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.
Gordon Tullock is a difficult author to review. His books are filled with an almost unlimited profusion of ideas.
In a brief article, appearing in the form of a letter to his friend Gordon Craig, the eminent diplomat and historian George Kennan reverses an all-too-common view of twentieth-century European history.
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.
In November 1996, the journal First Things published a symposium that sharply criticized recent federal court decisions on abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual rights.
Michael Levin has gotten himself into enormous trouble with his fellow philosophers by adhering to a standard maxim in the philosophy of science.
Have another look at that subtitle. It suggests that readers of Foundations of Austrian Economics are in for a long haul, and I fear that expectation is correct.
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?
