Thomas Sowell: Common Sense in a Senseless World

Thomas Sowell: Common Sense in a Senseless World traces Sowell’s journey from humble beginnings to the Hoover Institution, becoming one of our era’s most controversial economists, political philosophers, and prolific authors. Hosted by Jason Riley, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, the one-hour program features insights from Sowell and interviews with his close friends and associates, revealing why the intensely private Thomas Sowell is considered by many to be “one of the greatest minds of the past half-century” and “the smartest person in the room.”

The case for classical liberalism

The Case for Classical Liberalism
Why classical liberals are right but always lose

Classical liberals want freedom, toleration and economic prosperity under the rule of law. Critics would argue they've got human nature all wrong. Some think Classical Liberalism is making a comeback, others think it's out to stay.

The Speaker
Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood makes a case for why classical liberals are always right and wonders why do they always lose?

Watch more videos on iai.tv

101 great liberal thinkers

From IEA Conversations comes this audio in which Eamonn Butler talks about his new book School of Thought: 101 Great Liberal Thinkers

Alt right and right wing collectivism (Jeffrey Tucker pt. 2)

Dave Rubin interviews Jeffrey Tucker (Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research) in two parts. Part 2 here covers the Alt Right and Right Wing Collectivism.

Can liberalism be saved? (Jeffrey Tucker pt. 1)

Dave Rubin interviews Jeffrey Tucker (Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research) in two parts. Part 1 here covers the history and meaning of liberalism.

Glenn Loury talks to Thomas Leonard

On the Glenn Show at Bloggingheads.tv Glenn Loury (Brown University) interviews Thomas Leonard (Princeton University) about Leonard's recent book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era.

The myth of neoliberalism

Colin Talbot writes on The Myth of Neoliberalism. Not everyone will agree with Talbot but his piece is worth talking a few minutes to read. And think about.

First he makes the point that,

Neoliberalism is a myth. It’s a pervasive myth on one side of politics – the left. But it is nevertheless a myth.

and he adds

Let’s start with one simple and obvious fact – no-one claims to be a neoliberal.

Which, as he says, is rather odd. I know libertarians and I know classical liberals but I'm not sure I know anyone who does claim to be a "neoliberal". I know people who have been called "neoliberal" by others but they themselves don't use the term.

Talbot goes on to note

‘Neoliberalism’ has become a term of abuse and an obstacle to serious thinking about what is, and is not, happening in politics and public policy.

and he ends by saying,

Neoliberalism is a convenient myth invented by opponents of any type of pro-market reform or political position that recognizes markets may – in the right circumstances – be a good thing. Everyone from moderate social democrats to the most lurid free-marketeers gets lumped together under a convenient ‘neoliberal’ label. I suppose it saves the bother of actually thinking, but otherwise it is not helpful.

After reading much stuff written by those who oppose "neoliberalism", I still don't know what those who use the term actually mean by it. It seems to mean different things to each user of the term. It would be better if someone could come up with a discussion of just what its characteristics are and how it differs from ideas like libertarianism and classical liberalism.

Matt Ridley on the fate of economic libertarianism

Matt Ridley sums up the current state of economic liberalism in just a few words:

It is the same around the world. Economic liberty is out of fashion. There is almost no country trying the sort of free-market reforms – tax cuts, deregulation, privatisation – that so many countries achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. China and Russia, liberalised briefly in the late twentieth century, seem to be heading back to Big Brother. Brazil has seen its market reforms congeal into crony-corporatism. India and Japan are hardly paragons of small-government economic liberalism. Even here in Britain, I doubt Theresa May took Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” to Switzerland as holiday reading.

Sad but true, just think of the case of New Zealand. The days of Rogernomics are long gone if this current government (or opposition) is anything to go by. I don't see the likes John Key, Gerry Brownlee or Andrew Little sitting up in bed reading The Wealth of Nations or The Constitution of Liberty.

But why is liberalism out of favour?

Unlike welfare-socialism and crony-capitalism, it fails to create vested interests dependent on its subsidies. The whole point of running for president [or Prime Minister] is to be able to hand other people’s money to your favourite causes and generate grateful patronage. Laissez-faire robs you of that treat.

Anything that stops politicians from bribing some of the people with some other people's money will not go down well with either the politicians or those who, gratefully, receive the largess.

A plea regarding ‘Liberal'

Professor Daniel Klein pleads with conservatives and libertarians to not call progressives and left-oriented people ‘liberals.’

The lecture is based on the article "A Plea Regarding 'Liberal'" published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. You can read the responses by John Zmirak and Charles C.W. Cooke. You can also read Klein’s final response to his interlocutors here.

The lecture was given at the Public Choice Center, George Mason University, September 9, 2015.


Liberalism Unrelinquished.