One of the worst novels of the nineteenth century, aesthetically and politically, is Julius Vogel’s Anno Domini 2000 (1889). It is stylistically absurd because the author was a statesman with no literary prowess. It is appalling politically because it envisions a future in which the British Empire survives into the second millennium. It remains in print to this day.
People tend to think of a fair justice system as one of the cornerstones of a free and flourishing society. Yet most of us are resigned to the idea that it can only be delivered at the hands of the state. Rather than just accepting the status quo, perhaps we should question whether states are appropriate administrators of justice at all, and instead consider whether a state-free or libertarian approach to justice could work.
300 years ago, on April 22, 1724, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg, East Prussia. He is not only an outstanding historical figure in philosophy, but Kant’s profound influence continues to shape modern philosophical discourse, resonating strongly even today.1
This article is based on chapter 8 of my 2020 book, Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the Voting Booth.
If someone asked you to define “free market,” could you? Could you do it on the spot without recourse to dictionaries or other crutches?
There’s no shortage of ill-informed criticisms of libertarian theory across all sides of the political spectrum. To most leftists, the libertarian is selfish, greedy, elitist, disdainful of the poor, and a useful idiot for big-business interests. To most right wingers, the libertarian is atomized, nihilistic, a hedonist, a materialist, a moral relativist, an egalitarian, and a naïve utopian who scorns tradition and religion.
Ludwig von Mises’s 1927 book Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition is increasingly important in a time when so many conflicting ideologies march under the banner of liberalism.
In a recent tweet, a talented financial analyst and investor stated: “The “debt is unsustainable” narrative has been around for 40 years plus. What’s astonishing to me is how the people who push this narrative never ask themselves, “Why has it been sustainable for so long?”.
There is a widespread idea that the fiscal imbalances of a world reserve currency issuer would end in an Argentina-style bankruptcy. However, the manifestation of unsustainability did not even appear as drastic in Argentina itself. Hey, Argentina continues to exist, doesn’t it?
