The
Objectivist author
Peter Schwartz criticized the views Rothbard expounded in
For a New Liberty, writing that like other libertarians, Rothbard cared about neither "the pursuit of freedom nor the exercise of reason" and supported only "the extermination of government and the inculcation of anti-state hostility." Schwartz maintained that Rothbard wrongly viewed the state as "by nature criminal." Libertarian author
Tom G. Palmer commented in 1997 that
For a New Liberty "provides a good overview of the libertarian worldview, although the chapters on public policy issues and on the organized libertarian movement are by now somewhat dated." Libertarian author
David Boaz writes that
For a New Liberty, together with
Robert Nozick's
Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) and
Ayn Rand's essays on political philosophy, "defined the 'hard-core' version of modern libertarianism, which essentially restated
Spencer's law of equal freedom: Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to do, so long as they respect the equal rights of others." British philosopher
Ted Honderich writes that Rothbard's anarcho-libertarianism informed "one messianic part of the New Right". In
Radicals for Capitalism (2007), journalist
Brian Doherty writes of
For a New Liberty, "This book strove to synthesize, in condensed form, the economic, historical, philosophical, and policy elements of Rothbard's vision...the book was meant as both a primer and a manifesto, so Rothbard crammed in as much of his overall theory of liberty as he could ... Rothbard hits the harder
anarcho-capitalist stuff, but slips it in so smoothly that many readers might not notice that this 'libertarian manifesto' promotes
anarchism." Philosopher
Edward Feser argued that the central argument at the heart of the book is largely philosophically meaningless. Later, Professor
Gerard Casey wrote a critical article about this, and they replied to each other. Matt Zwolinski argued that the book's core content fails to make a clear case for freedom. ==Publishing history==