Comments on: The Mainspring of Human Progress

By: Capitalist enemies of the state. A juxtaposition. : Rabbit Creative

Capitalist enemies of the state. A juxtaposition. : Rabbit Creative — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:13:12 +0000

[...] a steadfast city kid, I appreciate Mr. Tucker’s review on this book’s (pdf) thesis: … it provides an overview–and a very compelling [...]

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:20:40 +0000

"In fact, that period ended in 1492 whereas the Ottoman empire was only getting started then". Ah... no, Cody. It had been underway in recognisable form for around two centuries by then, it was just that it was only around then that it started directly threatening the Roman Catholic parts of Europe (I'm not counting the failed Last Crusade, when they attacked the Ottomans).

By: Al the Old Whig

Al the Old Whig — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:45:26 +0000

I read this book long before 9/11. I don’t remember much of what he said about Muslims. What I took away from the book was his take on the Judges of Israel. That template overlays what I understand when I’m reading anyone’s description of Anarcho-Capitalism. I wonder if that means that I’ve misunderstood some people.

By: jurisnaturalist

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:21:02 +0000

This pdf edition is a wonderful contribution to access to freedom literature. However, you have selected an edition which does not contain John Hood’s excellent introduction, a bit of a disservice. Any way to resolve this oversight?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:41:38 +0000

Thank you for making this book available as a pdf. It is the first pdf book I have completely read all the way through. There are many things to debate but the central argument from which the title comes is argued with passion and comes across well.

It is not just his take on Islam that is radical. He also presents aspects of the other biblical religions in a very unusual, and not necessarily wrong, way. The question of gods is interesting in this respect. He talks of god as being truth or as the source of truth and in this way makes the case for monotheism seem more logical.

The most interesting stuff about Islam that he says for me is how inventive and enterprising and free they were back then. If his account is correct then a great catastrophe must have happened to them beyond the crusades.

By: Al Fin

Al Fin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:49:03 +0000

If Islam is about freedom, then Americans can get the same kind of freedom as Muslims have. Simply take away the woman’s right to vote, and re-institute slavery–as in Chad, Mauritania, Sudan etc. Instant freedom, as in Islam.

Ideology makes fools of everyone. Every. Single. One.

By: Bruce Koerber

Bruce Koerber — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:19:34 +0000

To get to the salient point about Islam I will start with the U.S. Constitution. It is a covenant. Those who violate the covenant effectively destroy the intent.

The religion of Muhammad and the holy Quran is purely ethical and transforming but historical circumstances were such that the covenant established by Muhammad to preserve His religion was violated.

Can any of us say that the vulgarity of interventionism that is rampant in America is what was meant to be, as given in the Constitution? No, surely not. The same is true in Islam.

The right to interpret and intervene has been usurped by those without moral authority. Humanity is now in a struggle to unfetter itself from these oppressors.

My book Ethics of the Divine Economy (http://divineec.ipower.com/page6.html) does a good job of putting this into perspective.

By: Cody

Cody — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:44:27 +0000

Finally! Someone who gets it right about Islam. The author captured the reasons why the religion spread like wildfire. Namely: freedom, low taxes, minimal government intervention. Islam even prohibits charging interest when lending money, which I’m starting to think is a way of combating fractional-reserve banking and inflation of the money supply.The comment about the Ottoman empire and modern day Islam has nothing to do with the period that Weaver described in his book. In fact, that period ended in 1492 whereas the Ottoman empire was only getting started then. The commenter’s reference to submission is true, but it means “submission to God” and not the submission of other people to them.

By: fundamentalist

fundamentalist — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:05:52 +0000

I’m sure it’s a very good book, but before you take his word on Islam, you might want to read something by Bat Ye’or, the French anthropologist. She writes that most of the “Islam is peacefulâ€ literature comes from the British attempt to justify siding with the Ottoman’s against Russia in the Crimean war. The Brit gov wanted to contain Russia, but knew that the public would oppose siding with the Muslim Ottoman’s. After all, the Ottoman’s had been attacking Eastern Europe for several centuries and most people knew how poorly Christians were treated in Eastern Europe under Ottoman control. So the Brits started a massive propaganda campaign to convince the people that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims treated Christians very well, even though they knew the opposite was true. Much of the writing about peaceful Islam comes from that propaganda.

Is Islam a religion of peace? Those who say yes claim that the root word for Islam is the word for peace. But those of us who know Arabic know that the root word is submission, not peace, although they are similar. Some Muslims are peaceful and interpret Islam in a peaceful way; others are war mongers and interpret Islam as promoting violence against non-Muslims. The majority of Muslims side with whoever threatens them the most.

By: Alex Peak

Alex Peak — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:00:56 +0000

From what I’ve read, FEE used to give out literature for free to whomever requested it. They were more concerned with keeping the remnant alive than making any long-term profit, and when Read was able to secure large sums of money–which he supposedly was quite able at doing–he would not hesitate to spend it in the pursuit of getting more materials out there. It’s of little surprise that the Foundation didn’t mind other people making their own prints, thus.

From my reading of Radicals for Capitalism, there was a strive back in those days for someone to write “the book.” It sounds from the description above that this was indeed one of those attempts.

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauche

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:15:16 +0000

I bought a used paperback copy for $1 from the Mises Institute store while I was in Auburn a while back. Can’t remember when exactly. But I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:03:54 +0000

I love this book. I first found the FEE edition years ago, and now it is close to falling apart through use. It is essentially Weaver’s recasting of Lane’s “The Discovery of Freedom”.

p.s. I too have a bit of confusion with his (and Lane’s) portrayal of Islam. It certainly isn’t the popular Islam we see today, which has regressed and joined religion to state.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:35:49 +0000

I’m highly skeptical of the author’s claims regarding Islam, but I’ll have to read the book to evaluate them.