America may be increasingly polarized—but the split is cultural, not ideological.
David S. D’Amato
David S. D’Amato is an attorney and adjunct law professor whose writing has appeared at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Future of Freedom Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Law and Liberty, the Foundation for Economic Education, and in major newspapers around the world. D’Amato is on the Board of Policy Advisors for the Heartland Institute and he is the Benjamin Tucker Research Fellow at the Molinari Institute’s Center for a Stateless Society. He earned a JD from New England School of Law and an LLM in Global Law and Technology from Suffolk University Law School.
It may be doing more harm than good.
Tarko’s book is “the best available introduction to the unique and remarkable thought of Elinor Ostrom.”
Where does Adam Smith fit into the history of economic and political thought? D’Amato surveys the disputed ideological territory.
D’Amato argues that Adam Smith’s role as a critic of incumbent mercantilist interests has been wrongly obscured by those who see him as aligned with the right.
A Review of Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World by Deirdre McCloskey
D’Amato reviews the third book in McCloskey’s Bourgeois Era trilogy.
D’Amato replies to Ryan Cooper’s essay “The Fraud of Classical Liberalism.”
There’s a long history of libertarian thought on the ethics and efficacy of voting.
What is the place of utilitarianism in the broader libertarian tradition?
D’Amato looks at the Garrisonians, the most diehard and arguably most consistently libertarian of the abolitionists.
The radical libertarian abolitionists thought it was senseless to attack slavery while defending the institutions that upheld it.
Adin Ballou’s Hopedale Community was committed to proto-libertarian positions on the state’s use of violence and the individual’s responsibility not to participate in state violence.
Gun rights are fundamentally about the balance of power between rulers and ruled, not questions of constitutional interpretation.
Though they don’t think there’s anything wrong with unequal wealth distribution per se, libertarians can and do criticize the unjust processes that can lead to inequality.
Tolstoy’s radical Christianity led him to a pacifistic, anarchistic political philosophy that rejected the state as incompatible with Christ’s teachings.
We reject the idea that some people are born superior to others, with a right to rule them. What, then, if anything, justifies a state’s power over its citizens?
In considering constitutional questions, libertarians shouldn’t let the text come before justice and liberty.
Jury nullification is the practice of a jury refusing to convict a defendant of violating a law the jurors view as unjust.