Subjectivism Is Not An Absolute Principle; It

Soaking The Rich Would Not Only Be Profoundly Immoral, It Would Drastically Penalize The Very Virtues: Thrift, Business Foresight, And Investment, That Have Brought About Our Remarkable Standard Of Living. It Would Truly Be Killing The Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs.

One Of The Most Important Features Of Our Economic Resources Is Their Scarcity: Land, Labor, And Capital Goods Factors Are All Scarce, And May All Be Put To Various Possible Uses. The Free Market Uses Them 'productively' Because The Producers Are Guided, On The Market, To Produce What The Consumers Most Need: Automobiles, For Example, Rather Than Buggies.

I See The Liberty Of The Individual Not Only As A Great Moral Good In Itself (or, With Lord Acton, As The Highest Political Good), But Also As The Necessary Condition For The Flowering Of All The Other Goods That Mankind Cherishes: Moral Virtue, Civilization, The Arts And Sciences, Economic Prosperity.

Capitalism Is The Fullest Expression Of Anarchism, And Anarchism Is The Fullest Expression Of Capitalism. Not Only Are They Compatible, But You Can't Really Have One Without The Other. True Anarchism Will Be Capitalism, And True Capitalism Will Be Anarchism

Once One Concedes That A Single World Government Is Not Necessary, Then Where Does One Logically Stop At The Permissibility Of Separate States? If Canada And The United States Can Be Separate Nations Without Being Denounced As In A State Of Impermissible ‘anarchy’, Why May Not The South Secede From The United States? New York State From The Union? New York City From The State? Why May Not Manhattan Secede? Each Neighbourhood? Each Block? Each House? Each Person?