Owing largely to a campaign led by Florida, many people are now aware of the fallacies of Critical Race Theory. In recent months, some states have banned the “divisive concepts” of CRT. For example, in Alabama it was reported that:The bill has examples of divisive concepts such as “individuals, by virtue of race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.That any race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior… That’s what a divisive concept is.Readers familiar with the ideologies of CRT will immediately recognize these concepts. But banning them is no

Many people are familiar with the divisive concepts of Critical Race Theory (CRT). The best-known examples are the notion of “white privilege” and the redefinition of racism as “power plus privilege.” These concepts have been widely rejected, and even banned from public schools in some states. However, less often remarked upon is CRT’s more pernicious rejection of truth and reason. It is not merely that CRT believes truth to be relative, but that it rejects the importance of reason and facts altogether: “its proponents reject objective truth, reason, and empirical evidence. Instead, critical theorists assert that only identity and oppression matter.”CRT is not alone in rejecting the idea of objective truth, as that is the essence of relativist theories. The

There will never come a time when all human beings are in full ideological agreement, which is why free speech is of paramount importance to peaceful co-existence. Free speech is the only foundation on which men who disagree with each other can debate their opposing ideologies, or even hurl insults at each other if so inclined, but ultimately all the protagonists can do is try to persuade each other. All this changes when the state gets involved and decides to wield state force in backing one side or the other. When the state attempts to control “race relations” by using state machinery to protect people from racial discrimination and “correct” the historical suffering of any race, the situation escalates from ideological disagreement into all-out race war.The

The history of slavery in the United States cannot be covered in a brief article, but one point that is important to address in the context of contemporary “antiracist” debates is the notion that slavery was historically supported by the South and opposed by the North. The aim of antiracists, in advancing that notion, is to justify the destruction of Confederate monuments, the proscribing of Confederate flags, and the renaming of military bases. It is, therefore, worth reiterating that this simplistic notion of a pro-slavery South and anti-slavery North is incorrect and does not justify contemporary antiracist historical revisionism.Antiracism is defined as “a paradigm located within Critical Theory utilized to explain and counteract the persistence and impact of

Supporters of affirmative action often claim that taking race or sex into account is compatible with merit-based selection. In the wake of the United State Supreme Court ban on affirmative action in college admissions, and with diversity, equity and inclusiveness schemes banned in several states, the question now arises whether promoting racial or sexual “diversity” as a component of merit remains permissible. Proponents of this type of identity-based diversity insist that they only take identity into account to add to the context of decision-making, and that diversity helps them make merit-based selections rather than being opposed to merit. For example, an article published by the Heterodox Academy argues that:…far from diversity and inclusion undermining

One of the most destructive fallacies of critical race theory is its insistence that racial disparities are caused by discrimination. The CRT premise is that any gap in racial attainment calls for an explanation, and—in the absence of any convincing explanation—they are compelled to conclude that such gaps are caused by discrimination.Many readers will be familiar with Thomas Sowell’s refutation of that argument. In arguing that disparities do not prove discrimination, Sowell challenges the premise that, in the absence of discrimination, we should expect all human beings to have equal life opportunities, experiences, and outcomes. In his book, Disparities and Discrimination Sowell “argues that there is an underlying assumption that if discrimination was absent

In considering the outcome of the recent elections in the United States, the question arises as to whether we can now expect to see the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion schemes which were beloved of the Biden administration. As we await the new administration, it is timely to evaluate the challenges facing those seeking to uproot the DEI industry. A key point to highlight is that the roots of this industry run too deep to be supplanted simply by closing down federal DEI programs. We can certainly celebrate the end of Mr. Biden’s Executive Orders on DEI, such as the “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” but the wider culture of what is often called “wokery” which now abounds will be much more difficult

In 2019 The New York Times launched their 1619 project, which “aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” In the NYT retelling of American history, black troops who fought for the Union in the 1861-65 war are to be commemorated, but black Confederates must be summarily erased. The aim of this article is to argue against this erasure of black Confederates.Black Confederates were viewed as soldiersThose who seek to erase black Confederates from the historical record argue that black confederates may have appeared to everyone at the time to be soldiers, but in truth they were not real soldiers. The concept of black Confederates is said to be a

Once it is averred that inequality is wrong and the government ought to do “something” to make people more equal, tyranny is always around the corner. Equalization methods and strategies may vary, but some degree of coercion is guaranteed once it is decided to equalize human beings. The philosopher Antony Flew characterized egalitarianism as a procrustean ideal—some must be stretched to breaking point, while others must be cut down to size, in order to ensure that all are enjoying equal life opportunities. As David Gordon often reminds us, this is why Murray Rothbard regarded “equality of opportunity” as an absurd and anti-human ideal.Egalitarian ideology currently marches under the banner of “diversity, equity and inclusiveness.” Jordan Peterson refers to DEI as

An activist historian in the United Kingdom, who rose to prominence as a supporter of Black Lives Matter, recently expounded to the Times on what he sees as the proper role of historians: “I think [the job of historians] is to try to stand there at this arsenal of dangerous ideas and to make it more difficult for people to raid that arsenal to use it for their political projects. It is to complicate the picture; it is to show that these simple assertions are much more nuanced; it is to muddy the waters and try to de-weaponise the past.”This style of black activist retelling of history can be described as antiracist revisionism, as it conforms to the methods and goals of the ideology of antiracism. Antiracism is defined as “a paradigm located within Critical Theory

Much has been said about the role of slavery in the history of the United States, and while that history cannot be recounted in a brief article, it is important to clarify some of the ethical principles underpinning the institution of slavery in light of contemporary debates about reparations for slavery. A number of states have expressed an intention to pay slavery reparations. For example, the New York Times reports that,Almost 200 years after slavery officially ended in New York, the City Council passed legislation Thursday authorizing a commission to study the devastating effects of human bondage and to develop a plan to make reparations for the harms caused.In these debates, rather than confine ourselves to considering whether the states generously offering

As Kamala Harris declares herself open to paying reparations for slavery in a desperate bid to win more black voters, the debate about redressing historical injustices has been once again reignited. California has passed a raft of new proposals “as part of a reparations legislative package” with policies on education, housing, and criminal justice for the benefit of black people. New York has created a commission to study the harms caused by slavery with a view to paying reparations. In Oklahoma a commission has been set up “to study how reparations can be made.”Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Church of England is making plans to fund reparations for slavery.The Church of England should create a fund of 1 billion pounds ($1.27 billion) to address its

What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

[embedded content]

What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

[embedded content]

What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

[embedded content]

What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

[embedded content]

A popular quote from Nicolás Gómez Dávila, “Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies,” reflects the idea that a healthy and mature society should not be preoccupied with constantly creating new laws, prescribing to itself a cocktail of legislative remedies to fix its mounting problems. An over-lawyered society is a society in decay. Everything is disputed. There are sharp divisions, exacerbated by a dishonest and hypocritical façade of “shared values” that only mask the deepening hostility. The growing raft of new legislation is intended to shore up crumbling institutions, and also to give new legal weaponry to the different factions waging increasingly acrimonious lawfare among themselves. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines lawfare

In Against the State, Lew Rockwell explains how the constant expansion of state power is often justified as a necessary means of achieving the dreams and visions of voters. In its relentless pursuit of power, the state has a strong incentive to focus on the problems that are likely to resonate most deeply with voters and, hence, most likely to persuade them to vest increasing control of their lives in the state. Statists embrace “the moral high ground” in justifying schemes designed to protect people from all manner of social problems. Rockwell observes that “the goal of the state is to find some practice that is universally reviled and pose as the one and only way of expunging it from society.” Key among the reviled practices the state is now dedicated to

Murray Rothbard conceptualized liberty as an emanation of property rights and self-ownership. Freedom of association is, therefore, best understood as “a subset of private property rights.” Just as property rights are absolute and limited only by respect for other people’s property rights, freedom of association is absolute and constrained only by other people’s freedom to associate or not associate with whom they will. Unless we are all to live as slaves, human interaction should always be voluntary. The correct ethical principle is that no one should be forced to associate or not associate with others against his or her will. It follows that the antidiscrimination principle is incompatible with freedom of association. The civil rights framework of rules based on

The presumption of liberty is an established liberal tradition according to which any restrictions on individual liberty require justification. Gerald Gaus and Shaun Nichols depict this as a principle of “natural liberty,” a “general presumption in favor of freedom of action.” As they explain, if natural liberty is a general presumption we expect, it to be reflected in,…shared normative expectations about what one may or may not do, and what one can demand that others refrain from, or must do, and shared empirical expectations as to whether people will conform to these rules.During the Covid lockdowns, one of the most pernicious challenges to this presumption came, not directly from state edicts, but through intermediaries—busybodies who took it upon themselves to

What is the Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.

[embedded content]

In tyrannical societies, the state uses its monopoly of violence to dictate what citizens are permitted to say, activities they are permitted to engage in, and cultural symbols they are permitted to celebrate or display. Anyone who violates such edicts can be arrested and imprisoned. Given the tendency of states to become increasingly dictatorial and to trample on their citizens’ liberties with impunity, Murray Rothbard argued that the state itself, by its very nature, is a threat to liberty. In The Anatomy of the State, he argues that the state is a predator: “The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property” including predation of all the liberties that emanate from self-ownership.Even for those who support the

Various justifications have been advanced by those removing or destroying Confederate monuments to explain why they deem it necessary to dismantle the Confederate heritage. For example, the memorial to Zebulon Vance in Asheville, North Carolina was demolished on grounds that it was “a painful symbol of racism.” In the tumult surrounding the Black Lives Matter riots, “168 Confederate symbols were removed across the United States.” In 2020 the Mississippi flag was changed to replace the Confederate “stars and bars” with a new symbol of a magnolia flower: [Governor Tate Reeves] signed into law a measure that removes the flag that has flown over the state for 126 years and been at the heart of a conflict Mississippi has grappled with for generations: how to view a

It might seem like common sense to say that good ideas should be clear, but the notion that good ideas should be obscure and inaccessible to laymen has long been prevalent in academic circles. Murray Rothbard describes Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money as, “not truly revolutionary at all but merely old and oft-refuted mercantilist and inflationist fallacies dressed up in shiny new garb, replete with newly constructed and largely incomprehensible jargon.” Rothbard remarks that, “Often, as in the case of both Ricardo and Keynes, the more obscure the content, the more successful the book, as younger scholars flock to it, becoming acolytes.”Similarly, Hunter Lewis in his introduction to W.H. Hutt’s The Theory of Idle Resources describes

In March 2024 Alabama enacted a law “to prohibit certain public entities from maintaining diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and from sponsoring diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.” The law will come into force in October 2024. Similarly, anti-woke law in Florida provides that “subjecting individuals to specified concepts under certain circumstances constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.”Many libertarians are ambivalent about such laws due to the implications for free speech. A ban, by its very nature, is coercive. It means that people who support diversity, equity and inclusiveness cannot gather in their offices and classrooms to plot their communist revolution. Many libertarians are against such bans on grounds

Many egalitarians and socialists argue that liberty is only of value to those who enjoy the privilege of having free will. They argue that many vulnerable people lack free will and that the state should, therefore, out of compassion for those trapped in unfortunate circumstances for no fault of their own, intervene with support, even when such interventions undermine individual liberty. These arguments reflect a misunderstanding of free will.In drawing upon the natural law as the foundation for his ethics of liberty, Rothbard highlights the philosophical links between human nature, human reason, and free will. Natural law, as Rothbard depicts it, is based on “the ability of man’s reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural

Natural law is often regarded with suspicion by social scientists because they conceptualize human nature, and increasingly even the nature of animals, as a social construct. In their view there is no essential human nature by reference to which we can decide what is in the best interests of society. They argue that we must instead adopt an aspirational approach, by constructing a better and fairer world for the planet, and by discovering what is best for society through a process of scientific experimentation. From that perspective notions of “right” and “wrong” are nothing more than majority opinions ascertained through democratic debate and agreement, and it would be hopelessly arbitrary and subjective to decide right and wrong by reference to some “higher” law

There is a popular perception that the role of the state is to uphold and enforce “fairness” much like a playground monitor ensures that children are not bullying each other, and that everyone is getting a fair chance to be included in the game. The fear is that if teachers do not monitor the schoolyard it might descend into the Lord of the Flies. Likewise, the state is said to have a moral duty to ensure fairness and goodwill among all citizens in their interactions with each other.In Freedom in Chains James Bovard criticizes the trend towards seeing the state as the fountain of fairness, depicting it as “the nationalization of fairness.” In the US context, he traces the origins of nationalizing fairness back to the New Deal, when President Roosevelt’s

There is a widespread perception that capitalism is a system designed to encourage greed, envy, selfishness, and other moral failings to flourish. Popular writing on capitalism, notably Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged,” recognizes the importance of addressing the moral case for capitalism. No economic system, no matter how efficient and productive, can flourish if it is widely regarded as the root of all evil. Given that the science of economics is value free and does not address questions of morality, this misconception about capitalism often festers and propagates with little demur.The assumption of many capitalists is that the demonstrable benefits of capitalism ought to speak for themselves – people will enjoy the material comforts that only

Respect for the rule of law cannot simply mean a moral obligation to obey legislation. History is replete with too many examples of tyrannical legislation for that notion to pass muster. But if the rule of law does not mean obeying whatever legislators enact, what does it mean?Murray Rothbard argued that this question must be answered by reference to ethical guidelines, which he constructed around the concepts of self-ownership and property rights. Rothbard conceptualized property rights as inalienable and absolute natural rights. Seen in that light, eminent domain legislation is unethical and unjust. The example of New York illustrates the significance of this point, as explained by the Institute for Justice:“In New York, eminent domain gives the government the