Three decades ago, I published “Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?” The answer I gave is that we do not, that government only substitutes one kind of anarchy for another. In this paper I revisit the eponymous question, drawing on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, as well as several contemporary scholars, for support.
In attempting to promote the libertarian viewpoint, particularly in its anarchic variety, one is faced with a variety of problems. Some problems are theoretical and are well treated in the comprehensive literature; other problems, however, are practical or rhetorical and, while the theoretical problems (and their solution) are intrinsically the more important, it is vital that the practical/rhetorical problems be overcome if the theoretical points are to get a fair hearing. As human beings, we perceive and understand in accordance with our needs, our desires and our interests.
Immigration. The very use of the word is telling: since every immigrant is also an emigrant, why is the first term more frequently used? In the twentieth century, with the exception of countries under socialist regimes, it has typically been harder to move into a particular country than to leave it—but of course, since most of the earth is now under the control of states, leaving a country usually means having to be accepted into another.
In Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997) and Collapse (2005), Professor Jared Diamond argues that geography and environment are the “ultimate determinants” of the fates of societies
This paper examines Jared Diamond’s success in explaining the broad pattern of history within the context of geographical and environmental considerations.
According to the negative homesteading theory, one can come to own misery—a state of being, or about to be, attacked—which one cannot legitimately pass on to someone else, without his permission. Should one however try to forward this misery onto someone else, this person has the right to defend himself from the “forwarding of misery.” One has, however, not the right to initiate force against someone who only “holds” misery or has just been relieved of one’s misery.
Libertarians often point to “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” a famous essay in which economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850) makes perhaps the most important, if easily neglected, point in all of economics: to understand the economy properly we must consider not merely the immediate effects of a proposed government intervention on certain earmarked groups, but also its long-term effects on society as a whole.
The present paper defends the position of libertarian centrism, or libertarian purity (Gregory 2006), or plumb line libertarianism, vis-a-vis its two competitors for the libertarian mantle: left wing libertarianism and right wing libertarianism (Read 1998).
In this article I will revise Mises and Hayek’s thesis about the proper categories of economics. In their view, classical economics was successful in identifying the right concepts of economic science, but its aggregative (universalistic) and objective approach was not satisfactory.
In a free society, goods, capital, and people would enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement based on voluntary relationships and the respect for private property. There would be no borders beyond those established by individuals on their particular domain. This poses no problems or questions for libertarians. The problems and disagreements, however, arise with the welfare state.
It is evident that much of the debate in favor of unions is emotional. That is, the government and society at large has a duty to protect the poor and raise their standard of living. Unions are one of the tools to achieve this end and their power under law facilitates the process.
But what exactly are the legal rights of unions?
