Menger argues that Smith inflated the importance of the division of labor—rather, our mastery of cause and effect is the greatest source of wealth.
Menger’s theory of the good rests on subjective values and the causal chain connecting material objects with the fulfilment of human needs.
Locke shows his true purposes—On the ruins of Robert Filmer, he intends to erect his own justification for the modern state.
By reducing transaction costs, the economy of the future will decentralize workplaces and transform ownership of consumer goods.
For those interested in history, Menger’s Principles of Economics offers a way to unify gritty historical experience with pure economic theory.
Locke cautions that the problem with Filmer’s absolutism is that it allows wild-eyed, levelling revolutionaries an in-road to reform.
Though Locke was no feminist, neither did he believe husbands had absolute rights over their wives, nor fathers over their children.
To begin our series on the book that practically made modern political philosophy, we join Locke in demoting Adam from global dictator to mere father.
Whipple ends her feat of mediumship by chastising her audience for holding up a mere piece of paper as an idol worthy of thoughtless devotion.
Channeling the spirit of Union Col. E. D. Baker, Frances Whipple became one of the earliest prominent voices for abolition in California politics.
From the Wisconsin territorial capitol, Abram D. Smith captivated his audience with tales of an electrified future of global republicanism.
Condorcet ends his greatest work with the confident assertion that progress cannot be stopped.
In a parallel to Prohibition, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act will backfire by boosting demand for black market sex trafficking.
Though our author wrote in hiding from a terroristic regime, his saw unlimited potential for human accomplishment.
Like many of us, Condorcet got a bit carried away with praise for the Enlightenment. Unlike many of us, he tempered it with a dose of realism.
Justice Woodbury concludes his dissent by arguing that the states cannot usurp Congress’s power to declare war in order to prevent political change.
Woodbury argues that the Dorr “War” presented no real threat to the Charter government and their declaration of martial law was made in error.
In his dissent from Taney’s opinion, Justice Woodbury began by agreeing that the Dorr War was a political matter best left out of the courts.