“Excursions” series author George H. Smith has a new book out on themes in the history of classical liberalism.
A article on anarchism and the Occupy movement highlights what’s wrong with a theory of freedom that excludes private property.
Socialism can’t use market prices to determine the value of goods. Alternatives to prices just don’t work very well, however.
Libertarians certainly like to debate the merits of the non-aggression principle. Matt Zwolinksi attempts to figure out what libertarians really think.
A socialist planning super computer would have to know how many goods are in the economy. And that turns out to be a very difficult question indeed.
The Non-Aggression Principle (i.e., Respecting Liberty) is Necessary and Sufficient for Libertarianism
Philosopher J. C. Lester defends the non-aggression principle by arguing that we should better understand it as a minimization of aggression principle.
An introduction to virtue, the life well-lived, and the state’s role in the good life.
The Socialist Calculation Debate, with Prolegomena to Any Future Metamarkets. Part I: Really Hard Math.
The first in a series on socialist calculation, the work done by the price system, and some things we can already know about any future resource allocation strategies that might supplant the strategy of using markets.
Lester argues that when conflicts arise in applying the non-aggression principle, we should choose whichever option minimizes aggression.
Aggression and property rights are, by themselves, not the only categories relevant to moral or juridical evaluation.
The non-aggression principle isn’t sufficient to help guide most of our political decisions, and so isn’t sufficient to be the core argument for libertarianism.
Arguments against libertarianism often take the form of false dilemmas. Powell looks at why they’re so common and what libertarians can do about it.
Sanchez argues that the non-aggression principle is ultimately circular, and shouldn’t be the basis for a libertarian theory of politics.
Kuznicki responds to Matt Zwolinski’s call for scrapping the non-aggression principle.
Zwolinski argues that some of the results the non-aggression principle logically leads to mean we ought to question its universal application.
Neera K. Badhwar explores how the distinction between fully voluntary actions and actions done under duress applies to market exchanges.
We should never forget that the state is an institution for compelling people to act against their will.
Does the non-aggression principle prohibit all pollution, including industry, driving, and flashlights?
Powell argues against paternalism, demonstrating that it is little more than a way to impose your values on others.
Libertarian philosophy is a “big tent” and we can learn much from philosophers we may disagree with.
It is important to argue clearly, not loudly.