Smith explains how questions like “Why should I be rational?” and “Why should I be moral?” involve a bait and switch tactic.
McElroy’s book ignores important sources that would undermine her views.
Smith explains the value of Neo-Thomistic books for libertarians and Randians, and what is meant by the virtue of reasonableness.
Smith explores the nature of belief, knowledge, ethics, the difference between moral and prudential decisions, and some ideas about virtue.
Should we apply moral judgments, such as “immoral,” to beliefs per se? Smith begins his discussion of this difficult problem.
In considering constitutional questions, libertarians shouldn’t let the text come before justice and liberty.
Living well requires autonomy and reality-orientation.
Smith discusses some of Kant’s ideas about the moral, political, and practical aspects of perpetual peace.
What we know of Socrates comes second-hand. How much is true?
Smith explains Kant’s notion of the “unsocial sociability” of human nature, and how these antagonistic tendencies generate human progress.
Should we just do whatever we can get away with, justice be damned?
In the Enlightenment natural law tradition, we can discern what rights we have by reason alone.
Pamela Hobart reviews William Irwin’s book The Free Market Existentialist: Capitalism without Consumerism.
Several different views on justice were adopted by—or at least attributed to—the Sophists.
Though he was misled by the labor theory of value, much of Ingalls’s thought is right at home in the libertarian tradition.
Most of what we know of the Sophists comes from their enemies. Who were they, really?
Smith explains Kant’s basic justification of government and why he opposed the rights of resistance and revolution.
Thucydides paints a nuanced picture of Athens, contrasting its domestic and foreign policies.