Smith discusses some preliminary issues involved in the classic libertarian distinction between the spheres of “state” and “society.”
The radical libertarian abolitionists thought it was senseless to attack slavery while defending the institutions that upheld it.
Smith examines the common claim that the mere threat of physical force does not qualify as a type of coercion.
Smith discusses the distinction between freedom and coercion, and explains some of its implications for the human sciences.
Smith presents an overview of the philosophy of the human sciences.
Libertarians get told we complain about government but never offer solutions. That’s not true—especially because limiting government often is the solution.
Defending freedom requires an interdisciplinary approach, so in this column George H. Smith turns to the “human sciences”—and also to a definition of science itself.
The promises of politicians are like the promises of fad diets: too good to be true.
Smith explores Humboldt’s defense of individuality, written in 1792.
Should libertarians support the death penalty? Ben Jones argues that both evidence and philosophy say no.
D’Amato explores the history of individualist anarchism and “voluntary socialism.”
Politics is what you get when you add violence to discourse.
Politics encourages us to dehumanize our opponents and, as a result, we dehumanize ourselves.
Arguments about the role of markets in history need to move past Karl Polanyi.
Powell critiques an attack on libertarianism that charges libertarians with wanting to destroy society in order to live in a world without cooperation.
Levatter explains how thought experiments can be a helpful tool in political philosophy, but only if they reach some minimum level of plausibility.
Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation provides a foundation for much anti-market rhetoric. The problem is, the book’s claims don’t hold up.
Trevor Burrus offers some advice to those who want to argue against libertarianism.