Why Kill for Trump?
“Ask yourself whether you are willing to kill in an unjust war, whether decrees from the US government can provide sufficient moral jus
“Ask yourself whether you are willing to kill in an unjust war, whether decrees from the US government can provide sufficient moral jus
“Humanitarian intervention” sells itself as a moral shortcut: bypass the messy politics, send in the troops, stop the monster.
Is the state necessary? In this week’s Friday Philosophy, Dr. David Gordon follows Aeon J. Skoble’s argument that we can do without the state and finds there is much to like in Skoble’s logic.
Thanks to taxpayer funding, scientific research has become utterly and hopelessly politicized. It’s time to pull the plug on this funding for good.
Just before launching a “regime change” war on Iran, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had a video of him bench pressing 315 pounds ostensibly to impress onlookers and the public.
The substitution of economic and moral principles by emotional imperatives does not represent a technical failure, but a profound philosophical divergence about human nature and the function of the state.
Governments at all levels abuse their “privilege” of eminent domain, the taking of private property for government use. Murray Rothbard understood that government was not justified to seize property for such use in the first place.
This SCOTUS ruling is a refreshing rebuttal limiting executive branch power to implement President Trump’s troublesome tariffs by executive order through IEEPA.
Governments at all levels abuse their “privilege” of eminent domain, the taking of private property for government use. Murray Rothbard understood that government was not justified to seize property for such use in the first place.
When government equipment isn’t enough, the free market comes to the rescue.