Can an invading soldier be a hero? What is heroism in the context of a military invasion? Join Naomi Brockwell and Sheldon Richman as they discuss the new blockbuster, American Sniper, and unpack the morality of its messages.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Sheldon Richman, author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is affiliated with the Center for a Stateless Society both as chair of the trustees and as a senior fellow. You can support his blog at Patreon.


  • I’m very excited to see this group!  I think that many Christians are wrestling with the idea of their faith and how it relates to their political outlook–having a ready defense of liberty from a Christian outlook is very important to message these ideas to interested Christians. I don’t know how many of you were able to attend ISFLC, so some of you may have already seen this, but I was able to participate as a panelist with five other young Christian libertarians on the issue of how we, as Christians, approach libertarianism.  We were able to upload the panel to YouTube which you can watch here if you didn’t get to see it already/weren’t at ISFLC. As one of the panelists, I would be happy to hear your feedback on the arguments presented in the panel and/or any other general ideas about how to understand libertarianism from a Christian framework.  What are the best ways to message libertarianism to Christians and Christianity to libertarians?

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The next Capitalism & Morality seminar will be held in Vancouver on 21st July 2018. The program is in early stages, but it is easier and cheaper to book flights and hotel for Vancouver early. Here is the seminar registration link:

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • How does a libertarian society deal with both criminal negligence, negligent homicide, negligent driving and negligence in general? This is the point where most disputes lie within libertarianism because NAP non aggression principle assumes intentional aggression. Most of the biggest problems are not because A agresses on B but because A is either ignorant of the risks or disbelieves past warnings. Ignorant is a word people often use without thinking. It does not mean the same thing as stupid, a child or just wrong. It means, particularly in the biblical phase willingly ignorant, taking a risk that may affect others badly. Where these effects are direct its easy, sue the idiot, where they are distant, time or place, its much harder. How do you know who to sue? Should Bill have the right to drive dangerously on the road, given the starting premise that its a private road, and by his actions risk harming others and imposing a significant enforcement cost, etc, on the roads owners? At the very least raised insurance premiums, tolls and other pricing, etc. This is the root of all moral debates. Should Jenny have sex willy nilly spreading VD about the place and thus costing others via the hospital and medical costs and insurances. Its also at the heart of the vaccine debate. Are non vaccinating parents negligent or are vaccination parents risking a 0.1% chance of an Autistic kid? How does a libertarian society judge the case where there are two opposite and mutually exclusive choices. Both probably imperfect. Where you can’t sell both risk/ no risk  choices as a separate product in the market; which is the standard libertarian free market solution.

    Jump to Discussion Post 18 replies
  • I dutifully watched Atlas Shrugged Part III, which was released on September 12 to local movie theaters. As expected, there were not many people in my theater. I must admit that I have a hard time arguing with the one (somewhat negative) review I have seen: The film was obviously fairly low budget, and I did not find the philosophical content much higher or very persuasive. Even if this film was seen by large numbers of people, I doubt they would be very inspired or educated. From that point of view, the high point of the film was where John Galt was being offered great economic power by the US President, when Galt said “that kind of power should not exist”.  But I think that there should have been stronger emphasis on the fact that Galt was being tortured in order to force him to become an economic dictator (under the President).  As portrayed, it simply looked like they were trying to hurt him because they didn’t like what he did or said. I was somewhat turned-off by the masses chanting “We want John Galt” — as if they were looking for a new dictator to replace the President. The movie portrayed a decaying society, but could have better emphasized how modern fascism of regulation is at least as economically destructive as socialism. On a less cerebral level, I was turned-off by the chocolate cake that Dagney and John were eating. Also, John’s partly unshaven face reinforced my impression that for many women being partly unshaven is very sexy.

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies