The experience of "regime change" in Iraq raises fundamental questions about political economy and philosophy. For example, the looting and vandalizing that occurred after the military defeat of the Saddam Hussein government in Baghdad has been cited as proof of the necessity of a state. Hans Hoppe refutes the idea.
Why did Hayek see the economy's capital structure as being so central to our understanding of industrial fluctuations? Just how did his ideas line up against those being developed by John Maynard Keynes? And why did Hayek eventually all but abandon the research program that had so energized him in those early years? Roger Garrison explains.
The Principality of Liechtenstein is a small State in Central Europe, situated between Austria and Switzerland. Though its geographical location and diminutive size make it a somewhat anonymous State, its independent political climate gives rise to an exemplary model for the study of political and economic phenomena. But it is under serious attack today.
Boycotters do not wish to target only business firms; they also are trying to influence the political process by directing political campaigns against people and causes that the pressure groups want to marginalize. William Anderson is fed up.
Can a few courageous writers like Tom DiLorenzo and his colleagues, using logic, evidence, and moral suasion, negate what their opponents thought they had won with over a million troops on battlefields 138 years ago?
"Iraq must be democratic," says the first point in the new U.S.-backed plan for Iraq's future. Had West Germany taken this route after the Second World War, writes D.W. MacKenzie, it would not have benefited from free markets and the prosperity that followed in its wake.
When impoverished ethnic majorities are empowered by the sudden introduction of full blown democracy, they fall prey with discouraging regularity to demagogues who incite them against the often conspicuous disparity of welfare and privilege between them and the small, exclusive ethnic minorities.
Professor Zuckert has taken on a task that not even his outstanding scholarly and philosophical abilities enable him to accomplish.
Carl Schmitt offers a fundamental criticism of a way of thinking about politics and power. If he is right, some libertarians, among many others, have fallen victim to a radically misconceived view of political action, especially as regards war.
As all readers of The Mises Review know, I always endeavor to avoid saying something bad about a book. But I cannot forbear from stating that Professor Honderich's book is a cheap and tawdry affair.
