A Criminal Wins in NYC

A criminal won the mayoralty race in NYC. 

Why do I say “criminal?” A while back I read 2 books, The Communistic Societies of the United States by Charles Nordhoff and History of American Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes. Both were published in the 1870s by authors who documented the many socialist enclaves established across the young 19th Century USA by traveling around and living within them and getting first-hand experience. The CORE PREMISE that defined these socialisms is that they were VOLUNTARY. Then Karl Marx weaponized the young socialist movement, turning it into a violent political movement that sought control of government to force totalitarian Socialist control over society. This new Marxian Socialism—POLITICAL Socialism—can only be described as criminal, seeking to impose control and ownership over everyone’s wealth, work, and lives by government force. Can anyone tell me how Zohran Mamdani’s agenda of “free” stuff and “abolishing billionaires” is any different from that? He’s basically declaring that your wealth is his to seize and distribute.

If you have ever read the manifesto of The Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA), you would see that it is thoroughly Marxist. It advocates “worker control of the means of production,” which means government seizure of all privately held properties—the businesses, land, savings accounts, etc., of "the owning class"—and putting their earned wealth under government ownership, to be distributed according to bureaucratic edict. Zohran Mamdani, the new NYC mayor, has advocated just such policies of abolishing private property. Unlike wishy-washy “socialists” like Sanders and AOC—which the DSA does NOT endorse—Zohran Mamdani is the real thing.

Mamdani is a self-described Democratic Socialist—a CRIMINAL SOCIALIST. Unlike the voluntary socialisms described by Nordhoff and Noyes—which were perfectly consistent with a free society—Zamdani, like all Marxian Socialists, seeks to impose his socialist values on everyone regardless of their individual approvals. That’s why he’s in politics. He is a totalitarian. Never mind that he was elected. Tyranny is tyranny, whether imposed by coup d’etat, as in Cuba, or by vote, as in Venezuela. 

The danger of Mamdani is not so much in what he may impose on NYC. He likely will not get much of his stated agenda done. After all, he only won 50.4% of the vote, a bare majority, and against a corrupt Democrat at that. The danger is in that he will legitimize and normalize Democratic Socialism, a radical Left fringe movement, into American society. 

As to why so many supposed “Americans” can turn to an ideology so diametrically opposed to Americanism, and what can be done to stop it, that is a discussion for another time. For now, a dangerous precedent has been set for the long term. Modern Socialism—MARXIAN Socialism—is from beginning to end a criminal enterprise. It is literally organized crime rising out of the underworld to rule a nation. It begins with theft and it ends with murder. That’s what Mamdani’s voters injected into American politics. Given the destructive, bloody history of Marxism over the past 100+ years, to be a socialist today is an unforgivable sin. Ignorance is no excuse. There are no innocent socialists.

Related Reading:

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

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

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

My Facebook Post

Related Viewing:

Why Marxism? with Dr. C Bradley Thompson

Why We Should Celebrate 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, torture among each other 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'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

Trump's policies are fascism

 QUORA: "What term do you think best describes Trump's attempts to control the U.S. economy — state capitalism, fascist capitalism, or is there another term?"

My answer:

Neither “state capitalism” nor “fascist capitalism.” Both are logically invalid terms because Capitalism by definition means the absence of government interference into—or control of—the economy (i.e. the separation of economics and state). Trump’s policies are, in fact, straight-up socialism of the fascist, as opposed to the Communist, variety.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a form of capitalism?’

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’

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

Pope Francis, the Anti-Capitalist Marxist, is Dead—Good Riddance

 Pope Francis, the Anti-Capitalist Marxist, is Dead—Good Riddance

Pope Francis, the arch enemy of property rights and individualism*, and thus Capitalism, freedom, and prosperity, is dead. I’m tempted to say good riddance, except that the Vatican will likely appoint another Marxian Communist. Why? Because Francis merely reiterated the Catholic Church’s long-held teachings. 

But why would the Church hold to its hostility to a social system that has established the conditions for people to work their way out from poverty? Can Francis really be ignorant of the available facts, empirical evidence, basic economics, or philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, or of the disastrous history of Capitalism’s antipode in practice, collectivism? 

I think not. The Catholic Church, as an institution, has a vested interest in poverty. When the Church ruled for centuries, what we now call the Dark and Middle Ages, poverty reigned, by design. It is only with the arrival of modern capitalism that general living standards exploded. Over the past 250 years, the Church had a front row seat to observe the rising prosperity, backed up by mountains of literature explaining the theoretical and empirical economic causes of the prosperity. How can any Pope deny these facts? Can the learned leader of an institution that has been around for 2000 years and has seen it all really be so ignorant of the reality of free market economics and the bloody record of collectivism? No. So why Francis’ trade against Capitalism? Easy. “The poor” is the Catholic Church's base. Poverty and Church power are linked.

More fundamentally, poverty and Church morals are linked. If handouts to the poor trumps property rights, then the unearned trumps the earned. If poverty is the standard of morality, where does a social system that diminishes poverty based on individual self-determination leave the Catholic Church? Obsolete. The Church doesn’t care about people who work their way up from poverty. They only care about moving the wealth from those who do to those who don’t. The standard of Catholic moral teaching is self-sacrificial giving. If the ranks of those in need are shrinking, who’s left to give to? Who’s left to be the “champion” of? Poverty, not prosperity, is the Church’s moral standard. Given Capitalism’s record in practice, where does that leave the centuries of Church moral teaching about giving to the poor? 

Francis is the latest in a line of anti-Capitalist Catholic Popes. His demotion of property rights is not new. When Francis says  “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods (Fratelli Tutti),” he is reiterating Pope Paul VI in his 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio who advanced the totalitarian principle that the “public authorities” must coercively ensure that “created goods should flow fairly to all,” emphasizing that  “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.” Francis is clear that this is not just moral teachings, but must be legally enforced:

The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant. [my emphasis]

The record of these principles is a record of grinding economic collapse, crushing tyranny, and rivers of blood. How could any champion of the poor subscribe to them? Because the Pope does not want to “help” the “underprivileged people.” He wants to preserve their misery and expand their ranks**. Poverty is virtue, and the most virtuous act one can perform is to take a vow of poverty. That’s why the Church hates capitalism. That’s why Pope after Pope condemns Capitalism. We can explain how Capitalism works until we’re blue in the face. It doesn’t matter to the Church, and never has. Why? Because it’s not whether Capitalism works or how it works. The problem is that it works--works to facilitate man’s escape from poverty. 

And they’re smart. No, Francis doesn’t attack Capitalism directly. He just attacks “unfettered Capitalism.” He just attacks Capitalism’s Heart and Soul. He attacks capitalism at its root--profit-seeking, property rights, free trade, individualism, and the ethics of rational self-interest. 

Francis is not ignorant. He’s a Marxist (“the principle of the universal destination of created goods,” or, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) and a communist (“[W]e need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home.”) and an altruist (“[I]f one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.”). Francis knows exactly what he is saying. And he means it. Francis and the Church are not misguided souls. They are Capitalism’s—and thus the poor’s—arch enemies as much as Communism is. This fact must be explicitly acknowledged by Capitalism’s champions. 

* [“Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal. The mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family. Nor can it save us from the many ills that are now increasingly globalized. Radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. It makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good.”—FRATELLI TUTTI, P. 105. Note Francis’s disdain for “safety nets” as any kind of solution. Clearly, he’s not satisfied with mixed economy welfare statism. What’s the alternative? Full blown totalitarian socialism.]

** [C. Brad Thompson concurs: “Christian empathy and guilt are also wrapped in a curious paradox: if alleviating poverty and suffering are the goals of Christian ethics and if capitalism (the system based on self-interest) is the economic system that makes that possible, what then is left of the Christian ethic if the ethic of self-interest and capitalism eliminates poverty and much suffering? There would then be no need for the Jesus’s moral teaching. It would seem then that Jesus’s moral teaching is thus stuck between a moral rock and a political hard place. Capitalism reduces poverty and thus reduces the need for the Christian ethic, while socialism increases poverty and thus incentivizes and fulfills the Christian teaching.” 

Related Reading:

Jesus and the Philosophy of Selflessness by C. Bradley Thompson for The Redneck Intellectual

Pope Francis’s Anti-Capitalism is No Misunderstanding

Catholic Social Doctrine is both Socialist and Statist

How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate

Pope Francis’s Embrace of Anti-Fossil Fuel Agenda Follows From Church’s Anti-Capitalism

The Illegitimacy of Pope Francis's “Legitimate Redistribution” of Wealth—Natalie Ogle for The Objective Standard

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

Pope Francis’s ‘Authority’ Stems From The Church’s Authoritarian Self-Image

Climate Alarmism and the Catholic Church; Faith-Based Allies in the War on Prosperity

The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages: A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

The Pope's Reaffirmation

Trump’s Trade War Begins: Disaster to follow

My Facebook comments:

Trump has declared world trade war, disrupting business plans, abrigating contracts, upending consumer budgets, rendering $billions of productive investment useless, hammering Americans’ retirement portfolios, and killing jobs. It’s much worse than expected, which was already bad. For the first time, an American Administration is deliberately trying to engineer a global recession—or worse. And it’s based on discredited poverty-inducing 17th Century economics. It’s pre-Adam Smith. It’s primitive. And it’s also based on unimaginable paranoia. What does it even mean when Trump says “other countries have been ripping us off” and other such nonsense? Countries don’t trade. Private individuals do. When a foreign company exports its product to the U.S. to offer for sale, and an American decides to buy it, both sides win. Trade is WIN-WIN. Who's getting “ripped off?” Nobody. 

Economically, Trump’s collectivist premise that this will “make America wealthy again” really means make the government wealthier. The money raised by the tariffs—which will be much less than Trump dreams—will not enrich the average American. It will be sucked out of American consumers to enrich the government. Somebody’s getting ripped off, alright—American consumers, American businesses that depend on global trade, and foreign companies that supply the goods that enrich Americans’ lives. Trump cares about America, in the same sense as a big government Progressive—but he doesn’t care about Americans.

Trump’s trade war is not only economically destructive. It is immoral. It violates the inalienable individual rights of Americans to freely trade with other people. Economic freedom is fundamental to Americanism. Trump is trampling all over the American Dream.

Too many Americans have been flipping out over a few Federal workers losing their jobs and some spending being cut. But this is penny-ante stuff—and in principle positive. The real danger is in Trump’s trade war. I hope Congressional Republicans get a backbone, join with Democrats—as 4 rational Republicans just did on Canada tariffs—and outlaw Trump’s whole tariff scheme, and curb the presidential power to impose tariffs willy-nilly by executive order—a power no president should have. No, it’s not the end of the world—not yet. Perhaps the hope that this is all a negotiating ploy, and things will ultimately work out, is still alive. But we’re in dangerous territory. Make no mistake. Trump has led our country into taking the first step down a road that ends in World War III. Congress must stop Trump on this issue. That would really be Putting AMERICANS First.

At this posting, the stock market is experiencing a massive coronary. 

But there is one potential silver lining developing. Trump’s unconstitutional power grab may be jolting Congress into growing a spine. The Washington Post reported . . . 

A bipartisan bill that would give Congress final approval on tariffs imposed by a president was introduced Thursday by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). The bill seems to have little chance of passage but underscores the unease among some Republicans with Trump’s tariffs plan, which sent shock waves through financial markets and rattled business owners around the world on Thursday.

I’m not holding my breath. Maybe enough Republicans will join all Democrats in stripping Trump, and the presidency, of it usurped power to impose tariff taxes, which Constitutionally belongs to Congress. Unfortunately, too many Republicans are blind Trump backers, Democrats have their own protectionist problems. But “I’ll keep my fingers crossed.”

Related Reading:

Trump just imposed the largest tax hike since 1942 without congressional approval

Trump’s tariffs are a tax by another name, and the power to levy taxes lies with Congress.

If Trump were trying to implement an income tax hike of similar magnitude by executive order, it would be plainly unconstitutional. Everyone knows that only Congress can set tax rates. What’s different about tariffs? On its face, nothing. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The McKinley Tariff that Trump has said he admires was not an executive order signed by President William McKinley; it was legislation sponsored by McKinley when he was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. So, too, the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — which did much to worsen the Great Depression — was passed by Congress. It was not an executive order from President Herbert Hoover.

The problem is that, since the 1930s, Congress has delegated considerable authority to the president to set tariff rates. But, as in so many other areas, Trump is stretching executive authority beyond the breaking point.

The United States has done much better during the past 50 years than other industrialized economies: U.S. GDP per capita is 2.4 times larger than Japan’s and 1½ times larger than Germany’s. In October, just before Trump’s election, the Economist proclaimed the U.S. economy “The envy of the world.” How is this an emergency?

“This is a shocking abuse of the president’s authority to declare national emergencies,” she told me. “I don’t think that will stand up to a court challenge.” It is imperative that Congress take back the power to set tariff rates. Only elected legislators are allowed to raise taxes, and only elected legislators should be allowed to raise tariffs — which are simply taxes under another name.

Phony Liberation From a Phony War

Hillary’s Cave-in to the Left on Free Trade

NAFTA, Whatever its Flaws, Was a Good Thing

‘Buy American’ is UN-American—Harry Binswanger

The real reason Trump is destroying the economy: Trump is imposing ruinous tariffs because American democracy is no longer strong enough to stop him. [Mostly spot on. But I have to take issue with his reference to America as a Democracy. This reference confuses the issue, and leads to unnecessary contradictions. America is a Constitutional Republic. But the author’s basic argument is correct; Trump is violating the Constitutional checks and balances by imposing taxes without Congress, and is abusing emergency powers—albeit by using powers that he inherited.]

Why is Trump rewriting US economic history? Anyone?

Stop H.R.28 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

An activist friend of mine, referring to a proposed Federal law,  posted the following on March 3, 2025:

My political post for the month: some may be aware that this evening the Senate will be voting on the Protection of women in sports act *, which would prevent those with bats & balls, and those who identify with those who don’t have them, from competing against those who were born without them. This is a law that supports women in sports, and clearly those who oppose it really don’t care about women losing athletic opportunities and achieving the success they deserve. How anyone could support a political party that supports this travesty is beyond me! It amazes me that the Republican Senators need just 3 Democratic votes to pass this legislation and that it is uncertain they will get them. It is this sort of outrageous policy stance that is causing Democrats - and will continue to - lose elections. #protection of women in sports act [sic]

My Comments:

I agree with the intent but not the bill. These decisions should be left to the governing bodies of the particular sports organizations, be that be school boards, rule-making bodies of private sports institutions, et al. As a believer in reigning in the size and scope of government, especially the Federal Government, I don’t want to have Congress wading into this issue. As I recall, Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education and leave education to the states. I agree. As I understand this Act, it applies only to school athletic programs. If Trump means what he says, he will veto this bill if it ever gets to his desk.

My friend responded:

my take is that because of the law Title IX, the regulations propagated by the federal government and the several “dear colleague“ letters that have been issued by the DOE, requiring adherence to DOE policy statements or threatening revocation of funding, this can only be resolved at the federal level. The alternative is that you could have Lea Thomas’s spring up in various states competing against women in other states that prohibit those with bats and balls from competing against those without. It’s handled with federal level legislation. [sic]

• 
  

My reply:

It’s already been resolved—by the courts, which threw out Biden’s twisted LBGTQ policy in its entirety a week and a half before Trump took office. “The alternative” is exactly the point—it’s rightfully and properly an issue for the states and their courts. Title IX is a bad law. It invites twisted interpretations. Congress should focus its energies on repealing, or at least amending, Title IX. H.R.28 is an unnecessary and dangerous escalation in Federal power over education.

For the record, I support the complete separation of education and state—and a Constitutional Amendment to lock in that principle—in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state, and I will support any legislation that advances educational freedom toward that ultimate goal.

* [Note: The bill failed to get the votes in the Senate.]

Related Reading:

Beware of Federal Education Policies—Even If You Like Them by Kerry McDonald for FEE

Transgender vs. Transgender Impersonator [aka gender identity]

Crossing, a Transgender Memoir by Dierdre McCloskey

On the ‘Transgender’ Phenomenon

Why elite women’s sports need to be based on sex, not gender Doriane Lambelet Coleman

Beneath the Title IX Controversy

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits? by me for TOS

Education in a Free Society—C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard

QUORA: 'What is one constitutional amendment that should be added to the U.S. Constitution that does not exist today? Why does it need to be added?'

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard