The revulsion felt by many towards the two major party candidates this election is more than just a matter of personal feelings. There is an economic basis for the apprehensions that most people feel towards Trump and Clinton.

Free trade is essential for prosperity. Free trade allows the employment of people in different nations to shift towards areas of highest productivity. Economists have known about the advantages of free trade for centuries. In 1817 David Ricardo explained how free trade allows an international division of labor according to “comparative advantage.”

Harvey Cox has had a remarkable career as a theologian. He became famous with The Secular City, published in 1965; and fifty years later — he is now eighty-seven — he is still writing. His latest book displays both the virtues and defects characteristic of his work. He has read widely and often makes insightful remarks; but he lacks depth and analytical rigor.

The combined debt held by U.S. public pension plans will top $1.7 trillion next year, according to a just-released report from Moody’s Investors Services.

[A Selection from Libertarian Review, August 1978.]

If victory is indeed our given end, an end given to us by the requirements of justice, then we must strive to achieve that end as rapidly as we can.

But this means that libertarians must not adopt gradualism as part of their goal; they must wish to achieve liberty as early and as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, they would be ratifying the continuation of injustice. They must be “abolitionists.”

The 2016 presidential circus isn’t over with yet, but no matter the result it has already proven to be a frustrating electoral season for libertarians. Both Senator Rand Paul’s and former Governor Gary Johnson’s campaigns have disappointed most of their respective bases, and it now seems uncertain whether Johnson will achieve the 5% national goal the Libertarian Party to help them in future campaigns. What lessons should libertarians learn?

[This article is adapted from “The Ethics of Whistleblowing“ which is Part I of a two-part analysis of ethical and legal questions pertaining to whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing. The second part of the analysis is here.]