Author’s note:
The following is a review of “Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make you Rich. How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World,” by Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Art Carden. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 2020, 227 pages.
One day a socialist is supposed to have come into the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie’s office at the height of his wealth in the 1890s and demanded that the rich should distribute their wealth to the poor of the earth. Carnegie, so the story goes, asked his assistant to estimate his current wealth and then divide it by the number of people in this world. The assistant returned shortly thereafter with the figures and Carnegie told him: “Give this gentleman sixteen cents. That’s his share of the wealth.”
This actually a play on Michael Shrimpton’s article, which is entitled “Israel hammers Hamas,” and which is completely devoid of historical facts and deep analysis about what has been doing on in the Middle East for the better part of sixty years.
Back in 2014, Shrimpton and I had a long discussion about similar issues, both at VT and via email messages. For the life of me, I simply cannot understand why Shrimpton continues to avoid scholarly studies that have been written on these issues and move on to perpetuate the Israeli narratives, which, as my dear friend Mark Dankof put it in our article The Closing of the Zionist Mind, is based on:
Karen Bradshaw, author of Wildlife As Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights.
Humans and wildlife have coexisted for centuries, with our species being the stewards or managers of the land. In some ways, that arrangement has been beneficial for both groups. But as we’ve seen on a somewhat regular basis, decisions can end up leading to dramatic ecosystem changes as certain animals become endangered or extinct.
In her new book Wildlife As Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights, Arizona State University law professor Karen Bradshaw explores how the situation would be different and she argues, better if animals had some legal claims to the land they live on.
Hayek Proved That Collectivism Cannot Provide Security
Share
Share
Trending
Freedom in the free-market is security, or self-reliance, in America. But, again, why not have, as collectivists demand, the security of employment, housing, or similar important needs in life? These are certainly important needs in life, and the collectivist governance always promotes the guarantee of these needs. They lay out a plan so that these needs are
secured for the citizenry by the collective governance.
Because it is
impossible to secure these needs without destroying liberty.
Economist Friedrich Hayek provides insight into both of these failures:
[T]he more we try to provide security by interfering with the market system, the greater the insecurity becomes; and , what is worse, the greater becomes the contrast between security of those to whom it is granted as a privilege and the ever increasing insecurity of the underprivileged. And the more security becomes a privileg