Download Paper: “Book Review: <em>Exploring Capitalist Fiction: Business through Literature and Film</em>”
We are happy to announce that Volume 5 of Libertarian Papers is now available in a print edition. This volume contains all Libertarian Papers articles for 2013, including contributions by Walter Block, Paul Gottfreid, Stephan Kinsella, Xavier Méra, Jan Narveson, Ben O’Neill, Jakub Wisniewski, and many others.
Volume 5 is available through Amazon for $16.99, or CreateSpace for $15.28, with a 10% discount.
Paper and ebook versions of past volumes of Libertarian Papers are also available.
Abstract: Raymond V. McNally was an economist at the Henry George School of Social Science in New York City. This article was written shortly after the entry of the United States into World War II, and presumably remained unpublished because of the unsettled times. It recently came to light among the papers of Spencer Heath, to be domiciled at the Universidad Francisco Marroquín. In the paper, McNally describes the important social role—both present and potential—of property in land, thus offering a broader understanding of the basic Georgian concept of rent as the natural fund for public services. To clarify the nature of public enterprise, McNally first examines private enterprise in terms of the production and distribution of services, viewed in light of the role played by owners. He then shows that the two kinds of enterprise, private and public, are alike with respect to distribution but differ with respect to production, due to incomplete development of the ownership role in the latter. He suggests that this anomaly will be resolved as owners in public enterprise develop a scientific understanding of their role and bring it into alignment with that of owners in private enterprise. Hence, the author anticipates that the evolution of normal economic, as opposed to political, provision of public services will lead to the abandonment of taxation and its ills.
Download Paper: “Some Observations on the Nature of Public Enterprise”
Abstract: The strength of many arguments for Classical Liberalism is often challenged on the grounds that these arguments appeal to controversial metaphysical structures or moral principles. To avoid these challenges, I appeal to a set of epistemic considerations to show that, in order to structure a society that affords optimal opportunity for citizens to obtain their interests, we have a rational obligation to protect individuals’ freedom to pursue those interests. In this paper, I defend the second premise of a larger argument for Classical Liberalism and, ultimately, for negative natural rights. I conclude that each individual has a prima facie reason to regard every other individual as having an epistemic advantage with respect to evidence regarding their interests and how to obtain them.
Download Paper: “Prolegomena to an Epistemic Case for Classical Liberalism”
We proudly welcome Ed Younkins to the editorial board of Libertarian Papers.
Edward W. Younkins is professor of accountancy and director of graduate programs in the Department of Business at Wheeling Jesuit University. He is the founder of the university’s undergraduate degree program in political and economic philosophy. He is also the founding director of the university’s Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) and Master of Science in Accountancy (M.S.A.) programs.
The author of numerous articles in accounting and business journals, his free-market-oriented articles and reviews have appeared in numerous publications. He is the author of Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise (2002), Champions of a Free Society: Ideas of Capitalism’s Philosophers and Economists (2008), Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (2011), and Exploring Capitalist Fiction: Business Through Literature and Film (2014). He has also edited Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond (2005), and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion (2007).
In addition to earning state and national honors for his performances on the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Certified Management Accountant (CMA) exams, respectively, Dr. Younkins also received the Outstanding Educator Award for 1997 from the West Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants.
We are delighted to welcome Sheldon Richman to our board of editors.
Sheldon is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF’s monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: “I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank… I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility…” Sheldon’s articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is also a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.
Abstract: Some state legislatures have considered legislation that would modify laws governing the right to carry a firearm in specific areas including college campuses. Currently firearms are banned on nearly all college campuses throughout the United States. Proponents of the bans on firearms argue that allowing firearms on campuses would likely result in dramatic increases in gun violence. In this paper we investigate the relationship between right-to-carry policies and crime rates on campus using reported crime data from colleges located in five western U.S. states, two of which allow firearms on campuses, for the years 2001-2009. No evidence is found supporting the argument that the right to carry a firearm is associated with an increase in the reported crime rate in any examined category.
Download Paper: “Right-to-Carry and Campus Crime: Evidence from the Not-so-Wild-West”
Libertarian Papers is starting the new year by unveiling our new website at libertarianpapers.org. We have kept the simple design of the old site while streamlining the user experience and improving the look and feel. We have also added some new features to improve functionality, including author tags allowing you to easily find articles from specific contributors.
This is the first of many plans to enhance the reach of the journal in the coming year. We are also expanding our editorial board, starting with the addition of outstanding scholars like Anthony Gregory. More announcements are on the way in the coming months, so be sure to follow us as we continue our mission to promote high-quality, thought-provoking research in libertarian ideas.
Thank you for your support, and we hope you’ll join us in our effort to advance the scholarly discourse on liberty.
Libertarian Papers is proud to welcome Anthony Gregory to its editorial board.
Anthony is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and the author of the Institute book The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King’s Prerogative to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013). He appears in the Institute’s Independent Watch videos and blogs regularly at The Beacon. In addition, he is a policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation and a Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society. He has written articles for The Atlantic, Washington Times, Bloomberg Business Week, Christian Science Monitor, San Diego Union Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Huffington Post, American Conservative, Human Events, Counterpunch, Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, The Freeman, Liberty, Reason.com, The Independent Review, and The Journal of Libertarian Studies. He earned his B.A. in American history at the University of California at Berkeley.
Abstract: Inchoate crime consists of acts that are regarded as crimes despite the fact that they are only partial or incomplete in some respect. This includes acts that do not succeed in physically harming the victim or are only indirectly related to such a result. Examples include attempts (as in attempted murder that does not eventuate in the killing of anyone), conspiracy (in which case the crime has only been planned, not yet acted out) and incitement (where the inciter does not himself commit the crime he is urging others to undertake). The present paper attempts to analyze these inchoate crimes from a libertarian perspective, based on the non-aggression principle.
Download Paper: Inchoate Crime, Accessories, and Constructive Malice in Libertarian Law.
Abstract: In this paper, I show that Polleit and Mariano (2011) are right in concluding that Credit Default Swaps (CDS) are per se unobjectionable from Rothbard’s libertarian perspective on property rights and contract theory, but that they fail to derive this conclusion properly. I therefore outline the proper explanation. In addition, though Polleit and Mariano are correct in pointing out that speculation with CDS can conceivably hurt the borrowers’ interests, they fail to grasp that this can be the case only in some peculiar circumstances that I identify. In other words, they miss the bigger picture, the one outside special circumstances, in which CDS trading has the opposite effect. That is, CDS facilitate debt accumulation, including government debt accumulation. Finally, I point out how this can precipitate the collapse of fiat money regimes. An incidental goal of the analysis is to provide a better account than Polleit and Mariano of recent government interventions in and around CDS markets.
Download Paper: Credit Default Swaps, Contract Theory, Public Debt, and Fiat Money Regimes: Comment on Polleit and Mariano.
Abstract: Brettschneider argues that the granting of property rights to all entails a right of exclusion by acquirer/owners against all others, that this exclusionary right entails a loss on their part, and that to make up for this, property owners owe any nonowners welfare rights. Against this, I argue that exclusion is not in fact a cost. Everyone is to have liberty rights, which are negative: what people are excluded from is the liberty to attack and despoil others. Everyone, whether an owner of external property or not, benefits from this and thus rationally exchanges that liberty in exchange for a like abandonment of it by others. The proper social contract trade is thus liberty for liberty—not liberty for owners and positive welfare rights for nonowners (though the latter in fact benefit greatly from the property rights of owners).
Download Paper: Liberty, Property, and Welfare Rights: Brettschneider’s Argument
We are happy to announce that Volume 4 of Libertarian Papers is now available in a print edition. This volume contains all Libertarian Papers articles for 2012, including contributions by Per Bylund, James Rolph Edwards, J.C. Lester, Nahshon Perez, Michael F. Reber, Timothy Terrell, Clarence E. Wunderlin, and many others.
Volume 4 is available through Amazon for $16.99.
Paper and ebook versions of past volumes of Libertarian Papers are also available.
Abstract: The necessity for a government “lender of last resort” has been advanced as a justification for central banking. In this paper, I compare lending practices under central banking with those that would be likely to exist under a system of fractional-reserve free banking (FRFB). To do this I examine the underlying nature of banks as warehousing and credit-granting institutions and consider how redemption runs can arise as a consequence of fractional reserves in this system. Following the work of Thornton and Bagehot, I describe principles of prudent lending that can be used to stem a redemption run when it arises. I examine the market incentives that apply under FRFB and how these incentives are perverted under a system of central banking. I find that a government central bank is not well-placed to lend according to prudent standards, and in fact is likely to use its power to pursue political goals that are at odds with prudent lending. I examine the US financial crisis and the actions of the Federal Reserve System to illustrate this view.
Download Paper: The Lender of Last Resort: A Comparative Analysis of Central Banking and Fractional-Reserve Free Banking
Abstract: This paper is my last word, in the present journal, in the debate I have been having with Walter Block on the subject of evictionism as an alleged libertarian “third way,” capable of transcending the familiar “pro-life” and “pro-choice” dichotomy. In this debate, I myself defended what might be regarded as a qualified “pro-life” position, while Block consistently argued that the mother is morally allowed to expel the fetus from her womb provided that no non-lethal methods of its eviction are available. While my position articulated in this paper contains an element of what Block might consider a concession on my part—i.e., an explicit declaration that abstaining from lethal evictions of fetuses conceived as a result of rape is a libertarian duty, but only an imperfect one—I continue to regard the unqualified support of evictionism as indefensible on libertarian grounds.
Download Paper: “Abortion, Libertarianism, and Evictionism: A Last Word.”
Abstract: In Chinese history the periods known as Spring and Autumn (770-476 BC) and the Warring States (475-221 BC) were times of conflict and political instability caused by the increasing power of centralized and competing states. During this time of crisis many schools of thought appeared to offer different philosophical doctrines. This paper describes and studies ideas about the limitation of power defended by these different schools of ancient Chinese thought, and suggests some reasons why they failed to prevent the emergence of an authoritarian imperial government in early China.
Download Paper: “The Dao Against the Tyrant: The Limitation of Power in the Political Thought of Ancient China.”
I was informed recently that Libertarian Papers has received a quite good ranking from the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), an Australian Government body that deals with academic matters, provides systematic evaluation of a large number of scholarly journals in different disciplines and generates a database and a variety of reports ranking the journals. These ratings are often used by Australian universities to evaluate the contribution of their academics to various fields.
The ERA Journal Ranking List for all law and legal studies journals is appended below. The order of the rankings is A*, A, B, C and then not ranked. Libertarian Papers is highlighted in the list. It is ranked at level A, which is the second best ranking on the list, which is considered quite good.
Needless to say, we are very pleased with this recognition of the excellence the journal strives for.
Abstract: Klein and Clark (2010) initiated a debate about libertarian theory to which this paper hopes to add. Starting with the old libertarian principle of “direct liberty” (adherence to the non-aggression principle) Klein and Clark introduced two new concepts to complete it: “indirect liberty,” and also direct liberty plus indirect liberty, which sums to “overall liberty.” In my critique of this article of theirs (Block, 2011A), I congratulated them for their creativity, but rejected these innovations. In Klein and Clark (2012), these authors responded to my initial criticism. The present essay hopes to fruitfully continue the discussion of these new concepts of liberty.
Download Paper: Klein and Clark are Mistaken on Direct, Indirect, and Overall Liberty.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- …
- 15
- Next Page »