The USSR tried to plan its economy without prices for capital goods. It failed, vindicating the scholarship of Ludwig von Mises.
If you think certain policies will lead to a bad outcome, it doesn’t mean supporters of those policies intend that bad outcome.
Smith details the scholarly debate between Lysander Spooner and Wendell Phillips over the constitutionality of slavery.
I am Jack’s being-for-itself.
Feudalism was, in a significant sense, private and contractual rather than public; that doesn’t make it libertarian.
Smith provides some background on Spooner’s influential book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
The Constitution stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Religious toleration took different paths in different parts of colonial America.
Thomas Jefferson’s ideas on religious freedom were heavily influenced by John Locke.
Reiger begins a series discussing the Founders’ approach to Islam and religious freedom.
Smith discusses the schism in the abolitionist movement over the constitutionality of slavery, and he begins his analysis of Lysander Spooner’s arguments in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
Smith summarizes Lysander Spooner’s objections to the most popular arguments in favor of the prohibition of alcohol.
Adin Ballou’s Hopedale Community was committed to proto-libertarian positions on the state’s use of violence and the individual’s responsibility not to participate in state violence.
Natural rights are an essential part of the liberal tradition.
Smith discusses the influence of puritanism, the religious revival in the early 19th century, and Spooner’s disagreements with Christian ethics.
Smith explains some reasons why the temperance movement switched from advocating voluntary methods to calling for coercive prohibitory laws during the 1830s.
Smith continues his discussion of Lysander Spooner’s objections to confusing vices with crimes.
Nazi comparisons serve the rhetorical purpose of designating one’s political opponents as acceptable targets for extreme, even violent, actions.