Free Markets

Probably not.

Most must first be brought to understand liberty far better before they can love it.

Often, supporters of a complete free market must face the objection that, without government welfare, some people could not survive. The standard reply to this is that, in a free market, private charity would attend to these people. Lewis's ingenious idea gives us a way gradually to approach a fully private system.

I am all in favor of innovation, but I just can't call it innovation if government force is pushing it down the market's throat.

Yes, we do pay taxes. And, perhaps, "everyone does it." But I believe that as libertarians, we should never do anything to support the validity of these programs — and "getting back what's mine" is not only a fallacy but a way for the state to add you to the rolls of "those who needed this program."

Bruno Leoni makes it clear that any politician who will not reduce the reach of legislation cannot protect our liberty.

As every flood and government response since has made clear, government only wastes resources when it attempts to prevent floods while it continues to increase the danger and destructiveness of future floods.

State economic development agencies stand athwart this minarchist ideal. Their increased prominence today is just the latest form of mercantilism that classical economists rightly opposed in the past.

Of course, legalization would not entirely eliminate the black market demand for pot, but it would certainly be preferable to today's blanket, though thoroughly ineffective, expensive and impotent, criminal prohibition.

The unhampered market has the power to resolve its "defects."