Trevor Burrus offers some advice to those who want to argue against libertarianism.
Trevor Burrus is a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. His research interests include constitutional law, civil and criminal law, legal and political philosophy, and legal history. His work has appeared in the Vermont Law Review, the Syracuse Law Review, and the Jurist, as well as the Washington Times, Huffington Post, and the Daily Caller. He holds a BA in Philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a JD from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Burrus continues his discussion of whether libertarians should argue their cause on the basis of merit.
Trevor Burrus discusses his perspective and philosphical interests.
Burrus derides the self-aggrandizing, simplified arguements rampant in the media, arguing for greater introspection.
How should libertarians interact with politics?
Burrus draws an important distinction between merit and output and cautions libertarians from relying on merit-based arguments.
Burrus furthers the libertarian argument against the widely-held belief that we “all belong to government.”
Conservatives use the precautionary principle to justify domestic spying just as the left uses it to justify environmentalism. Neither is convincing.
When our first reaction is to bring in government, we stop asking the hard questions.
How Star Wars explains our troubling presidential race.
If you think certain policies will lead to a bad outcome, it doesn’t mean supporters of those policies intend that bad outcome.
Saying people have a right to health care is based on a conceptual confusion.
Anti-gun and anti-immigrant sentiments are driven by disgust and tribal signaling, not evidence and sound argumentation.
It’s not worth getting your hands dirty to do something so ineffective.