Tweet [1]
In my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, I highlight the role of property rights in reducing conflict [3]. Here’s my conclusion:
Clear property rights give incentives and opportunities to each of us to peacefully and productively settle disputes that might otherwise erupt into wasteful, or even violent, conflicts.
Karol Boudreaux highlights another market mechanism for reducing conflict [4].
Here’s Alberto Mingardi on Milton Friedman [5].
Abby Hall does not buy the long-lived tale that Uncle Sam’s use of atomic weapons in 1945 is defensible [6]. A slice:
What is frequently absent from discussions of the bombings, issues of “necessity” and potential American casualties aside, is that most of those killed were not members of the Japanese military—but innocent civilians. By portraying the bombing as necessary to end the war, the U.S. government seeks to absolve itself from accepting the murder of thousands of men, women, and children. This article [7] from Foreign Policy, written just last year, highlights the disconnect between the standard narrative regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the known reality.
Sam Staley reviews Dunkirk [8].
Richard Rahn is always worth reading [9].
Here’s Elaine Schwartz on America’s illuminating infrastructure [10].
Bryan Caplan reflects creatively on the civility of markets [11].
Anne Bradley offers some reading suggestions [12].