D’Amato argues that Adam Smith’s role as a critic of incumbent mercantilist interests has been wrongly obscured by those who see him as aligned with the right.
A Review of Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World by Deirdre McCloskey
D’Amato reviews the third book in McCloskey’s Bourgeois Era trilogy.
In considering constitutional questions, libertarians shouldn’t let the text come before justice and liberty.
Though he was misled by the labor theory of value, much of Ingalls’s thought is right at home in the libertarian tradition.
The state was born of violence and oppression. This should color our understanding of its present nature.
William Batchelder Greene was an individualist anarchist and a pioneer in free banking.
Mussolini attempted to remake the Italian mind, taking a personal interest in applying the twin tools of censorship and propaganda.
D’Amato discusses the rule of the Fascist Party in Italy and draws parallels to American politics.
D’Amato traces the ideological and historical roots of Italian fascism.
Tolstoy’s radical Christianity led him to a pacifistic, anarchistic political philosophy that rejected the state as incompatible with Christ’s teachings.
Attacks on free speech reveal progressivism as a uniquely American iteration of fascism that shares many of its historical and ideological roots.
Is there a contradiction in forbidding aggression against persons and permitting people to defend their property with physical force? Not so, argues D’Amato.
Are libertarians begging the question when they talk about what counts as aggression? Not so, argues D’Amato.
We reject the idea that some people are born superior to others, with a right to rule them. What, then, if anything, justifies a state’s power over its citizens?
Government restrictions on who can enter an occupation don’t protect consumers, but rather licensees’ bottom lines.
We can best understand modern America by looking at the ways fascism and socialism are kin.
Property, properly understood, does not restrict liberty. Well-defined boundaries help us differentiate between aggressive and defensive violence.
The partisans of “reasonable” technocracy often hide their desire to dominate others behind a disdain for “ideology” and “politics.”