Dale considers how two political thinkers engage with some concrete policy questions, informed by scientific findings but applying Hume’s Guillotine.

Setting up her discussion of Snowdon’s Killjoys and Leyonhjelm’s Freedom’s Salesman, Dale invokes Hume’s principle that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.”

Nazi comparisons serve the rhetorical purpose of designating one’s political opponents as acceptable targets for extreme, even violent, actions.

Dale reviews Berg’s Liberty, Equality & Democracy and discusses how some people think they should rule over others “for their own good.”

Violence isn’t a proper response to losing an election, and using the law to coerce one’s political enemies isn’t a proper response to winning one.

Dale argues we need a Hayekian social safety net to prevent infanticide.

Dale tells the history of the legal presumption of innocence, and connects the “just world” fallacy and the legal status of women and minorities.

Dale argues that wonkish modern politics fails to interest people because political debate isn’t easily turned into narrative.