If you--...then this page isn't really addressed to you.

Thus:Does this sound exaggerated?
Photo provided by Flickr

These dovetail a little too closely for coincidence.

People over 30 or so grew up in an environment where the rich got more, but When productivity went up, the rich got richer-- we're not goddamn communists, after all-- but everybody's income increased.

And many who rejected communism nonetheless remained zealots.
Photo provided by Flickr

This process was a legitimate creation of property.

It gets no more than 1% of the vote-- a showing that's been surpassed historically by the Anti-Masonic Party, the Greenbacks, the Prohibition Party, the Socialists, the Greens, and whatever John Anderson was.

Yet they're unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen.
Photo provided by Flickr

The libertarianism that has any effect in the world, then, has nothing to do with social liberty, and everything to do with removing all restrictions on business.

If a man has no doubts, it's because his hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
Photo provided by Flickr


But run it as a proper experiment.

But neither has it attracted submissions that were written mainly or merely for credit towards academic tenure and which are liable to be unintelligible even to a well educated member of the public.

Establish exactly how your claims will be tested: per capita income?

If this is changing, as Bush's never-ending "War on Terror" expands the powers of government, demonizes dissent, and enmeshes the country in military crusades and nation-building, as the Republicans push to remove the checks and balances that remain in our government system-- if libertarians come to realize that Republicans and not Democrats are the greater threat to liberty-- I'd be delighted.

I'm even willing to look at partial tests.

90% of submissions and now rarely bother to explain rejections or provide reader reports, submissions here have tended to come from non-academics, students, and independent scholars, rarely from the graduate students or junior faculty who otherwise are desperate for publications, but who will tend to write on trendy "current" issues for peer-review journals.

Jonathan Kwitny suggested comparing a partly socialist system (e.g.

Meanwhile, Hegel still seems to attract more positive attention than Schopenhauer, which certainly is consistent with the growing totalitarian mindset of American intellectuals -- many of whom nevertheless do not seem to even understand the logical implications of their own commitments.

Tanzania) to a partly capitalist one (e.g.

Combinations of Marx, , Freud and others, as developed by Sartre, Marcuse, Foucault, , etc., is promoted under the term "Theory," and scholarly work that doesn't invoke the canon and its jargon is dismissed as "under-theorized." Thus, a miserable and largely exploded fragment of 20th Century philosophy comes to be accepted, mainly outside of philosophy, in , Sociology, and English Departments, as the equivalent of essential and unproblematic method and truth.

If a system is untestable, it's because its proponents fear testing.

The editor would like to see academic philosophers working on Friesian (or at least sensible, edifying, or intelligible) material, but the lack of interest seems to be a combination of discordant , as with in his day, and perverse institutional incentives: The peer-review system of publication, while helping to maintain scholarly standards, also serves to innovation and dissent and to doctrinal uniformity and a self-referential scholasticism -- the stigmata of academia becoming a bureaucracy.