you could begin without me.

Aside from that.... I love Oakes' reasons for the libertarianism-sci-fi confluence. Particularly his conspiracy theory. ;)

Though I am probably being flattered by being called a 'geek,' I am only too happy to have the definition widened. I do think, though, that culture and education are really a huge part of what's perceived as 'upper class'. - As much or more than income. Income fluctuates a lot - or can - but the perception of class is more complicated than mere money (or how would we recognize nouveau riche?), and - certainly in a casual or faceless world - tied to markers that change less. 'As I speak,' the words I use matter far more than what I'm wearing, or what I have in the bank. (Clearly not an economist's view!)

Message edited by its author, Aug 23, 2006, 3:52am.

Eurydice> I thought it was an interesting connection, and the speculation was amusing. The geek factor seems to play a part, as does Oakes point #3, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

No, turbosaab, I won't take it too seriously. :) Even my comments on the very loose and various ways 'upper class' could be meant - in relation to geeks - are none too serious. But I do find the connection interesting, and do (in fact) find the third point less amusing than a conspiracy, but a great deal more convincing.

Before I go off and order it, is anyone else interested in reading The Probability Broach - or something else - together? Or, in discussing it as a group, if you've already read it?

At the very least, let me say that I think this is group well fitted for the discussion of anything that came its way; it would be a pleasure to read your posts on something we'd selected together.

I'm game for the group read idea and will go with the suggestion of The Probability Broach... shall we order it or wait for more participants?

I might be interested, although I try to buy my books in person, and I don't recall seeing The Probability Broach anywhere around here. I'll have to take a closer look.

Sounds like three to four, so far. Enough, perhaps?

Sure. Let's do it!

Great! I ordered mine last night. Give it a week, and I should be able to join in.

Thank you, Eurydice, for taking the reigns on the group read. (In terms of showing initiative, you are a true Ayn Rand character.) I shall be traveling to my ancestral home in Boston for the next week and will be checking the internet infrequently, if at all. But I am bringing my weathered copy of The Probability Broach with me. I hope all of you are stimulated by the novel.

Only too glad to do so. :) I'm looking forward to it. So long as you never transfer it to my sense of humor, I'll thank you for the Randian comparison.

Hope you enjoy the trip, as I, home-bound, earth-bound, await in growing suspense my first contact with L. Neil Smith.

Message edited by its author, Aug 27, 2006, 6:14pm.

my copy of The Probability Broach has arrived!

Wonderful! I expect mine any day. (Today, even, if the mailman is kind.)

I'm sorry to inform you guys, but Ayn Rand's philosophy is not libertarianism. She started her own philosophy, objectivism. In fact objectivism can be said to be the antithesis of enhancing the individual's sphere of liberty depending on the situation. Moreover, with respect to government objectivism is completely antithetical to libertarian conceptions. Nozick is libertarianism.

Not to skip over bigal, but it's a point to which I can't speak. Will be finished with at least half of The Probability Broach by tomorrow night; the mailman was kind. I'm looking forward to our discussion.

Oh no. People are actually going to READ the book. I fear there will be disappointment. I am preparing to flee to an undisclosed location.

1. Actually, I read The Probability Broach over again during vacation and look forward to discussing it.

2. Bigal: I have no idea what you are talking about. Rand rejected the term "libertarianism," but then, Rand loved rejecting things--especially anything that smacked of even the slightest intellectual threat. Are you speaking as a Randian or as an anti-Randian? Nozick himself was critical of some of Rand's arguments but was sympathetic to her in general, and I am sure he would have allowed her the "libertarian" label. (See his "On the Randian Argument," in Reading Nozick.)

You have no idea what I'm talking about? Uuuh, Rand was an objectivist philosopher, she started objectivistm before libertarianism was ever in style. You could almost say she was Nozick's mother; if it wasn't for Rand, Nozick would have never had a career. As for Rand rejecting things of the 'slightest intellectual threat' that's funny because her observations with respect to metaphysics was unparallelled by contemporary philosophy. I didn't see Nozick coming up with any existential imports or axioms about the base of knowledge. In fact he wound up pulling the punches on most of his arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. By the way I'm not a Randian I just don't like to see objectivist philosophers posted on libertarian threads. :D!!!

Sorry, I have to post this to. 1984 was not a libertarian novel, liberty was involved, however it was not completely about liberty. In fact George Orwell was a socialist from a political standpoint that's completely antithetical to libertarian conceptions of government.

I've finished The Probability Broach, and am looking forward to discussing it whenever you're all ready to begin. It's been an interesting read, with plenty to enjoy, mull over, and argue. Henry Martyn, given its description and Oakes' greater enjoyment, is moving up on my list of wished-for books.

My attempts to watch South by Southwest were, sadly, futile...

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2006, 7:42pm.

Okay, Bigal, you’ve successfully baited me. Re: your points:
1. “You have no idea what I'm talking about? Uuuh . . .” I’m getting a better idea now.
2. “(Rand) started objectivistm (sic) before libertarianism was ever in style.” Sort of true. There was a movement but it wasn’t labeled “libertarianism” yet. Yes, it probably was not “in style” then. Nor is it in style now. Nor has objectivism ever been in style, for that matter.
3. “You could almost say (Rand) was Nozick's mother . . .” A grotesque thought.
4. “. . . if it wasn't for Rand, Nozick would have never had a career.” Possibly true.
5. “As for Rand rejecting things of the 'slightest intellectual threat' that's funny because her observations with respect to metaphysics was (sic) unparalleled by contemporary philosophy.” You stumped me again. Why is that funny? What do her “unparalleled” observations have to do with the fact that she was paranoid and intolerant? To some degree her observations were unparalleled. (Though, she herself acknowledged a debt to Aristotle.) To some degree she was also a crank.
6. “I didn't (sic) see Nozick coming up with any existential imports (sic) or axioms about the base of knowledge.” Read his Philosophical Explanations. You will see them.
7. “In fact (Nozick) wound up pulling the (sic) punches on most of his arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” Once again, I have to pull out the old “I have no idea what you are talking about” response.
8. “By the way I'm not a Randian . . .” You could have fooled me.
9. “ . . . I just don't like to see objectivist philosophers posted on libertarian threads.” Too bad. It may happen again. I guess you had better learn to deal with it.
10. “1984 was not a libertarian novel . . .” I never said it was. In fact I sort of implied it wasn’t.

Objectivism has a number of things going for it. (That all the ethical conclusions of objectivism follow from “A is A” is not QUITE true. Rand left out a jot. What she SHOULD have said is that all the ethical conclusions of objectivism follow from “A is NOT A.” It works. Look it up.) Despite the maginalization of objectivism by mainstream philosophers, it is no loonier than many other more “respectable” ethical and metaphysical theories. I would probably be more receptive to it if it were not for the intolerant, fanatical and, frankly, ignorant rantings of many of its adherents. That said, I love Ayn Rand, and reserve the right to mention her whenever I please. Indeed, I shall toast her right now.

Cheers!

Re: My “sic”’s: I haven’t really mastered the English language myself (unlike my friend Eurydice, who only once made a mistake in a private email--and we can safely put that down to sleep deprivation). I make more than my share of errors. But we often benefit if errors are pointed out.

Message edited by its author, Sep 8, 2006, 3:46am.

Rand did know about libertarianism, she despised it....
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."
This hasn't stopped libertarians from bringing her into the fold. 'Reason' had a centennial anniversary on her, in which was claimed that she was one of the founding fathers (sic) of the philosophy.

Message edited by its author, Sep 8, 2006, 4:49am.

One can certainly be an intellectual precursor to a development one despises. I don't need to know much about Rand or libertarianism, as such, to know that. Hostile as she may have been, there's nothing inappropriate in citing her - unless you whitewash her objections completely.

I agree with that. I was just responding to the Rand debate above, i.e., how valid is it to use Rand in regard to libertarianism? My entry was to prove it was valid to use her, but it should be remembered that she herself was not happy with the link.

I understand. Sounds eminently reasonable... to the best of my imperfect knowledge, of course. :)

Just adding anotehr title.

Moving Mars by Greg Bear is about a Mars colony with a sort of syndicalist government that is being pressured to join the earth's governmental body.

I am about halfway through The Probability Broach and up for discussion anytime

See the new Probability Broach topic.

oakesspalding wrote:
>the Ten Commandments >are as good a foundation >for morality as any-->correction, actually they >are the BEST foundation.

So those who make graven images, or fail to observe the proper day in whichever religion, are immoral?

I'm puzzled that you "love" Ayn Rand. She didn't have any patience with such assertions. She said that reason is not only the best but the ONLY foundation for morality.

On the topic of Libertarian SF, how about Eric Frank Russell? His story "And Then There Were None" is a classic.

I suppose 'loving' and completely agreeing with people are - in politics and reading, as in life - two different things.

More comments (on the Ten Commandments) later, perhaps.

Living by a set of commandments from an organised religious body is neither individualist or non-conformist at all, is it, in that sense?

On the fantasy note above, Dave Wolverton as David Farland takes the allegiance to royalty factor to extremes, in both directions, in his Runelords series - The Sum of All Men. He did have SF published before fantasy, not sure whether that has anything to do with it.

On the technology as equaliser front, you have books with elements like those found inCharlie Stross' Singularity Sky, where a population is suddenly all given personal replicators, no need to therefore have anything to do with the entrenched power structures for food, shelter, weapons, etc.

Then there is Cory Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom where everything has been abundant on a long term basis, so only your reputation and what you do matters. This is one way of looking at or handling the fraud issue in general, perhaps, but again they are still humans, so it still exists.

Message edited by its author, Oct 10, 2006, 12:31am.

Re: The Ten Commandments. Let me make a number of assertions--some apologetic, some conciliatory, some confrontational and argumentative, and a few just out and out wise-ass and flippant:

1. Re: my assertion that the Commandments are the “BEST” foundation for morality. I’m not sure that I put that quite right, but I guess I meant two things: a) In comparison to other moral codes that have been offered throughout history, the Judeo-Christian set has had the best track record for promoting justice and human happiness. (And no, I am not including Randian Egoism in the mix because it hasn’t been around long enough and hasn’t been practiced by enough people or societies, etc.) b) I was focusing on the “non-God” commandments such as Thou Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not Covet. I think those are pretty darn libertarian, thank you, and serve as great first principles for any libertarian political or moral system. See the great 19th Century Boston anarchist (and Bible believing Christian) Lysander Spooner on this point. I especially like the fact that there are no “socialist” commandments--“Thou shalt support a government which provides all the inhabitants of Palestine with food, clothing and basic health care,” or whatever. Now, I admit that if we are appraising the Decalogue as a whole, it is illegitimate to ignore ANY of the commandments. I am guilty of this and I apologize. God (if He exists) didn’t tell us that not Sabbath breaking is less important than not stealing. Indeed, the order of the Commandments suggests the opposite. I think this should give any modern believing orthodox Jew or Christian some pause for thought.

2. However, “Thou shalt not be an altruist” is AT LEAST as goofy and counterintuitive as “Keep the Sabbath Holy.” So you Randians aren’t exactly in the clear either.

3. Let’s not get tangled in semantics by saying that living by a commandment is by definition anti-individualist. Any moral stricture is in one sense a commandment, thus unless one is a relativist or a nihilist, one is in one sense “constrained” by a moral code. So what?

4. Presumably, if one follows the Commandments for religious reasons, then one follows them because one believes they come from God, not an “organized religious body.” If God does exist, and if He seems to be on the whole a good God, it would seem to be a no-brainer, morally and prudentially, to make some attempt to do what He says, especially if the offered list of commandments isn’t too onerous.

5. As for the claim that believing in the commandments entails believing that breaking the sabbath or worshiping a graven image is immoral, that’s a fascinating theological and philosophical question. I’m not sure that, say, the Sabbath breaker WOULD necessarily be judged immoral, though he would presumably be judged ignorant and/or rebellious or disrespectful. I would be curious to know the orthodox Judeo-Christian party line here, if there is one.

6. If “reason is the only foundation for morality," then I would love to see a Randian take a paragraph or two and show me how reason alone can be used to justify ANY moral principle. Don’t point me to Rand. If it can be done, it can be done in one’s own words.

7. In the end, Rand wasn’t really “patient” with anyone except those who slavishly agreed with her on everything. See the myriad reports from former friends and students whom she suddenly “cut off” completely for one reason or another. (She was also patient with her philosophically slow husband. Though this didn’t stop her from having a publicly announced affair with a student which she proclaimed was done in the name of “reason,” and “the highest moral values.” In this, her husband was quite patient with her.)

8. The preceding gossipy bit has nothing really at all to do with the value of Rand’s work. (The jab at her weird marriage triangle was admittedly completely gratuitous.) Also, I think Rand had many virtues as well as flaws as a person. I mention the flaws in part as they seem relevant to the obvious narrow-minded focus, intolerance and humorlessness of Randianism at its most tedious. It frankly irritates me that Randians seem to always want to pick fights with those who are dubbed insufficiently orthodox. (Sort of like the caricature of the Catholic Church.) Agreeing with Rand on 90% of political matters isn’t good enough--one must be a true believer in every area. What is the point of this? Why can’t Randians be happy that so many people are attracted to some of her ideas (her books are still bestsellers, after all) and build from there? As I have said before, I find Rand’s political novels to be rich and inspiring--among the finest works of fiction I have ever read, and so, for that reason, I “love” her.

9. Forgive the strong tone of the above. I hope I do not come off as sounding too “personal” here. It goes without saying that I LIKE arguing about many things (to a fault, some would think) thus I cannot criticize anyone merely for that. I think, actually, that I am to some degree a bit paranoid. I feel pursued and stalked by Randians and Objectivists in every group discussion. They seem always ready to pounce on one or another of my views for being “irrational,” and they will not allow me to admire in peace, the work of one of my intellectual heroines. But perhaps it is all in my imagination. :)

10. Yes, good on Eric Frank Russell. David Friedman writes that Russell’s The Great Explosion is a libertarian classic. Alas, I have not yet read it.

11. By the way, myshelves and bluetyson, thank you for getting discussion started again. Once again, I hope I haven’t been too cranky.

Oakes

Message edited by its author, Oct 10, 2006, 4:42pm.

Hi Oakes,

No offense taken. But it is early a.m., and I don't have time or energy to reply now.

Later,

myshelves

P.S. Been a long time, but I think that the story I mentioned is part of The Great Explosion. Try to find it!

Also, came across this the other day

Online version of a graphic novel of The Probability Broach

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

WOW! A sci fi group!!!! And, lots of books recommended that I haven't read, oh boy.

Has anyone read the Firestar Saga by Michael Flynn? It is set in the near future with private enterprise winning the space race with the first extra-atmospheric jets. Everything from test pilots to what it would take to really build a space station logistically and the hazards of space.

I also love David Weber, but then, as a small woman I do believe in the great equalizer--fire power!

Dan Simons', Hyperion series is a tour de force; however, I was underawed by his other offerings.

Again thanks for all the recommendations, I am ordering even as I type!

Does anyone still read this group? If so, why has no Hogan made the list (e.g Voyage from Yesteryear).

I was talking to another member - nostalgically - about this group just the other day. :) Nice to see a new message. (And welcome, ServusLibri!) Is anyone up for doing another group read?

Well, this is an interesting message board. Stimulating posts for about the first two years, then no posts for about a year and a half.

Clicked through the names of those who have posted here. Some of you seem to be unchanged in your views during the past two years. Some of you have changed from hard shell Objectivists to post modernists who want to "abolish philosophy." Say what??

In any case, anyone run across any libertarian sci fi that has not yet been mentioned? If nothing contemporary, how about the "Golden Age" titles?

I think Dhalgren may be more about anarchy than libertarianism. And it's okay for libertarians to be led, I think, just not coerced. :)

===============================

Actually, I think that you have the labels backwards.

Libertarians think that it is O.K. for people to make uncoerced choices, whether those choices are based on slavish adherence to the proclamations of some pseudo-prophet e.g. Ayn Rand or whether they are based on critical reason.

Some forms of anarchists think that choices based on "authority," as well as those based on coercion, are wrong. Most of those anarchists, however, aren't very clear about how one properly makes choices or if authority or cultural history or personal psychological history has anything to do with it.

I'll send a review copy to anyone who requests Mars Shall Thunder by Wolf DeVoon if you promise to read and review it on LibraryThing.

>86

Have you considered:

#1.) Becoming a LT author?
http://www.librarything.com/librarything...
#2.) Posting copies of Mars Shall Thunder as a Member Giveaway -
http://www.librarything.com/er/giveaway/...
- you can request that people post reviews in exchange for the book.

If you do, leave me a comment. I assume that since you are posting in the Libertarian Science Fiction group that you consider this to be "Libertarian Science Fiction"?