Mises Review

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,

Professor Desai has given us two books in one: a new interpretation of Marxism, and a history of twentieth-century capitalism. I propose to concentrate, with one exception, on the first of these

The fame of this book's author baffles me. Professor Robert Dahl, now retired, was long ensconced in the Political Science Department of Yale University. 

Gene Callahan superbly executes a very difficult task. Wittgenstein famously said, "whatever can be said, can be said clearly"; but does this apply to economics?

The anthology collects a number of influential articles about equality, by such eminent philosophers as John Rawls, T.M. Scanlon, Derek Parfit, and G.A. Cohen. 

The Myth of Ownership stands out from most works of analytic philosophy. Usually, works by eminent philosophers cannot easily be dismissed. You may, for example, disagree with Rawls’s A Theory of Justice,

Why is The Real Lincoln so much superior to Harry Jaffa’s A New Birth of Freedom? Jaffa offers a purely textual study: he considers, as if he were dealing with Aristotle or Dante,

Charles Lindblom is at it again. In God and Man at Yale, William Buckley, Jr.’s indictment of leftist teaching at Yale University written half a century ago, a young teacher at the college was mentioned 

Robert Nelson tells us in Economics as Religion that modern economics is a branch of theology.1 In a book that shows his immense learning, Philip Mirowski presents an altogether different story of post-World War II economics.

Pat Buchanan’s remarkable book expresses a distinctively nationalist thesis; and, as a conscientious reviewer in good standing, I shall of course say something about it. But it is on a subordinate part of this thesis that I propose to concentrate

Paul Samuelson has been called many things in his long career, but never before to my knowledge a theologian. But according to Robert Nelson in this excellent book, modern economics is bound inextricably with religion; 

Classical liberals view the state with suspicion; indeed some, of whom Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe are examples, wish to do away with it altogether. However convincing the arguments for private-property anarchism, 

These two short books supplement each other and are best considered together. Mr. Chomsky is an assiduous collector of facts, many of them highly embarrassing to the U.S. government. Archbishop Williams,

The dust jacket of Mr. Kaplan's book made me suspicious. Henry Kissinger, that vest-pocket Bismarck, calls the book “one of the most thought-provoking and profound ... that I have ever read.”

Critics of Austrian economics often attack it as “armchair economics.” Instead of testable hypotheses, Mises and his followers offer us truths about the world based on allegedly self-evident axioms. 

Readers of this journal will probably be most interested in Nozick’s views on ethics, especially as they relate to libertarianism, and it is on these that I propose to concentrate.

Professor Fletcher’s book brings to mind a remark by Yvor Winters, in a review of C.S. Lewis’s English Literature in the Sixteenth Century. Winters praised Lewis for his grasp of the facts,

Professor Kirzner’s outstanding book "aims to present, in briefest outline ... the story of Mises in his role of economist" (emphasis removed). In this task, it is eminently successful. 

Like Gilbert Ryle, under whom he studied at Oxford, Antony Flew is ever alert to "systematically misleading expressions." Flew’s careful attention to the nuances of ordinary language, on full display in the present book,

Time has not been altogether kind to John Rawls. True enough, his A Theory of Justice has been the most widely acclaimed book in political philosophy since its publication thirty years ago.