‘Banned Books Week’ vs. Real Book Banning

Did you know we just had “Banned Books Week?” Yes, there is such a thing. In America, of all places—as absurd as that sounds. It ran from October 1 - 7.

This silliness is a reaction, of course, to the controversies surrounding the appropriateness of certain books being carried in school libraries. A Washington Post article by Alyssa Rosenberg and Greg Sargent, It’s Banned Books Week. Here’s how to fight for libraries, covered the issue from the perspective of the side opposing the so-called book banners—i.e., the parents who object to their children being exposed to certain material they believe is inappropriate for their children. 

I will not wade into the controversy here. I’ve already done that here and here. My aim here is to push back against what I consider to be a gross misuse of wording and thus a gross misrepresentation of the issue. I posted this comment:

Can anyone cite one single instance of someone being fined, jailed, hung, burned at the stake, or forced into exile for owning any book in America? I ask because those outrages have been what has been inflicted throughout history on those who dared to violate ACTUAL book bans—books banned by government edict or laws. If you’ve ever read Jacob Mchangama’s excellent “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media,” you’ll see what ACTUAL book banning looks like. 

Today, no books are banned in America. The powerful First Amendment won’t allow it. In classic Orwellian style, the Left has mischaracterized the controversy over what books are appropriate for school libraries as a battle over book banning. In fact, the issue is educational and involves age appropriateness of material available to children. There are no books that can’t be legally published and purchased by adults in America. Unfortunately, a tiny cabal of activists has managed to highlack the debate for it’s own narrow political ends, abetted by an uncritically compliant media. So-called “Banned Books Week'' is a fraud, and only serves to white-wash the legitimate competing issues and concerns surrounding school libraries and education, and demonize one side of the debate.

Related Reading:

NJ Proposed ‘Book Ban’ Law Seeks to Silence Parents, Debate and Dissent.

Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media by Jacob Mchangama 

Book-Banning vs. Age-Appropriate Educational Material

Real vs. Pseudo-Censorship

What the Parents’ Rights Movement is Really Really About

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

The moral standing of the latest Israel/Hamas war is as bright a line as you’ll ever see. The aggressor is Hamas. The defender is Israel. From the moment Hamas launched its barbaric attack on Israel, every casualty on either side became the moral responsibility of Hamas, the aggressor. Every brick in the Gazan rubble resulting from the Israeli military retaliation; every drop of blood and every tear shed by Gazans, civilians, foreign nationals, or others, is the moral responsibility of Hamas. 

To be clear, let’s consider the alleged destruction of that hospital that was first reported to have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Hamas immediately blamed an Israeli air strike. It has since become clear that it was an errant missile fired by a Hamas ally. And the death total and damage to the hospital turned out to have been greatly exaggerated. But all of that is morally beside the point. Even if the original reports were accurate, and a strategically targeted Israeli air strike destroyed the hospital and killed many hundreds, the responsibility would be on Hamas. Hamas is the aggressor. Israel is the defender. That strike would not have happened but for Hamas’s attack on Israel.

From here on out, whatever death and destruction results from Israel’s avowed strategy to eradicate Hamas once and for all—including the use of nuclear weapons, if God forbid it comes to that, will be laid at the feet of Hamas and its master, the Islamic theocracy of Iran.

Which brings us to the next point. In 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, Ayn Rand Institute founder Leonard Piekoff went on the Bill O’Reilly show to advocate for the response to the Islamic attack on America that he considered proper. In a contentious interview in which O’Reilly treated Piekoff at times less than respectful, Piekoff argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan was the wrong target. The right target, said Piekoff, was Iran, the spiritual and political head of the entire anti-civilization Islamic Totalitarian movement. Have a listen, think about where we are now, and then dare to tell me that Piekoff was wrong. 

Imagine where we’d be today had America followed Leonard Peikoff’s advice.

Related Reading:

The Jihad Against America and How to End It, by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard blog

Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, by Elan Journo

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Bush's Collapsing "War on Terror"

The "Forward Strategy" for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo

Related: Democracy in Action in Egypt

Ralph Peters: "Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom"

Iraqi Democracy vs. Freedom

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

Ex NJ Gov. Florio Calls for Dismantling American Checks and Balances

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, former NJ Governor James J. Florio claims that Something is Fundamentally Wrong with American governance.

He writes:

For one sure thing, in all of our states, governors are being called upon to fund functions that are clearly beyond their states’ financial capabilities. The pandemic is the most glaring example. Clearly, the federal government should have stepped in much earlier with the resources needed to combat a once-in-a-lifetime virus. But the pandemic is far from the only example. The cost of higher education, health care, mass transit and government employee pensions are among others that outstrip the ability of states to do what needs to be done so everyone can thrive.

A case can be made that the pandemic, being a systemic issue that knows no political borders, is more a federal issue than a state issue in terms of governmental policy response. But the underlying standard should be individual rights protection..

Both higher education and normal health care are individual, not governmental, responsibilities. Of course, the federal government has already usurped the individual in the 65+ healthcare market. And the federal government largely funds higher education, through its student loan programs, Pell grants, and other methods. 

Mass transit should be funded by users’ fares. 

Government employee pensions, being a form of compensation, should be funded by the government the employee works for. Why should the federal government be taxing people across the country to fund my local police department?  

Florio makes no bones about his real target:

Once you realize what a big problem this is, you can’t help but focus attention on the U.S. Constitution, which, since its adoption in 1787, has frequently been interpreted to largely assign to our state and local governments the responsibilities of dealing with issues of a magnitude that could not be imagined 234 years ago. The result often is counter-productive competition for resources among the 50 states to the detriment of their residents and the entire nation.

Florio doesn’t specify what “resources” the states supposedly compete for. But for sure, the Founders did not imagine the extent to which individual rights would be violated. The last sentence, concerning competition among the states, is particularly revealing. In a sense, competition between the states is precisely what the Founders aimed for. The point of federalism is precisely to balance power among the states, and between the state and federal governments. The Founders whole point was to roadblock centralization of power, the path to tyranny. Take the issue of taxation:

Having to rely on resources that rise or fall depending on economic conditions within a state’s borders is a highly imperfect way to meet human needs and make the public investments needed for equitable results. Meanwhile, states offer all kinds of tax breaks to lure businesses away from other states in the false hope that poaching will be the answer, though it never is. 

Tax competition between the states is an example of the success of and need for the current division of power. That competition is perfectly legitimate. It serves the purpose of checking the taxing powers of the states. People and businesses flee in large numbers from higher tax states to lower tax states routinely. Florio, being a “progressive” Democrat, obviously doesn’t place much importance on individuals wanting to keep more of their own earnings, and spend it as they wish. 

Moving to a more broad-based national system of taxation than exists today would free states from their dependency on fluctuating factors and bring a higher degree of uniformity and equity to revenue-raising at the national level — to say nothing about greater amounts of revenue. A carbon-based tax or a European-styled value-added tax are examples of possible options.

“Free” the states? The federal income tax has already given the federal government enormous powers it should not have. Taxation and government funding is control. The more the government taxes and spends, the more it controls what it spends on. Governments at all levels already tax and spend too much, and for too many illegitimate reasons (illegitimate from the standpoint of individual rights.) But at least we have the “competition for resources among the 50 states” to act as a check and balance. Florio wants to “free” the states from that competitive discipline, which really means diminishing the states’ accountability to their own citizens. Cutting the individual citizen out of the equation, and empowering the political and federal bureaucratic classes, is his entire point. The last thing we need is another “broad-based national system of taxation!”

I recently had a conversation with a man who bitterly complained that he and his wife both work full time and still can’t make ends meet. “What the hell is going on; what am I supposed to do?” he asked. “Who is to blame?”  I suspect he would be more receptive to Donald Trump’s “answers” than to a discussion of state and local tax systems. But it’s a discussion we need to have if we’re honest about solving problems.

By all means, let’s discuss the bloated taxes, including the hidden tax on consumers masquerading as a “corporate income tax” that drives up the cost of consumer goods. And let’s remember that Florio wants to remove one of the restraints on taxes, the tax competition between the states.

Whatever the issue, applying old, increasingly ineffective or inequitable policies to new problems can only make matters worse and cause additional problems. It is time to review 1787 assumptions in light of 21st-century responsibilities.

Yes, let’s review, and reaffirm, the 1787 “assumptions”--the fundamental principles--that the Founders put in place. The Constitution was meant to divide governmental powers to prevent centralization and thus tyranny, and to stifle the ambitions of statists like Florio. Florio concludes:

This task is not for the faint-hearted. Some upholders of the status quo will fight to the death (usually for money); think tobacco, coal, assault weapons. But, the end goal — preserving our democracy — is worth the struggle.

The end goal of the Founders was not Democracy. It was a republic with a democratic process  constitutionally limited by the ultimate safe space, inalienable individual rights. The principle of individual rights is a check on governmental power. Checks and balances is a check on government power. Both stand in the way of centralization and tyranny. The Constitution leaves plenty of room to devise solutions to problems that legitimately require governmental involvement, such as the pandemic. But the Left is looking beyond the legitimate functions of government, the protection of individual rights, to involve government in. Thus, like the attack on the Electoral College, Florio is continuing the Left’s attack on what is fundamentally right about American governance, the structural checks and balances embedded in the Constitution of 1787. 

Related Reading:

In the Name of Science, Preet Bharara and Christine Todd Whitman attack America’s Checks and Balances.

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA *: ‘What do you think of the fact that California has 2 senators to represent 40 million citizens while 23 smaller states have 46 senators to represent 40 million citizens?’

QUORA: ‘Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist?’

 QUORA: ‘Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist?’

I posted this answer:

Superficially, no. Essentially, yes. The difference between Communism and Fascism are as follows. Communism is international, focussing on a united socialist world. Fascism, or national socialism, rejects that approach, instead focussing on socialism tailored to specific national attributes. Communism seeks state ownership of business and private enterprise (the means of production). Fascism seeks effective ownership through widespread centralized control of the economy, leaving a veneer of private ownership. Communism is strictly Egalitarian economically, demanding strict equality. Fascism redistributes plenty of wealth, but allows some measure of differentiation in wealth and income. 

While Communism and Fascism differ in means, and feign to be mortal enemies, they share a common goal, along with every variation of socialism--wholesale, totalitarian socialization of society, and a hatred of their common enemy, individualism, the heart of Capitalism. Communism’s disdain for individualism, or individual autonomy, is undisputed. But just read Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, and you will easily notice the same disdain for individualism and Capitalism. All share a collective moral vision, whereby all individuals, and their associations, whether corporations, unions, professional or trade societies, etc., exist for and within the orbit of the state. Don’t forget Molotov-Ribbentrop, the Nazi-Soviet pact that launched World War II.

Socialists love to redefine socialism, each faction claiming that their brand will work where all the others failed—somehow. Which brings us to today’s Democratic Socialists.  I view these socialists as sympathetic to communism, but without wholesale nationalization of industry. Essentially, Democratic Socialism seeks Communism’s goal of “worker” control of industry through “legal”--i.e., state coercive--means. They are, in effect, practical Communists. They want to reach communistic goals through fascist means. It would not be inaccurate to describe Democratic Socialism as Red Fascism.

Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist? Given that communism and fascism are, fundamentally, ideological fraternal twins, the answer is absolutely. As proof, I give you the Democratic Socialists.

Related answers from me:

Can a fascist be a capitalist?

Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?

Is fascism a form of capitalism?’

Can a communist society include capitalists?

Related Reading:

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

Sanders' Brand of Socialism is Old Fashioned Fascism

A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...

We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism

QUORA: ‘Isn't Capitalism evil simply due to the fact that a business can decide to make an area a food desert simply due to theft?’

Here is a Quora question related to stories we are seeing regularly in the news, the rampant, unrestricted looting of stores in some cities across the nation. Here is the full question:

Isn't Capitalism evil simply due to the fact that a business can decide to make an area a food desert simply due to theft? For example, black neighborhoods in America that become food deserts after corporations like Wal-Mart decide to abandon them.

I posted this answer:

Capitalism is about individual freedom. So the right of business people to decide where to open their stores, or when to close them, is certainly protected under Capitalism, just as the right of the consumer to decide whether or not to shop in a particular store is protected.

Hence, if Walmart decides to close a store because theft has gotten so bad in a particular neighborhood that it is no longer safe or profitable to keep it open, it is Walmart’s moral—and, under Capitalism, legal—right to do so. If all other supermarkets in the area close, it is their right as well. This does not make Capitalism evil. It shows that Capitalism is just. 

America is a free society, not a slave society. Residents have no more right to have a neighborhood food store nearby than a food store has a right to the residents’ business. No one is anyone’s legal or moral servant.

The only servant in America is the government—to the people . . . all of them equally. The real villains for these so-called “food deserts” are the political authorities who are unwilling to control the rampant theft. It is the government’s foremost responsibility to protect the rights and safety of the individual; ALL individuals, including businessmen.* It is the political authorities who are to blame when businesses close due to the politicians’ failure to keep a neighborhood safe for their stores, their employees, and their customers. When Walmart closes up and “leaves,” Walmart is not abandoning the neighborhood, black or otherwise. It is the government that abandoned Walmart.

* [The Declaration of Independence, the philosophic blueprint for America and its Constitution, states that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”]

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

QUORA *: ‘Is capitalism basically saying that you have to work and pay for the right to basic life necessities? How is that freedom?’

QUORA: ‘Why should capitalists be allowed to continually reap the benefits of others' labor?’

Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’

QUORA : Do the pro-capitalists here honestly think that the system is fair? How are people at the bottom of the food chain, realistically speaking, expected to break the poverty cycle without government intervention?

QUORA : ‘Capitalism only works when it rewards the winners and punishes the losers. What should a modern society do with the losers?’

Capitalism by George Reisman

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein  

What is Capitalism? by Ayn Rand

The Migration Crisis

Ross Douthat has a good column titled The Permanent Migration Crisis. The subject of the New York Times article is on what has been dubbed the “migration crisis.” He observes that mass migration is mainly moving from Africa to Western Europe and Latin America to the United States. His intelligent analysis examines the interesting problems this massive wave of migration is creating for both the political Left and Right. I believe his analysis is largely accurate. In zeroing in on the cause of the crisis, Douthat observes:

Civil wars and climate change will play their part, but the most important shifts are, first, the way the internet and smartphones have made it easier to make your way around the world, and second, the population imbalance between a rich, rapidly-aging West and a poorer, younger Global South, a deeply unstable equilibrium drawing economic migrants north.

All of this is a bigger problem for Europe than the United States — European aging is more advanced, Africa’s population will boom for decades (in 50 years there may be five Africans for every European) while Latin America’s birthrates have declined. 

Granted, there is no easy fix in the short to mid term. But does it have to be permanent? No. Note that the migration moves from “poorer” to “rich” regions. The migration is primarily driven by desperation of people escaping intolerable living conditions in their home countries. But do the poor regions have to be poor? What is the reason why the rich nations are rich? Certainly, people in rich countries are no better, smarter, or harder working than those in poor regions. What’s holding back the poor? What’s facilitating the economic growth of the rich? Douthat identifies the problem, but doesn’t address the causes.

I posted this comment, slightly edited for grammatical correctness:

What seems always to be missing from analysis of the migration crisis is recognition of the fact that people are moving from places dominated by authoritarianism and with minimal fossil fuel use to places with substantial Capitalistic freedom powered by extensive fossil fuels use. That's the elephant in the room. Freedom of migration is a good thing. But the migration CRISIS is purely political. Fundamentally, what the countries from which mass migration originates need is more Capitalism—i.e. individual liberty, including property rights and the freedom to use fossil fuels, rule of law, limited democratic governance, etc.—so they can prosper and better protect themselves from domestic violence, tyranny, and the ever-present climate dangers.

Related Reading:

Pope Francis: Prosperity, Liberty, and Climate Change are the Common Enemy

At Climate Summit, America takes Lead on Energy Realism and Prosperity

Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 

Religionists Should Promote Capitalism and More Reliable Energy to End Poverty, Not ‘Protect’ the Poor from Fossil Fuels.

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

Mexico Feels Pressure of Relentless Migration From South America by James Fredrick for The New York Times 9/21 23

Why We Should Celebrate Christopher Columbus Day

Columbus Day has become controversial. Critics, mostly on the Left, point to Christopher Columbus's brutal treatment of New World natives and support for slavery, which they claim override his exploratory achievements that set in motion the train of events that led to the Enlightenment and ultimately the birth of America. Which holds sway; Columbus's undeniable bad aspects or his positives, which led to the such monumental turning points such as the abolition of slavery throughout most of the world?

History is messy. There are very few total heroes or total villains. Historical context is crucial, and the ultimate evaluation of any achievement must be weighed against this context and the totality of the person. On balance, from a humanitarian perspective, was Columbus a positive or negative force in the overall sweep of history? 

Count me on the positive side. As my tribute to Christopher Columbus on this, his day, I present selected excerpts from selected articles by other writers:

Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization By Thomas Bowden

On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World.

We need not evade or excuse Columbus’s flaws--his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives--to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose philosophers and mathematicians, men such as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Euclid, displaced otherworldly mysticism by discovering the laws of logic and mathematical relationships, demonstrating to mankind that reality is a single realm accessible to human understanding.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose scientists, men such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, banished primitive superstitions by discovering natural laws through the scientific method, demonstrating to mankind that the universe is both knowable and predictable.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose political geniuses, men such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers, defined the principles by which bloody tribal warfare, religious strife, and, ultimately, slavery could be eradicated by constitutional republics devoted to protecting life, liberty, property, and the selfish pursuit of individual happiness.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose entrepreneurs, men such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Gates, transformed an inhospitable wilderness populated by frightened savages into a wealthy nation of self-confident producers served by highways, power plants, computers, and thousands of other life-enhancing products.

On Columbus Day, in sum, we celebrate Western civilization as history’s greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?

In another op-ed on Fox News.com, Let's Take Back Columbus Day, Bowden said this:

We’ve been taught that Columbus opened the way for rapacious European settlers to unleash a stream of horrors on a virgin continent: slavery, racism, warfare, epidemic, and the cruel oppression of Indians.

This modern view of Columbus represents an unjust attack upon both our country and the civilization that made it possible. Western civilization did not originate slavery, racism, warfare, or disease--but with America as its exemplar, that civilization created the antidotes. How? By means of a set of core ideas that set Western civilization apart from all others: reason and individualism.

Excerpts from an op-ed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, October 10, 2008, Columbus was a hero [No longer available online]

By Dimitri Vassilaros

Christopher Columbus could not have discovered a better spokesman than Thomas A. Bowden.

The accomplishments of Columbus should speak for themselves. But thanks to political correctness, the moronic multicultural mob keeps talking them down. Mr. Bowden has been speaking passionately and forcefully about Columbus for years.

"My ancestors were savages," says Bowden matter-of-factly. Everyone can say the same, depending on how far back one is willing to look at lineage. "It's nothing racial or ethnic; it's historical fact."

"Columbus critics have a disguised criticism of Western civilization because Europeans replaced Stone Age Indians. They believe that this continent would have been better off without Europeans, that industrial civilization is an evil that is to be lamented and regretted.

"That is the real criticism of Columbus. I reject it completely."

Indians typically were widely scattered Stone Age tribes, he says. "They had little agriculture and lived in poverty, fear, ignorance and superstition. They had no concept of government, ownership or private property rights.

"Slavery was perfectly common.

Well, didn't Indians at least live in harmony with nature?

"No," says Bowden. "Man should not live in harmony with nature in the sense of simply keeping it pristine. We live by impacting the environment. The environment has no intrinsic value. Our civilization is more in harmony with nature by making it serve our ends."

Well, what about all the land supposedly stolen from the Indians by European settlers?

Indians did not own the vast reaches of land that they traveled on, Bowden says. Ownership of land is deserved, he says. By that, he means a settler can acquire property rights by making the land more valuable by, say, digging it up for farming. Or to build his homestead or business.

Columbus essentially was an explorer and discoverer bringing Western civilization's cures, science and technology, he says. The philosophical legal process was another gift the Europeans gave to the Indians, he says. "Indians got all that for free."

Columbus' critics should fall down on their knees and thank the Founding Fathers for creating a nation based on the moral principle of the individual's right to life, liberty and, Bowden stresses, the selfish pursuit of happiness.

"It's the only nation that came about in such a way. Anyone who has humanity's interest at heart should love America," he says.

Excerpts from Man's Best Came With Columbus—Michael S. Berliner

Did Columbus “discover” America? Yes, in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., the developing scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus’s discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed. What they replaced was a way of life dominated by fatalism, passivity, superstition, and magic.

There is a movement to replace Columbus Day with something called Indigenous Peoples Day, which is "a holiday that celebrates and honors the Native Americans and commemorates their shared history and culture."  "Native Americans" are no more native or indigenous than anyone else born in America. Their ancestors may have arrived in North America before others' ancestors. But so what? No race of people actually emerged in North America. By all accounts so far, human life first evolved in Africa, before spreading around the globe. That said, if anyone wants to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day, fine. But why replace Columbus Day? American Indian tribes had practices that were at least as vicious as Columbus, including wars of conquest and plunder, slavery, human sacrifice, torture, and the slaughter of innocent settlers including women and children. But just as American Indians may have done some good things worth commemorating, so did Columbus, in spades. It was Columbus, not American Indians, who changed the course of history for the better, landing him ninth on historian Michael H. Hart’s ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and 30th, next to Ferdinand Magellan, on Time’s list.

Like other great individuals, it's the good of Columbus that we celebrate, not the bad. Celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day, if you like. But there's no reason for either/or. Celebrate both.

Happy Columbus Day

Related Video:

Progressive or Oppressive? Balancing the History of Manifest Destiny -- A panel discussion with Tom Clavin, Stephen Hicks Ph.D., John Prevas in Progressive or Oppressive? Balancing the History of Manifest Destiny.

Related Reading:

The enemies of Christopher Columbus—Thomas A. Bowden

Opposing Views:

On Christopher Columbus, the Far Left Is Correct—Bryan Caplan