Smith explains why Burke predicted that the French Revolution would end in systematic violence.
After criticizing Murray Rothbard’s interpretation of Edmund Burke’s first book, Smith summarizes Burke’s primary objections to rationalistic intellectuals.
We shouldn’t deny situational influences on our behavior, but instead acknowledge them and use them as a further argument against big government.
Edmund Burke condemned the French Revolution as a “digest of anarchy.” What relevance does his critique have for the modern libertarian movement?
D’Amato looks at the philosophy of egoism and contrasts the versions of it offered by Ayn Rand and Max Stirner.
Smith discusses the role of modern intellectuals in government.
Smith explores F. A. Hayek’s views on intellectuals, whom Hayek called professional secondhand dealers in ideas.
A far-ranging discussion of the meanings of key terms in libertarianism, kinds of ideologues, and crucial elements needed for an understanding of individual freedom.
Smith begins his discussion of the need for an interdisciplinary approach to liberty by noting some hazards of academic specialization.
Smith explains Rocker’s theory of why the ideas of classical liberalism were swamped by the rising tide of statism.
In Nationalism and Culture, a classic history of libertarian ideas, Rudolf Rocker uses the struggle of freedom against power as his theoretical framework.
In America, Big Brother watches because he cares. And caring—at all costs—is the very stuff of modern liberalism.
Smith explains how the insatiable desire for power and its corrupting influence have been dominant themes in libertarian theory and history.
Smith examines the problem of whether the human sciences can be value-free, and if so in what sense.
D’Amato looks at the Garrisonians, the most diehard and arguably most consistently libertarian of the abolitionists.
Smith explores various ways in which ideas influence human action, and why ideas are essential to the success of libertarianism.
Hayek endorsed a guaranteed minimum income—but didn’t say why. In this essay, Matt Zwolinski attempts reconstruct Hayek’s argument.
Decentralization and Federalism Is the Libertarian Way to Determine Whether a Basic Income Is Practical or Desirable
Mitchell argues against a national basic income, suggesting instead that federalism may provide a better solution to the problems of the current welfare state.
Smith, drawing from Machiavelli’s The Prince, discusses two essential ingredients of successful states.
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.”