In a few short weeks, Donald Trump will assume the presidency. On executive orders, judicial appointments, political obstructionism, infrastructure spending, and war-making powers, rest assured: flips will be flopped, shoes will make their way onto the other foot, turnabout will be fair play, and libertarians of all stripes will be there to point out the hypocrisy.
Dr. Stephen Davies asked a key question: for any proposed foreign intervention, which course of action maximizes liberty? He argues that it is rare for the benefits to be greater than the cost to human rights. He also addresses the question of consequences to both the countries acting and those being acted on.
Trump doesn’t seem like the type for self-improvement, but here are four unsolicited recommendations anyway.
So 2016 is limping to an end with an assassination of an ambassador, another “inspired” attack on innocents at a Christmas market, and the formal election of a master crony-capitalist to the office of the presidency of the United States.
2016 was a wild ride, and we’re grateful to fans like you who watched, commented, and shared along the way. Check out the links below to see our top 10 most popular videos from this year: Economics: Is Raising Minimum Wage A Bad Idea? How Big is the U.S. Debt? Government Surveillance: We’re Being Watched […]
As Tyler Cowen puts it, in many ways “this is the real Star Wars movie that many of you have been waiting for.”
There are books that every libertarian should read and books every libertarian has read, but those circles don’t perfectly overlap. Here are 13 diverse book recommendations for well-rounded thinkers.
Personhood is a moral concept, related to the notion of individuality.
Now that the Electoral College has made Trump’s 2016 win final, this a good time to start thinking about what powers he will have when he comes into office in January.
“In no way did America’s Founders — especially those men who drafted and ratified the First Amendment — desire to build a wall of separation between church and state.” — Mark Hall
“There’s this big shuffling of the deck going on in most western democracies,” says Professor Steve Davies, on the global political realignment of globalists vs. nationalists.
Here at Learn Liberty, we like an optimistic muffin with our bitter coffee, so we took the liberty of compiling a naughty and nice list for the holiday season.
The Cato Institute has released Policing in America—an extensive national public opinion report that explores Americans’ attitudes toward the police based on an original Cato Institute/YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans.
Trump’s victory has triggered a spate of post-hoc analysis about what went wrong. One of the major narratives to take root is that Trump’s win was fueled by a rejection of PC culture and identity politics broadly.
The following words represent the generally acknowledged mindset of a bureaucrat: “Rules are rules, fella. I don’t make ‘em. I just enforce ‘em.”
Now is the time to defend the liberty that makes possible a global civilization that enables friendship, family, cooperation, trade, mutual benefit, science, wisdom — in a word, life — and to challenge the modern anti-libertarian triumvirate and reveal the emptiness at its heart.
In 1950, a British dry cleaner refused to show his papers and brought down the whole system of national identity registration.
Let’s say that you’re a policymaker interested in reducing the size of government. Strategically, is it easier to cut government regulation or roll back the welfare state (thereby reducing government spending)?
This past week, I was on a panel for a Senate Hill Briefing entitled “Should compensation for bone marrow donors be legal?”
I argue that freedom of association is absolutely critical to sustaining relations of social trust across difference, even if it allows people to retreat further into their echo chambers.
Classical liberals all agree that government should be limited, but they disagree about how they get to that conclusion.
If you ask most people what classical liberalism is, they’ll say that it’s essentially free-market economics. But that’s a rather impoverished and narrow idea.
John Rawls famously argues that we should think about principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance.” How robust would you like the protection of religious freedom to be if you had no idea whether you turn out to be a Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.? How would you like income to be distributed if […]
Would you tell a lie to protect someone from harm?