The journalist's skill as an observer can only take him so far, if he is observing with the wrong theory in mind. As Thomas Friedman's "Theory of Everything" shows, without the distinction between power and market—the very core of the libertarian idea—a theory of everything can easily turn into a theory of nothing.
In the games planners play, the model builder wins by outsmarting an opponent programmed to react in predictable ways. The conclusion is decided by the assumptions built into the system. If this is true in peace, it is all the more true in war. The game called "war" is no better at preparing central planners for real life than the game called "market."
Ah, the simplicity of demagogic populism, especially that of Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Moore. They haven't even bothered to notice that Dannon yogurt produces products in three U.S. plants (in Ohio, Texas, and Utah) and distributes them from five U.S. facilities (in Texas, California, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania).
The idea that commerce and war are allies is a complete perversion of the old liberal tradition. The first theorists of commerce from the 16th through the 18th centuries saw that a most meritorious aspect of commerce is its link to freedom and peace, that commerce made it possible for people to co-operate rather than fight. It made armaments and war less necessary, not more.
Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. But medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.
Most academics in the social sciences assume that civilization is saved by attacking such antiquated and anti-egalitarian notions as property rights and freedom of association, writes Chris Westley. This is notable because universities used to be concerned with the business of discovering and teaching the truth.
George Leef, in a review of Reassessing the Presidency, asks us to imagine the equivalent of the Academy Awards for American presidents. We have just gotten to the big moment. "And the Oscar for Greatest President goes to...Martin Van Buren?"
Those who have written in favor of distributism on moral grounds appear to revel in their ignorance of economics--as if a discipline devoted to the application of human reason to the problems of scarcity in the world could actually in itself be antagonistic to ethics and faith.
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's erudite study has changed my view of gun control. Before reading her book, I was inclined to see control in this way: Leaving aside questions about individual rights,
