Law

The current outburst of protests against President Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws is overshadowing a question that is not being asked: Can we defend having national borders in the first place?

The American empire—with its global military footprint and permanent war economy—cannot be financed through honest taxation without provoking revolt.

The Civil Rights Act, first passed in 1964, is falsely connected with freedom. In reality, this law severely restricts individual liberty and replaces it with coercive government acts.

The Civil Rights Act, first passed in 1964, is falsely connected with freedom. In reality, this law severely restricts individual liberty and replaces it with coercive government acts.

The American empire—with its global military footprint and permanent war economy—cannot be financed through honest taxation without provoking revolt.

Needless to say, Don Lemon does not understand the First Amendment, let alone Rothbard’s property rights argument regarding speech.

Liberty often dies to thunderous applause. At a recent graduation ceremony at one of Latin America’s oldest and most prestigious law schools, young lawyers applauded a vision of authority in which law no longer operates as a limit on power, but as its instrument.

While libertarians like to think of political libertarianism as a peculiarly western concept, it turns out that classical Daoist thinkers wrote about state power in a way that would seem to channel none other than Murray Rothbard.

Many progressives believe that certain kind of speech, or what they call “hate speech,” should be subject to criminal penalties, including imprisonment. Murray Rothbard understood that such laws would destroy our very freedoms.

Although some scholars have labeled the early Ming Dynasty as a proto-liberal state, they are mistaken. The Ming governance at that time was weak, not limited by law and ideology.