The question of objectivity is whether human beings are capable of knowing reality just as it is, or whether there is some necessary distortion in our grasp of the nature of things imposed either by the very nature of our cognitive mechanism, or by such factors as language, culture, personal ambitions, psychological disorders, and class interests. Could it be that we do not see the world at all, since we see it from a particular point of view? Can we ever satisfactorily establish that our understanding of reality is accurate, or must that always remain in doubt? In this book Professor Machan defends objectivity in philosophy, science, and everyday life from its many critics. Objectivity stands in need of a defence because it is a difficult ideal to serve, especially in an era of multiculturalism, deconstructionism, feminism, and diversity. People from different cultures report having radically different experiences, indeed radically different worlds. They usually claim that their experiences are as true as anyone else's. Deconstructionists tell us that we know nothing determinate beyond language, i.e., that we don't know what we are talking about. Feminists often maintain that women and men see the world in significantly different ways. The idea of diversity gains much of its plausibility from the idea that people from diverse backgrounds all have their own valid ways of seeing the world. The most prominent movements in Anglo-American and continental philosophy are against objectivity. Such figures as Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida unambiguously deny that human beings are capable of knowing the world as it is. This book considers and responds to these and similar challenges to objectivity.

It is well known that the radical libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick sharply distinguished his vision of the free society from egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls. Less remarked upon is the distinction he drew between the free society governed by a strictly limited government, commonly referred to as 'minarchism', and the society without any government at all - anarchism. In this volume, the editors, Long - an anarchist - and Machan - a minarchist - have brought together a selection of specially commissioned essays from key theorists actively involved in this debate. Each tackles the question of whether or not a government forms a legitimate part of a free society or whether anarchy/minarchy is merely a distinction without a difference.

It is well known that the radical libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick sharply distinguished his vision of the free society from egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls. Less remarked upon is the distinction he drew between the free society governed by a strictly limited government, commonly referred to as 'minarchism', and the society without any government at all - anarchism.In this volume, the editors, Long - an anarchist, and Machan - a minarchist, have brought together a selection of specially commissioned essays from the key theorists actively involved in this debate. Each tackles the question of whether or not a government forms a legitimate part of a free society from a variety of perspectives or whether anarchy/minarchy is merely a distinction without a difference.

Ever since the publication in 1974 of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, libertarianism has been much discussed within political philosophy, science and economy circles. Yet libertarianism has been so strongly identified with Nozick's version of it that little attention has been devoted to other than Nozick's ideas and arguments. While Nozick's version of libertarianism has preoccupied the academic discussion Nozick himself did not respond to the many criticisms raised and yet other defenders of libertarianism have not remained silent. Jan Narveson, Loren Lomasky, Eric Mack, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl and many others have contributed impressive arguments of their own in support of the libertarian idea that a political system is just when it successfully secures the rights of individuals understood within the Lockean classical liberal tradition. In this book Tibor R. Machan analyses the state of the debate on libertarianism post Nozick. Going far beyond the often cursory treatment of libertarianism in major books and other publications he examines closely the alternative non-Nozickian defenses of libertarianism that have been advanced and, by applying these arguments to innumerable policy areas in the field, Machan achieves a new visibility and prominence for libertarianism.

The question of objectivity is whether human beings are capable of knowing reality just as it is, or whether there is some necessary distortion in our grasp of the nature of things imposed either by the very nature of our cognitive mechanism, or by such factors as language, culture, personal ambitions, psychological disorders, and class interests. Could it be that we do not see the world at all, since we see it from a particular point of view? Can we ever satisfactorily establish that our understanding of reality is accurate, or must that always remain in doubt? In this book Professor Machan defends objectivity in philosophy, science, and everyday life from its many critics. Objectivity stands in need of a defence because it is a difficult ideal to serve, especially in an era of multiculturalism, deconstructionism, feminism, and diversity. People from different cultures report having radically different experiences, indeed radically different worlds. They usually claim that their experiences are as true as anyone else's. Deconstructionists tell us that we know nothing determinate beyond language, i.e., that we don't know what we are talking about. Feminists often maintain that women and men see the world in significantly different ways. The idea of diversity gains much of its plausibility from the idea that people from diverse backgrounds all have their own valid ways of seeing the world. The most prominent movements in Anglo-American and continental philosophy are against objectivity. Such figures as Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida unambiguously deny that human beings are capable of knowing the world as it is. This book considers and responds to these and similar challenges to objectivity.

The text argues that individualism is far from dead. Tibor Machan identifies, develops and defends what he calls classical individualism - an individualism humanized by classical philosophy, rooted in Aristotle rather than Hobbes. It does not reject the social nature of human beings, but finds that every one has a self-directed agent who is responsible for what he or she does. Machan rejects all types of collectivism, including communitarianism, ethnic solidarity, racial unity and gender identity. The ideas expressed have important social and political implications, and should be of interest to anyone concerned with the notion of individuality and individual responsibility, or with an interest in the following: social and political affairs, social ethics, political philosophy, economics, rights theory, the nature of the human being, libertarianism, capitalism, or environmentalism.

In Classical Individualism, Tibor R. Machan argues that individualism is far from being dead. Machan identifies, develops and defends what he calls classical individualism - an individualism humanised by classical philosophy, rooted in Aristotle rather than Hobbes.
This book does not reject the social nature of human beings, but finds that every one has a self-directed agent who is responsible for what he or she does. Machan rejects all types of collectivism, including communitarianism, ethnic solidarity, racial unity, and gender identity. The ideas expressed here have important social and political implications, and will be of interest to anyone concerned with the notion of individuality and individual responsibility.

Contains a philosophical discussion of freedom, politics and religion.

Especially when there is a lot of political rhetoric in the air, those of us with strong political convictions are inclined to reflect on just why we hold certain views even as others who are basically like us hold very different ones. Social scientists and other thinkers struggle to explain it, but the puzzle remains-in part because they, too, disagree so much with one another. Whether the arena is politics, religion, business, scientific research, or education, individuals who operate in the same environment and experience the same conditions may have radically different interpretations of the facts and diametrically opposed convictions about how to react to them. When faced with a fundamental disagreement, we ask ourselves: Why are these folks so wrong? And how can they be so convinced that we are wrong?

In this provocative monograph, Tibor Machan explores the principles of truth, reason, and ideology, with particular respect to the profound political, economic, and social crises gripping the world today. In so doing, he not only sheds light on the nature of "truth" but also suggests a framework for embracing differences to come up with creative solutions.

Government interference in free enterprise is growing. Should they intercede in business ethics and corporate responsibility; and if so, to what extent? The Morality of Business: A Profession for Human Wealthcare goes beyond the utilitarian case in discussing the various elements of business ethics, social policy, job security, outsourcing, government regulation, stakeholder theory, advertising and property rights.

Government interference in free enterprise is growing. Should they intercede in business ethics and corporate responsibility; and if so, to what extent? The Morality of Business: A Profession for Human Wealthcare goes beyond the utilitarian case in discussing the various elements of business ethics, social policy, job security, outsourcing, government regulation, stakeholder theory, advertising and property rights.

The Liberty Option advances the idea that for compelling moral as well as practical reasons it is the free society -- with the rule of law founded on the
principles of private property rights, its complete respect for individual sovereignty and properly limited legal authorities -- not one or another version of
statism that serves justice best, is most prosperous and encourages the greatest measure of individual virtue on the part of the citizenry. The work shows why
this is so and lays out some of the most crucial implications of the idea. While the book presents a principled approach to politics, it is firmly grounded in the
best and most up to date understanding of human community life and history as well as many of its complications, challenges, adversities and prospects.

What special problems arise for managers and employees of companies when they do business in countries and cultures other than their own? The essays in this book identify universal principles of business ethics and spell our minimal legal and ethical absolutes in foreign trade. They examine human rights and analyze the cross-cultural aspects of two sexual harassment cases filed against Mitsubishi in America.

The contributors examine the interdependence of justice and liberty and define the most sensible, reasonable principles of justice as they relate to equality, property, gender, and other factors. They compare the libertarian approach to the modern liberal focus on entitlements, offer a libertarian slant on feminism and liberty, a "natural rights" approach to justice, and more.

In The Passion for Liberty, Tibor R. Machan defends a libertarian conception of a free society, one in which individuals are sovereign, self-governing beings, not subject to others' will without their consent. In the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick, Machan argues that such a society-far from being hedonistic, licentious, or disorderly-is the best possible ideal for humans. In doing so, he addresses specific issues such as affirmative action, abortion, military intervention, and torture in light of the relationship between liberty and democracy. As freedom takes on a new urgency, The Passion for Liberty reminds us of the importance of individual liberty and why it needs to be defended.

Machan and his contributors offer highly unusual insights that expose our "one size fits all" approach to education as misguided and ultimately damaging to learning--and propose a bold entrepreneurial solution, which would require full separation of school and state.

In a fresh look at the age-old question of nature's laws versus individual choice, Machan offers an insightful discussion of human initiative as a basic feature of our personal and community lives--and its implications for personal relations, politics, criminal law, social work, and public policy.

Has Marxism finally shown itself to be a bankrupt social philosophy? Why should we strive for economic democracy? Are individual human rights to be protected only so long as no one is inconvenienced? Are radical measures needed in the defence of our freedoms? Can competitive, profit-oriented free market capitalism coincide with heart-felt public concern for the social welfare of others? Why do so many people harbour anti-business attitudes? Have we become a nation of moral eunuchs who won't, or can't stand up for their own rights? Is there is right to health care? Has society really been corrupted by public education, pornography, show business, and the like? This extraordinary array of piercing social questions is just a tasty sampling of the intellectual hors d'oeuvres offered to whet the appetites of those who seek a more satisfying and practical approach to contemporary social problems. In "Liberty & Culture", Tibor Machan, one of America's leading libertarian authors, compiles more than 130 of his articles and editorials from leading newspaper columns and nationally recognised magazines.

The Pseudo-Science of B.F. Skinner was Professor Tibor Machan's first book. Now, nearly forty years after its initial publication and after three dozen additional books published by Machan, it is available again through University Press of America. This study is still alive with its initial inquiry into the work of B.F. Skinner, and it is just as influential upon young students today as it was forty years ago. Was Skinner a bona fide scientist or an amateur metaphysician? Was Skinner correct to hold that only what can be observed matters when it comes to understanding ourselves? Was he correct that free will is fictional and morality is pre-scientific? Professor Machan's fascinating inquiry into Skinner's radical studies is a salute and a challenge to the corpus of his work.

Philosophers of Capitalism provides an interdisciplinary approach, attempting to discover the feasibility of an integration of Austrian Economics and Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. In the first section of the book, Edward W. Younkins supplies essays presenting the essential ideas of Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand. Building upon these essential ideas, the second portion of the book brings together scholarly perspectives from top academics, analyzing Menger, von Mises, and Rand. The third and final section of the book looks toward the future and the possibility of combining and extending the insights of these champions of a free society, emphasizing how the errors, omissions, and oversights made by one theorist can effectively be negated or compensated for by integrating insights from one or more of the others. Featuring a list of recommended reading for the major ideas and theorists discussed, Philosophers of Capitalism is an essential book for both philosophers and economists.

For some time there has been no direct critique of Marx's ideas from those who value the position he most harshly attacked, bourgeois capitalism. The few who did criticize Marx were economists such as Thomas Sowell, Eugen Boehm-Bawerk, and Ludwig von Mises. Others attacked Marx's ideas, but did not actually defend the concept of capitalism. In 1987, shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union, David Conway published his Farewell to Marx, which offered a philosophical critique of Marx. This work, however, developed, in part, from a position that uncritically embraces economism, or what the author calls the "homo economicus conception of human life." In Revisting Marxism, Tibor Machan contrasts Marx's historicist collectivism with a neo-Aristotelian individualism as presented by, among others, David L. Norton and Ayn Rand. It criticizes Marxism based on this position, the one he most directly disparaged. Also included in this volume is an exchange between the author and the late Sidney Hook, perhaps the most sympathetic social democratic champion of Marx's ideas.

Libertarianism: For and Against offers dueling perspectives on the scope of legitimate government. Tibor R. Machan, a well-known political philosopher with libertarian convictions, argues for a minimal government devoted solely to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Stressing the sovereignty of each individual, Machan argues in favor of limiting democracy's scope and against the redistribution of wealth, or any other sort of taxation. In opposition to libertarianism, philosopher Craig Duncan defends democratic liberalism, which aims to ensure that all citizens have fair access to a life of dignity. This requires measures to protect equality of opportunity, as well as measures to ensure all have access to a decent minimum standard of living. In a dynamic exchange of arguments, critiques, and rebuttals, the two philosophers cut to the heart of this important debate, articulating and defending competing conceptions of such core values as political freedom and equality.

Libertarianism: For and Against offers dueling perspectives on the scope of legitimate government. Tibor R. Machan, a well-known political philosopher with libertarian convictions, argues for a minimal government devoted solely to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Stressing the sovereignty of each individual, Machan argues in favor of limiting democracy's scope and against the redistribution of wealth, or any other sort of taxation. In opposition to libertarianism, philosopher Craig Duncan defends democratic liberalism, which aims to ensure that all citizens have fair access to a life of dignity. This requires measures to protect equality of opportunity, as well as measures to ensure all have access to a decent minimum standard of living. In a dynamic exchange of arguments, critiques, and rebuttals, the two philosophers cut to the heart of this important debate, articulating and defending competing conceptions of such core values as political freedom and equality.

This work is a classic dialogue between two philosophers, with the unusual twist that it was actually conducted, not fabricated, by two different philosophers. It presents in a conversational tone the various crucial and not so crucial aspects of the topic of political liberty and what if any value it has for us. The topics covered range from the main theme to such others as the nature of goodness, the open question argument (G.E. Moore), the nature of conceptual knowledge, whether being rational might be the highest moral good and what it entails, how to judge theories of mortality, the difference between goodness and moral goodness, and much more. Both undergraduate and graduate students of philosophy and in particular political philosophy, will find this book invaluable.

To find more information about Rowman and Littlefield titles, please visit www.rowmanlittlefield.com.