A contributing problem of the 1990s economic boom was ideological, and it is one that still persists in the aftermath, writes Christopher Mayer. It was a cultural error that made a hero out of a Fed Chairman and that put so much faith in the Fed to begin with, at the expense of sound economics.
When some left-wing acti-vists recently began their What Would Jesus Drive? campaign against sport utility vehicles, the first reaction of most folks—and especially libertarians—was a simple, "Are these people really serious?"
It is slowly dawning on people that to understand George W., one must understand his religious impulses, which all evidence suggests are intensely important to him. His views are no different from that of the typical evangelical who absorbed his faith from the American Baptist culture. But they merit closer attention when they are held by an arrogant man with his finger on the button and who is contemplating total war.
Cobden saw that free trade was the key to peace and material prosperity, as evidenced by England's economic growth and rise to world leadership in virtually all aspects of trade—finance, insurance, shipping, etc.—after the Corn Law repeal. But more than this, Cobden emphasized the injustice of protectionism.
People frequently refer to government policies as paternalistic—either to justify or criticize them. But there is no analogy between a family and government.
If the pundits and politicians ever succeed in imposing the draft again on American citizens, for purposes of bolstering the military empire or doing social work, writes Jeffrey Tucker, they will have to look for support outside the libertarian tradition. Mises is not enlisted in this cause.
Noam Chomsky is an outstanding critic. But figuring out what he is for in the realm of economics is not easy. He doesn't like what we have now. He disfavors Stalinism and fascism. He despises the libertarian alternative to the present regime. That leaves him with a hazy and unworkable syndicalism.
The fate of families and children in Sweden shows the truth of Ludwig von Mises's observation that "no compromise" is possible between capitalism and socialism, writes Allan Carlson. He shows how the welfare state's growth can be viewed as the transfer of the "dependency" function from families to state employees. The process began in 19th-century Sweden.
Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. But medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.
