Mises Review

Almost all academics, unless libertarians themselves, associate libertarianism with one person: the philosopher Robert Nozick. What better way, then, to arouse interest among students 

William Bennett has updated the paperback edition of his book with two new chapters, one of which demands that Saddam Hussein and all his works be eradicated. 

Gordon Graham challenges practically the whole of reigning orthodoxy in political philosophy in his remarkable book. To the bien pensants of political theory, "political participation" and "democratic decision-making"

It is always agreeable to be proved right. In an earlier review, I suggested that Thomas Sowell "had a genius for the striking fact and the apt analogy."

Professor Zuckert has taken on a task that not even his outstanding scholarly and philosophical abilities enable him to accomplish. 

As all readers of The Mises Review know, I always endeavor to avoid saying something bad about a book. But I cannot forbear from stating that Professor Honderich's book is a cheap and tawdry affair.

I expected better of John Milbank. He is a theologian of great distinction, the leading theorist of the influential Radical Orthodoxy movement. Would not so profound a thinker offer us illuminating ideas on economics?

Carl Schmitt offers a fundamental criticism of a way of thinking about politics and power. If he is right, some libertarians, among many others, have fallen victim to a radically misconceived view of political action, especially as regards war.

This book frightens me. The authors do not confine themselves to a justification of the American invasion of Iraq, which began shortly after their book was published.

The American Conservative is off to a brilliant start. Paul W. Schroeder's article is the best analysis I have seen of the current crisis in America's relations with Iraq.

Douglas Husak, a distinguished legal philosopher, presents in excellent fashion a key point about drug prohibition. He claims not to be a libertarian;

Hadley Arkes gives us too much of a good thing. He  argues, with great effectiveness, that legal thinkers today ignore the natural law basis that grounds human rights.

Paul Gottfried has seen an aspect of multiculturalism and political correctness that previous critics of these doctrines have failed adequately to stress. 

John Gray is Ayn Rand's nightmare come true. Once a classical liberal, he now finds the inanities of Tony Blair's "Third Way," as expounded by its oracle Anthony Giddens, more to his liking. 

Hilary Putnam ranks as one of the outstanding American philosophers of the twentieth century, but never before now has he shown any interest in economics.

Murray Rothbard had a remarkable ability to throw unexpected light on historical controversies. Again and again in his work, he pointed out factors that earlier authors had overlooked. 

Tom DiLorenzo is well able to look out for himself, but one comment in Ken Masugi's review of his book on Lincoln merits our attention. 

Professor Roth differs from most of his fellow economists. He finds the philosophical foundations of the standard model of welfare economics grossly deficient, and his book mounts a devastating criticism of the conventional view.

Most people regard John Stuart Mill as one of the great classical liberals of the nineteenth century. Though Mill made unnecessary concessions to socialism, did he not in On Liberty defend without compromise personal liberty