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.
Jonathan Blanks examines the complaints in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech on its 50th anniversary.
Brian Kogelmann expands a short article on civil disobedience into a longer, more serviceable general theory of civil disobedience.
Cogently attacking libertarianism means, at the very least, wrestling with what libertarians actually believe.
Big government makes it easy to forget what government’s for—and that allows state agents to get away with truly awful acts.
Zwolinski concludes his series on William Graham Sumner with the question of how we ought to help the poorest among us.
Zwolinski examines William Graham Sumner’s critique of “social justice.”
Not only is the charge of Sumner being a social Darwinist unfair, but it characterizes his views as nearly the opposite of what they actually were.
Libertarians reject an expansive state. But this doesn’t mean they reject social bonds or the benefits of working with others to achieve common goals.
William Graham Sumner often gets unfairly labeled a social Darwinist. In this first post in a new series, Zwolinski tries to nail down just what “social Darwinism” means.
Jason Kuznicki argues that “anyone who cares about human liberty—to whatever degree—ought to despise the Confederacy.”
Conservatives use the precautionary principle to justify domestic spying just as the left uses it to justify environmentalism. Neither is convincing.
Reconciling the interests of different people can be done via force, but it’s much better to solve this “problem” through freedom and markets.
Government’s very nature attracts the vicious, corrupts the virtuous, and encourages foolish decisions—so we should limit its power as much as possible.
The classic argument John Rawls sets out in A Theory of Justice provides a strong foundation for libertarianism, Kogelmann says.
Libertarians are mistaken to seek foundations, to take sides over moral approaches, and to have no proper theory of liberty.
Kuznicki shows how libertarianism is the result of treating people as ends instead of merely as means, and thus is the fulfillment of Immanuel Kant’s “kingdom of ends.”
The non-aggression principle assumes a radical simplicity just not present in the real world, Lindsey argues.
Libertarians need to stop looking for easy answers in simple rules, Zwolinski argues, and instead embrace a pluralism of principles.
An introduction to thinking about the state within a framework of virtue ethics.