All Posts

In a recent episode of The Capitalist Corner, Michael Liebowitz shared a deeply personal account of his political evolution - from...

When Florida announced plans to ban vaccine mandates while simultaneously making it illegal for employers to discriminate against the...

For decades, our highest court has treated the Bill of Rights like a shopping list – discrete items that can be picked apart, weighed against each other, and balanced in some cosmic scale of competing interests. Your right to free speech here. Your right against unreasonable searches there. Property rights in this corner. Privacy rights in that one. All separate. All potentially in conflict.

Labor Day has come and gone, but the conversation it sparked between hosts Mark Pellegrino and Michael Liebowitz on The Capitalist Corner deserves deeper examination. Their debate touched on fundamental questions about what we value as a society and whether our cultural celebrations inspire excellence or merely validate the status quo.

In our hyperconnected age, the person who waits for facts before forming opinions has become a radical. The careful thinker who says "I don't know enough yet" is treated as spineless, while the knee-jerk reactor spouting certainties about events they know nothing about is celebrated as having "taken a stand."

Both the political left and right are systematically redefining "incitement" and "violence" to justify increasingly authoritarian responses to speech they find objectionable. This linguistic sleight of hand represents one of the gravest threats to free expression in modern American history.

Groups, tribes, and collectives are mental abstractions - useful for organizing our thinking about multiple individuals who share certain characteristics. But they have no independent existence.

Three distinct approaches to balancing individual rights with public safety - each grounded in legitimate concerns about different aspects of justice and governance.

This expands on a philosophical debate that arose during a Capitalist Corner stream - a discussion about the nature of morality during...

UBI creates what we call a "false entitlement" - a claim to stuff that other people have or make. It says you have a right to a basic income, but that right can only exist if someone else is forced to provide it.

At its core, capitalism depends on secure property rights. If you can't be confident that what you own today will still be yours tomorrow, you can't make rational economic decisions. You can't invest, save, or build a business if the government can arbitrarily seize your assets based on suspicion alone.