The literature of American legal history is primarily a history of federal and state governments, creating the false impression that these governments have produced and enforced all relevant law. Indeed, there seems to be a widely held belief that law and order could not exist in a society without the organized authoritarian institutions of the state.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the monetary philosophies of some of the leading Jacksonian economic theorists, as revealed during their opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. The analysis will be conducted from an Austrian school monetary framework, because its proponents have developed the theory of money to the fullest extent and have done the most to show the destructive effects of central and fractional-reserve banking. In addition, the importance of the Jacksonian victory will be put into historical perspective.
In this article, Professor Barry Smith presents a series of questions and theories in defense of apriorism.
Michael Levin’s Feminism and Freedom is the work of a supremely courageous individual. Women’s liberation has so permeated the universities that any attack on this philosophy is bound to create personal difficulties for a male author.
Prior to World War I, liberals held two guiding principles: distrust of Big Business and opposition to war. As the approach of World War II darkened the political horizon, the American Left’s hatred of capitalism and embrace of “democracy” overwhelmed its traditional abhorrence of war.
Among serious readers of his work, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) is known as an analyst of the European sovereign state. From the 1920s on he wrote extensively on this entity, examining the historical context that gave rise to it and the legal arrangements it incorporated. He viewed the sovereign state as a legacy threatened by the emergence of new historical configurations.
No fledgling feeds the father bird,
No chicken feeds the hen—
No kitten mouses for the cat,
This glory is for men.
We are the Wisest, Strongest Race—
Loud may our praise be sung!
The only animal alive
That lives upon its young.
Salim Rashid (1990) purports to have established some facts about Adam Smith’s scholarship, significant among which are (a) Smith’s plagiarism, (b) the poor quality of Smith’s arguments or ideas compared with those of his predecessors or contemporaries, and (c) Smith’s inconsistent arguments regarding laissez faire. Alas, Rashid’s case is faulty, as well as often misleading and vexatious.
In describing Adam Smith’s acknowledgments as “neo-plagiarism” (Rashid, 1990), was trying to characterize a situation where a scholar either borrows ideas from others but provides no acknowledgment, or had access to fruitful and important ideas yet seems to have ignored them.
