Ralph Raico points out in his incisive introduction to this fiftieth anniversary edition of The Roosevelt Myth that many take sharp criticism of FDR to constitute sacrilege against the civic religion of the United States.
This is a favorable review (yes, I sometimes write them) but it is one I fear the authors will not entirely like.
I am most grateful to Virginia Postrel. In this issue of The Mises Review, I have not had the opportunity to write a really negative review.
Paul Krugman is an eminent economist, but he here reveals a woefully inadequate understanding of Austrian business cycle theory. The rudiments of the theory are easy one might have thought that even a Keynesian could grasp them.
Professor Hans Hoppe, in his outstanding new introduction to the reissue of The Ethics of Liberty, hits the nail on the head. He contrasts Murray Rothbard with Robert Nozick. Nozick, according to Hoppe, is impressionistic and given to flights of fancy. Rothbard, by contrast, reasons by strict deduction from self-evident axioms.
Professor Brzezinski displays in this book an inordinate fondness for intellectual games. A minor and forgivable weakness, you might think.
Conservatives, at least since the "Impeach Earl Warren" days, have viewed the Supreme Court with less than full enthusiasm. Are we too critical?
Part of the fun of studying philosophy is that it is a very difficult, technical subject. If you know the meaning of "rigid designator," the "inscrutability of reference," and the "private-language argument,"
This, I am afraid, is an almost perfectly useless book. Its main thesis may be stated quite simply. White liberals have abandoned the true goals of the civil rights movement
In November 1996, the journal First Things published a symposium that sharply criticized recent federal court decisions on abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual rights.
