Law

While protecting “intellectual property” has a good sound to it — even among libertarians — such policies are harmful to authentic property rights. We need to pursue another path.

While defenders of democracy claim to hold fealty to the U.S. Constitution, they are quick to jettison it when they claim that democracy itself is in peril. David Gordon disagrees.

Social justice is a nonsensical term that interferes with the attempts to find authentic justice. It is not about equality so much as it is about imposing outcomes incompatible with a free society.

Progressives promote civil rights viewpoints as being “good for the whole” of society. Yet most of the modern civil rights movements and accompanying legislation simply promote the "good" of one group at the expense of others.

The 1866 civil rights law was historical not because it promised racial equality but because it changed the legal relationship between the states and the federal government.

Economic mythology said governments must regulate markets to prevent monopolies. In reality, it is the government regulation itself that creates monopolies, which do not emerge in free markets.

Last week, Julian Assange was freed and the Chevron doctrine was overturned. These are huge wins for liberty. Not long ago, they felt completely out of reach.

Progressives promote civil rights viewpoints as being “good for the whole” of society. Yet most of the modern civil rights movements and accompanying legislation simply promote the "good" of one group at the expense of others.

While protecting “intellectual property” has a good sound to it — even among libertarians — such policies are harmful to authentic property rights. We need to pursue another path.

A common complaint is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act started in the “right direction,” valuing so-called equality of opportunity, but then went off the rails with “equality of result.” In truth, the act cannot be reconciled with a libertarian society.