This essay presents a conceptual and moral rather than an economic analysis of “baby-selling.” Its purpose is to address certain fundamental issues concerning the moral status of children, the moral basis of the family, the moral propriety of commerce, and the ways in which these moral presuppositions and principles find expression in law and social institutions.
This paper will examine the CIA’s role in the international power struggle by briefly outlining the formation and early history of the CIA, then by discussing the developments of the last twenty years that led to the crisis, and next by examining the early attempts at control and reform. Finally I will outline and assess the various policy options: from the cold warriors who want to return to the old Allen Dulles CIA to the humanists who believe that any covert activity is immoral and must be outlawed.
Libertarians, if they care to examine the subject, will discover that they have a rich historical tradition in the English and American antislavery movements. The libertarian tradition in antislavery thought may be concisely summed up: In Favorem Libertalis — In Favor of Liberty. No one familiar with this tradition could fail to identify Granville Sharp (1735-1813) as one of its first and greatest expositors and coadjutors.
Historians increasingly recognize the important role that considerations of foreign policy played in shaping the Constitution.’ Leading Federalists, many of whom had had experience abroad negotiating treaties or procuring foreign loans, were acutely sensitive to the demands of power politics and were determined to see the states united under a strong, “energetic” government that could command the respect of all potential enemies.
In his book Principles of Morals and Legislation, the eighteenth-century philosopher and legislator Jeremy Bentham divided all laws into three kinds: (1) laws designed to protect you from harm caused by other people; (2) laws designed to protect you from harm caused by yourself; and (3) laws requiring you to help and assist others. Bentham held that only the first kind of laws were legitimate; and in general libertarians would agree with him.
Professor David Gordon gives his critique of John Hospers’ “Libertarianism and Legal Paternalism” paper published in The Journal of Libertarian Studies.
The major claim in this paper is that there is a distinct ambiguity in the way in which H. L. A. Hart employs the concept of authority in his account of the nature of law. It is a flaw in Hart’s thesis that surprisingly few philosophers of law have detected. Perhaps this is because they share his view that the concept of authority is inherent in the very idea of law. The results of my research suggest that their view might be mistaken.
In an article on Ludwig von Mises,’ Professor R. A. Gonce has performed a remarkable feat: for he has ascribed to a writer who has had nothing but scorn for natural law, a system of economics grounded on such an ethical philosophy -and as a corollary, he has attributed a fusion of the is and the ought to one of the most uncompromising champions of Max Weber’s stern call for Wertfreiheit in the social sciences.
Traffic congestion reaches into all aspects of living: working, shopping, recreation. It insidiously cripples the ability of people to coordinate activities with one another, as it becomes virtually impossible to make exact appointments —a broad interval of time is usually the best that can be planned on.
Those who deny that the provision of protection services could be supplied through either the market or some other nonmonopolistic device must therefore endorse some sort of state. And those within that group who maintain that the provision of such services to everyone within a given territory is the only proper function of government must therefore advocate a minimal, or laissez-faire, state.
