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.
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.