Law

Philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe questioned the legitimacy of the state, but left open a possible justification for its existence. Dr. David Gordon examines Anscombe’s argument and finds it interesting but wanting.

Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables? Believe it or not, the US Supreme Court ruled on that question in 1893 in order to settle a tariff dispute over importation of tomatoes.

While the libertarian tradition of Murray Rothbard has supported individual rights, the modern idea of civil rights and the laws behind them are a different matter altogether.

Government not only has a monopoly on law enforcement and “justice,” but it also protects that monopoly against anyone who might seek justice outside the purview of the state. 

A foundational principle in financial accounting, corporate finance, and corporate law is that—despite jurisdictional divergences—there exists a conceptual distinction between natural persons (human beings) and juridical persons.

The popular game, Rock-Paper-Scissors, operates according to a firm set of rules. However, when government sets the rules or refuses to properly enforce rules, then so-called limited government simply turns into a government power play.

Peter Earle reviews Money and the Rule of Law: Generality and Predictability in Monetary Institutions. This edited volume delivers a timely critique of the Federal Reserve's discretionary monetary policy, arguing that a binding legal structure is needed to check its mission creep.

Modern historians no longer seek historical truth but rather analyze history through series of politically-based narratives. But what happens when those narratives are effectively challenged? Mainstream historians then simply ignore the results and simply repeat what they have been saying.

When the legal scholar Richard Posner labeled Critical Race Theory as having a “lunatic core,” he was echoing what Ludwig von Mises years before had written about polylogism. Unfortunately, CRT now dominates the nation‘s law school curriculum.