Recently, I had the pleasure of attending a debate about the morality of capitalism between James Otteson and Michael Anton, a defender of economic nationalism. Otteson made a good case for capitalism; however, Anton derailed the debate by choosing to focus on specific policies rather than ethical concerns. Ironically, Anton admits that he has hardly ever picked up an economics textbook.
Throughout the debate, Anton made claims that were either misleading or false. I will address the most egregious here.
Tariffs and Free Trade
Anton’s foremost claim is that tariffs are, in fact, beneficial for economic development. Without giving much evidence, he merely appeals to the authority of Alexander Hamilton and the infant industry argument. Perhaps his ignorance of economics stunts his

People from socially and economically marginized groups in the USA tend to support socialism. Yet socialists have a long and bloody history of suppressing these very groups.

Original Article: "Socialism, Minority Groups, and Personal Liberties"

While most free market advocates are fixated on the national debt, they also should be looking at municipal debt over which taxpayers have no say. Maybe default is the answer.

Original Article: "Should Local Municipalities Default on Their Debts? Seems Like a Good Idea"

Socialists have managed to acquire the loyalty of a coalition of disparate groups by championing the principle of personal liberty. Especially in the United States, many women, disabled, gay people, transgender people, racial and ethnic minorities, and immigrants are among the proud supporters of the socialist cause, foolishly believing that capitalism or the free market is antithetical to their livelihood or lifestyles.
They could not be more wrong. Unfortunately, under socialism, people are not self-owners; they belong to the state.
The state owns everyone’s bodies under socialism. No example is more extreme than the gulags of the Soviet Union, where the state sent millions to forced-labor camps in which about 1.6 million died. The individual was merely a producer good in the state’s

Most Americans do not understand debt default. When it is explained, debt default comes off as immorally reneging on the financial obligations of the government. In contrast, libertarians have demonstrated that it is, in fact, moral and beneficial. However, when default is brought up, it is hardly ever discussed in terms of local governments. So, here is why your local government should leave their creditors in the dust.
Government issued debt is essentially immoral. Government debt issuance is an aggressive action and should be rejected as such. It involuntarily transfers money from the taxpayer to the government’s creditors. There is no positive obligation to pay back the creditors because the creditors are fully aware of where the payments come from—involuntary transfers from the