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.
George H. Smith explains how Locke dealt with some problems in the traditional Christian theory of private property.
Woodbury argues that the Dorr “War” presented no real threat to the Charter government and their declaration of martial law was made in error.
Michael Douma and Phil Magness join us to discuss their new book What is Classical Liberal History?
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.
“Ideal theory” political philosophy, like that of Rawls, glosses over the core problems with social democracy and other forms of statism.
Eamonn Butler joins us to discuss his new book Ayn Rand: An Introduction.
In 1849, the US Supreme Court decided that might makes right—The only legitimate institutions are those with enough power to defend themselves.
Rounding out his history of the Early Modern period, Condorcet explains the linkages between philosophy and politics on both ends of the Atlantic.
George H. Smith discusses Robert Nozick’s criticisms of Locke’s property theory.
When it comes to state and corporate power, the difference is one in kind, not of degree.
David M. Hart joins us to discuss his latest book, Social Class and State Power.
Horton was a clear example of black Americans’ “nation within a nation,” contributing to wider American life while retaining unique experience.
How was the abolitionist Moncure Conway widely criticized by other American abolitionists for his peace proposal that would end the Civil War?
Keith E. Whittington joins us to discuss his book Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech.
For many women, resisting oppression meant turning a critical eye toward religious authorities.
Dale considers how two political thinkers engage with some concrete policy questions, informed by scientific findings but applying Hume’s Guillotine.