For more than a century, modern societies have operated on a remarkably persistent assumption: that greater administrative capacity inevitably yields better outcomes. More information, more regulation, more coordination, and more sophisticated planning are widely believed to generate greater prosperity, security, and ultimately greater human progress. This conviction has become so deeply embedded in contemporary governance that it is rarely questioned.

As Murray Rothbard pointed out again and again, the government has no business getting involved in education. In a free market society, people are at liberty to establish whatever educational institutions they wish, and so long as they can secure sufficient funding, they will stay in business. They are free to set up their own standards on whom to hire as faculty. Matters are entirely different if the government gets involved. Then, people must conform to its demands, whether they want to or not.

A man told the police he feared being “swatted” by scammers. The cops ignored this and attacked the innocent man instead. 

The expression “revisionist history” is often understood negatively and used as a pejorative. It often denotes history that is seen as highly selective, biased, and superficial. On the other hand, there is a positive side of revisionist history. On the positive side, all history involves revision to some extent because history is necessarily selective and requires interpretation with regard to significance.