Zwolinski offers more arguments for his claim that a guaranteed basic income can be one way to rectify historical injustice—and needn’t violate libertarian principles.
Smith explains the meaning of “society” and “institution,” and he discusses the distinction between designed and undesigned institutions.
Can we argue for a guaranteed basic income within libertarian principles? Matt Zwolinski offered a case. But David Friedman says his arguments don’t work.
Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.
Ross Levatter argues that a thought experiment Jason Brennan uses to test our intuitions about the morality of markets has too many problems to genuinely be helpful.
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.