George H. Smith concludes the series with a look at Roy Childs’s evolving views on anarchism.
George H. Smith
George H. Smith was formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer Seminars, and Executive Editor of Knowledge Products. Smith's fourth and most recent book, The System of Liberty, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013.
George H. Smith tackles several misconceptions about the theory of anarchism—and contrasts it with the condition of anarchy.
George H. Smith turns to what may be Roy Childs’s most recognized role in the libertarian movement: book reviewer.
“The idea of value has different meanings as used in different intellectual disciplines, [and] a common meaning…does not exist.”
Jefferson drew on a rich intellectual tradition when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. But did he also draw directly from contemporary works?
“To some modern academics…a person intellectually committed to uncompromising liberty and justice is inconceivable.”
“The Age of Reason is perhaps the finest deistic piece ever penned.”
George Smith discusses Adam Smith’s views on a standing army and his arguments for competition in education.
George Smith explores Adam Smith’s views on Columbus, smuggling, and education.
George Smith discusses Adam Smith’s views on sin taxes and slavery.
George Smith discusses some of Adam Smith’s social, political, and moral objections to governmental interference in the economy, as found in the Wealth of Nations.
Smith discusses the significant role played by John Chapman in the lives of Herbert Spencer, George Eliot, and G. H. Lewes.
Smith criticizes an influential book by Mark Francis, Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life.
Smith discusses the complex personal relationships among three leading classical liberals in Victorian England.
Smith compares the positions of Hodgskin and Smith on the history of landownership, and their opposition to the political power of the landed aristocracy.
Smith discusses the common allegation that Spencer took many of his ideas from Hodgskin without acknowledging their source.
Smith concludes his in-depth examination of Spencer’s fundamental objection to the private ownership of land.