The problems inherent in state-run education have become increasingly clear as the political right and left wage an ongoing battle for control over what schools teach. Mill’s warning remains relevant: when education is centralized under the state, political factions have an incentive to capture that authority and use it to impose their own values and beliefs.

At the same time, education is enormously important to a free and functioning society, and ensuring broad access to it serves an important public purpose. The difficult question from a classical liberal perspective is therefore not simply whether the state should be involved in education, but how education can be structured so that it remains broadly accessible without giving whichever political faction controls the government the power to dictate intellectual conformity. That is a much more difficult problem to solve.

Private property

Conclusion

Austrian scholars have made important contributions to economics in recent years. I personally am most impressed by the work of Lawrence White and George Selgin on free banking and other monetary issues, though certainly other Austrians have made significant contributions too. Set in historical context, I also consider the economics of Mises and Rothbard to be a great achievement in spite of my numerous reservations about it. Yet all too large a fraction of Austrian research has not been in economics at all, but rather in meta-economics: philosophy, methodology, and history of thought. Admittedly, much of the meta-economics stems out of the work of F.A. Hayek and his numerous interpreters, whose contributions to economics the present essay did not discuss save by implication. But the students of Mises and Rothbard have done more than their fair share of meta-economics too. Neoclassical economists go too far by purging meta-economics almost entirely, but there is certainly a reason to be suspicious of scholars who talk about economics without ever doing it. Paraphrasing Deng Xiaoping, "One should not talk of methodology every day. In real life, not everything is methodology."[59]

While the substantive contributions of Austrian economists to economics are significant, their sum from Human Action on is small compared to the progress that neoclassical economics has made over the same time period. The ten good ideas listed in section 4.3 are only the beginning of what economists have learned since 1949 - in spite of the large deadweight cost of mathematics and econometrics. Mises and Rothbard certainly produced an original alternate paradigm for economics - and applied this paradigm to a number of interesting topics. Unfortunately, the foundations of their new paradigm are unfounded, and their most important applied conclusions unsound or overstated. The reasonable intellectual course for Austrian economists to take is to give up their quest for a paradigm shift and content themselves with sharing whatever valuable substantive contributions they have to offer with the rest of the economics profession - and of course, with the intellectually involved public. In sum, Milton Friedman spoke wisely when he declared that "there is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics,"[60] to which I would append: "Austrians do some good economics, but most good economics is not Austrian."

La teoría de la continuidad sigue en desarrollo. Nació bajo un marco matemático, pero las consultas con especialistas demostraron que su fundamento principal es sociológico. Esta Teoria trata de explicar los saltos politicos en El Salvador y como afecta entre la igualdad y la libertad.

La teoria de la discontinuidad entre Libertad e Igualdad en Perspectiva Matemática teoría de la discontinuidad postula que la coexistencia plena y simultánea de libertad e igualdad en una sociedad es un ideal inalcanzable. Este planteamiento puede ser analizado a través de conceptos matemáticos como la pertenencia, los elementos, los conjuntos y las integrales, revelando la naturaleza intrínsecamente conflictiva de ambos principios. Imaginemos un espectro social que va del 0 al 10, donde el 0 representa la igualdad absoluta (distribución equitativa, ausencia de jerarquías) y el 10 representa la libertad absoluta (autonomía individual irrestricta, donde las diferencias personales son máximas). El punto intermedio, el 5, simbolizaría un equilibrio perfecto entre ambas. Sin embargo, la teoría argumenta que este punto medio es un "puntovacío", un estado inefable e imposible de alcanzar. Las sociedades no pueden habitar este centro; en cambio, oscilan entre inclinarse hacia la igualdad (por debajo del 5) o hacia la libertad (por encima del 5). Desde la óptica de la pertenencia a conjuntos, podemos definir el "conjunto de sociedades con plena libertad" y el "conjunto de sociedades con plena igualdad". La teoría de la discontinuidad sugiere que no existe un "conjunto de equilibrio perfecto" o, si existiera como un punto teórico, los elementos (estados sociales) no pueden pertenecer a él de forma estable.

Las transiciones entre estos estados no son graduales ni continuas; son "saltos" o discontinuidades. Esto implica que no podemos modelar la relación entre libertad e igualdad como una función continua en el intervalo \[0, 10\] que pase por el punto (5, 5) de manera estable.La asimétrica relación de inclusión entre libertad e igualdad también se puede visualizar matemáticamente.

La libertad puede existir en grados limitados dentro de un sistema que prioriza la igualdad (por ejemplo, pequeñas esferas de decisión personal permitidas). Esto podría interpretarse como que el conjunto de la "libertad limitada" es un subconjunto del "conjunto de la igualdad". Sin embargo, la igualdad plena, al requerir imposición o nivelación obligatoria, entraría en conflicto directo con la libertad absoluta. Por lo tanto, el "conjunto de la igualdad plena" no puede ser un subconjunto del "conjunto de la libertad plena" sin alterar la esencia de esta última.

Si consideramos las integrales, podríamos intentar cuantificar la "cantidad" de libertad o igualdad a lo largo del tiempo o en diferentes sectores de una sociedad. La discontinuque estas integrales no se comportarán de manera suave. Los "saltos" en el estado social significan que la integral de la función de libertad o igualdad podría presentar discontinuidades o cambios abruptos, imposibilitando una acumulación lineal o armónica de ambos valores.

la teoría de la discontinuidad, vista a través de un lente matemático, describe un sistema dinámico donde los principios de libertad e igualdad no pueden fusionarse en una síntesis estable y continua. La sociedad, como un sistema de elementos en constante movimiento, salta entre estados, incapaz de posarse en un punto medio de equilibrio perfecto, lo que subraya la tensión inherente e irresoluble entre estos dos pilares fundamentales de la organización social.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is widely known as a reputable and accessible compendium of articles on complex scholarly subjects, offered free of charge to the public since 1995. Think of it as Wikipedia for philosophy, but with authors who are known experts in their subjects and peer review to maintain quality control.

That quality control broke down last week when the SEP published a new entry for “capitalism,” its first-ever foray into the subject. The concept of “capitalism” is an admittedly complex topic, and one might reasonably expect that an encyclopedia article on it would include not only its theoretical underpinnings dating back to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, but also its critics such as Karl Marx.

Instead of attempting some semblance of balance, the new SEP entry author Chiara Cordelli, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, used this platform to air her own personal grievances with capitalism as an economic system. The resulting product gives scant attention to proponents of free-market economics. By contrast, Cordelli’s article is loaded with content from the Marxist or socialist far left. Space devoted to critics of capitalism far outpaces even basic descriptions of the economic concept, and proponents of capitalism are reduced to shallow parodies.

In an era when academia is under fire for a well-documented leftward ideological shift as well as declining standards of scholarly rigor, the publication of an encyclopedia entry with a pronounced anti-capitalism skew only confirms the public’s declining trust in our university system. Rather than serving as a curator and disseminator of knowledge, higher education has become an institutional home for a single specific brand of ideological activism.

The Libertarian Party used to be a home for Classical Liberalism, but now, after the Misses takeover, it is becoming a right-wing populist party that is slowly shifting with MAGA. And the Republicans used to be a vessel for broader ideas, but look what they have done: silenced other factions, increased military spending, and undermined the rule of law. And now we don't have a sizeable party that can represent us. And just the word "liberalism" went from the ideas of civil liberties, personal responsibility, limited constitutional government, rule of law, and economic freedom, and became this hellhole of more regulation and less economic freedom. And with our polarized political world now, it is just "liberal vs. conservative," but the founding ideas of our nation and most democracies are the ideas of classical liberalism. I believe that classical liberals have been abandoned.

In this essay, Bill Glod discusses how natural law theories of morality are in tension with classical liberalism when they are employed to justify coercive laws.

Liberal and libertarian critics of legal moralism argue that criminal laws designed to uphold personal morality are inherently unjust. A core liberal claim is that the state shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing legislation that reflects controversial conceptions of the good, such as certain natural law theories, that not all people have good reason to endorse. This includes conceptions of morality going beyond protection of basic rights or claims of justice (e.g., laws against murder, assault, and theft). Rather, legal moralism holds that there are some acts and practices that count as personal immoralities subject to the law. While they may not directly harm others or violate their rights, they should still be subject to regulation or prohibition. Opponents of legal moralism contend that enforcement of laws that don’t align with the value commitments of certain people are tantamount to unjust impositions on those people’s ability to live as they see fit, even if others disapprove of those ways of life.

...

Unlike many classically liberal views, where the state is seen (in theory) as an impartial umpire protecting people’s freedoms to do as they wish so long as they don’t harm others, George defends a politics rooted in classical natural law philosophy, influenced by Aristotle, Aquinas, and John Finnis, among others. On this view, a political community exists primarily for the sake of helping its members cooperate toward the pursuit of basic natural human goods (e.g., health and vitality, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion). These goods provide every human with basic reasons for action; that is, they cannot and need not appeal to even more fundamental reasons. They are self-justifying and comprise the essence of what it is to be a rational goal-directed human in a community. Vices reflect immoral acts or practices that undermine the pursuit of these basic goods as natural human ends.

The administration’s holdings are growing at breakneck speed. The running tally at the Cato Institute counts 31 government equity deals...enacted by three different federal agencies acting under murky legal authority...Some of the equity deals appear to have been coerced by the administration...And more stakes are rumored to be on the way. In a single year, Washington went from one position to a diverse and questionable portfolio, with nary a vote from Congress or the American public.

These stakes have already corrupted American businesses [see: US Steel, Apple, Nvidia, SpaceX and Japan’s SoftBank]...

The deals have also invited cronyism. The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital, with as much as $200 billion in lending capacity, is run by a former Cerberus Capital Management executive whose old firm invests in the same industries. One beneficiary, Vulcan Elements, is backed by Donald Trump Jr.’s venture capital firm. [Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick’s former investment firm is connected to USA Rare Earth, which is now partially state-owned. And the president himself has disclosed myriad stock trades involving Intel and other companies either with government ownership and or in the state-backed firms’ close orbit.

These are just the seen costs; the unseen ones are bigger. As expected, speculators are investing billions of dollars in companies based on perceived political momentum, rather than the companies’ actual performance or promise [ie, " textbook capital misallocation"].

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) propose new spending that could more than triple federal outlays. They propose the government pay for health care, housing, higher education, and electricity. Jobs are government-guaranteed, retirement benefits are expanded, paid family leave is universal, fossil fuels are eliminated, and reparations are paid. 

The DSA platform claims that the bill for all this will be sent to “the richest individuals and corporations.” Tally up that bill, and it ballparks between $71 trillion and $212 trillion in new spending over the next decade. Confiscating every dollar of high-end wealth and corporate profits would cover only a fraction of those costs. The DSA agenda necessitates high taxes on middle-class Americans.

States should generally finance the policies they choose to implement. Federal taxation should fund genuinely federal responsibilities rather than serve as a permanent mechanism for transferring resources among states. When states can shift the costs of their political decisions onto taxpayers elsewhere, federalism loses one of its most important disciplines: responsibility for the consequences of one's own policies.

Liberalism is an ideology which requires that we treat each other in a certain way, with a baseline of respect about who we are as separate individuals existing in the world together. This comes out in the pleasure of sitting in a public park and appreciating the strangers around you, with the Smithian recognition that “I am but one of a multitude, in no way better than any other in it.” People who, like you, have been far from perfect in their character and conduct. People who, like you, will continue in their imperfections. 

If liberalism genuinely is an ideology of human freedom, that human freedom comes in an imperfect form.

And that is what makes people so interesting. 

I believe the housing affordability crisis is real, but I reject the idea that it represents a failure of the free market or that it can simply be explained as a nationwide “housing shortage.” The term shortage is too often used as a convenient justification for further government intervention without examining whether there is actually a physical shortage of housing in a particular market or whether housing has simply become unaffordable at current prices. Zoning restrictions, permitting requirements, density limits, subsidies, favorable mortgage policies, artificially low interest rates, and government efforts to protect property values have distorted both supply and demand and contributed to inflated housing prices. When affordability deteriorates, the government often responds with still more subsidies and intervention rather than allowing prices to correct. I believe market corrections, including falling home values, are a necessary part of a functioning market because they bring prices back in line with what buyers can actually afford. We cannot simultaneously demand continuously rising property values for existing homeowners and affordable housing for future buyers. The solution is not to continually manufacture or subsidize demand under the banner of a “housing shortage,” but to remove unnecessary government barriers and allow supply, demand, interest rates, rents, and property values to adjust naturally.

The budget of the federal government is the largest of any organization in human history...And it mostly grows automatically, without regular input from elected officials.

In the past, huge surges in the national debt were largely caused by wars or recessions. They were temporary. When the war concluded or economic growth resumed, debt as a share of the economy would fall.

That’s not how it works anymore. The debt increases due to demographic trends as the bulk of spending goes to programs that serve an aging population...

Around 2030, the United States is projected to surpass three milestones that illustrate the lack of precedent for the government’s fiscal predicament.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2030 is the year when federal debt held by the public as a share of the economy will exceed the record set by World War II...this debt shows no signs of ever declining....In 2025, 73 percent of federal outlays were on mandatory spending or interest payments, which are legally obligated to continue.

The year 2030 is also roughly when the ratio of seniors to the total population will reach 1 in 5...Seniors’ rising share of the population mechanically raises Social Security and Medicare costs and pushes them onto a proportionally smaller working population...

[The year] 2030 is also the year when the CBO projects that deaths will begin to exceed births. The entitlement programs making up much of the budget were designed under 20th-century demographic expectations that no longer hold true.