Join our mailing list

* indicates required

Liberty and Power

first 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 last


  • Panarchical Panegyric

    by Roderick T. Long

    It’s often been speculated that Paul-Émile de Puydt’s 1860 essay Panarchy might have been influenced by his fellow Belgian Gustave de Molinari’s similar ideas about competitive security services in his 1849 works The Production of Security and Soirées on the Rue Saint-Lazare.

    Well, I don’t have new light on that question, exactly, but I have discovered that De Puydt’s essay received a highly favourable review in a journal edited by Molinari. I’ve just translated and posted the review, here. 


  • Finalists Announced for the Prometheus Awards (Pro-Liberty!)

    by Amy H. Sturgis

    The Libertarian Futurist Society will present its Prometheus Awards ceremony Labor Day weekend at the World Science Fiction Convention. Winners for Best Novel and Best Classic Fiction (Hall of Fame) will be presented in San Antonio, Texas at LoneStarCon3, the 71st Annual World Science Fiction Convention to be held from August 29th through September 2, 2013.

  • Get the Name Right

    by Sheldon Richman

    NBC chief diplomatic stenographer Andrea Mitchell noted yesterday that President Obama embarks today on his visit to Israel and the West Bank. This is incorrect. Obama will visit Israel and Israeli-occupied Palestine. The state of Palestine declared independence almost 25 years ago and has since been recognized by 131 of the UN's 193 member states. That the U.S. government doesn't recognize Palestine is part of its long-standing policy of enabling Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.


  • Is Marijuana Medicine?

    by Keith Halderman

    That question has received a very thoughtful and l think positive reply (http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/03/02/is-marijuana-a-medicine/?singlepage=true on the conservative website PJ Media and I see this as a very good sign.. Historically the notion of drug prohibition including medicines such as opium has been in the program of the Progressives while Libertarians and even some Conservatives have opposed it.. Perhaps the most eloquent and effective person on the subject was William F. Buckley
     


  • Only Places Have Rights?

    by Wendy McElroy

    A new article of mine entitled "Only Places Have Rights?" has just been posted at the Daily Anarchist. You are most cordially invited to leave comments or questions at the end of the article. I will answer as time permits. Click here to access.

    Excerpt: Geography is a peculiar way to think about rights. But the rights that people can exercise are being increasingly defined by the square foot of earth they happen to stand on. These ‘rights’ can change in the course of a two-minute walk. I am not referring to the fact that various nations recognize rights in widely different ways. Nor do I refer to the rules of conduct laid down by property owners for anyone who wants to enter their homes or businesses. I mean the steady curtailing of the legal and Constitutionally-protected rights that peaceful people are allowed to exercise in public places. From free-speech zones at universities to the “cages” into which protesters are frequently forced, the ability to exercise fundamental rights in public places (and sometimes private ones) is being narrowed down geographically.

    Britain seems to be leading the way for America.


  • The Real Reason for the Drug War

    by Keith Halderman

    Various sources of information such as the United States Congress, the British public, and the Mayor of New York are indicating this week that we are finally understanding that when he had employee Winifred Black write in her 1932 book Dope the Story of the Living Dead, “The man who smokes hashish runs through the streets hacking and killing everyone he meets”, William Randolph Hearst was not trying to help or protect people, he was just trying to sell newspapers. 


  • Saul Alinsky's Rules

    by Lester Hunt

          I don't know why people think this is a good thing. Just look at rules 4 and 5 and think about them in terms of the rules of rational discourse. This is the next step down into Civility Hell.

  • Saul Alinsky's Rules

    by Lester Hunt

     I don't know why people think this is a good thing. Just look at rules 4 and 5 and think about them in terms of the rules of rational discourse. This is the next step down into Civility Hell.  Three and a half years ago, I blogged about "the book" and I don't think I can improve on what I said then about why it is evil and will do this nation harm.  (Note that it doesn't matter who is following these rules -- it is the rules themselves that are unjust and irrational.)  Here is what I  said:

  • Saul Alinsky's Rules

    by Lester Hunt

     I don't know why people think this is a good thing. Just look at rules 4 and 5 and think about them in terms of the rules of rational discourse. This is the next step down into Civility Hell.  Three and a half years ago, I blogged about "the book" and I don't think I can improve on what I said then about why it is evil and will do this nation harm.  (Note that it doesn't matter who is following these rules -- it is the rules themselves that are unjust and irrational.)  Here is what I  said:

  • The Only Opposition Response

    by Keith Halderman

    Since the Republican Party establishment will accept and secretly welcome Barack Obama's proposals for increasing the size and scope of government this speech by Rand Paul is the only legitimate answer to our President’s State of the Union attempt to grab even more power.


  • The Danger is Government

    by Keith Halderman

    Were the Jewish people living in Germany in 1933 being paranoid and delusional, the way many people who are concerned about Second Amendment rights are being described now, when they feared they would be killed by their own government? In this video where Walter Williams talks about the true purpose of  the Second Amendment he asks the question are we in any less of a threat of tranny from our government in Washington than we were in 1787? History is absolutely clear on this point the, answer is yes. Many people have observed time and time again that when government says it is doing something for your own good it is not telling us the truth. The 20th century state has shown itself to be the greatest killer of all time.


  • Oswald Garrison Villard Audio from 1940

    by David T. Beito

    This is a real treat.  Here is an audio from 1940 of the great classical liberal, free trader, and co-founder of the NAACP, Oswald Garrison Villard discussing Franklin D. Roosevelt's national defense program.


  • Oswald Garrison Villard (Audio of Debate from 1940)

    by David T. Beito

    This is a real treat. In this audio of a debate from 1940, the great classical liberal anti-imperialist, free trader, and co-founder of the NAACP Oswald Garrison Villard discusses Roosevelt's national defense program.


  • Supreme Court Rules: Social Security is NOT a Binding Contract

    by Jonathan J. Bean

    This post was prompted by all-too-common opinions expressed in Randall Holcombe's recent "Federal Government Debt Undermines the Programs It Finances" blog. The respondents passionately insist that Social Security is a contract, whatever you do to the budget, do not touch Social Security. "I paid in and it is a contract. They owe me."

    The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1960! Even more to the point, the Social Security Administration mocks those who think it is a binding contract. On the SSA's own web site, it states:

    "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense."


  • Did the Government Drive Aaron Swartz to Suicide?

    by Sheldon Richman

     

    My latest op-ed explores the case of Aaron Swartz, the programming prodigy and Internet freedom activist who faced 35 years in prison before taking his own life this month.

first 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 last