Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Monday, September 22, 2025
Sunday, September 21, 2025
The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration; Closed-borders libertarianism defended.
Closed-borders libertarianism refers to a perspective within libertarianism that supports immigration restrictions, arguing that property rights and individual freedoms can justify limiting who can enter a country. Proponents believe that unrestricted immigration can infringe on the rights of property owners and may lead to negative economic consequences for citizens.
https://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/closed-borders-libertarianism
https://mises.org/library/book/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
https://activeobjectivism.com/2019/02/17/closed-borders-a-rights-based-defense/
https://brucemajors.substack.com/p/closed-borders-libertarianism-c91
“Hate Speech” Isn’t Real and Pam Bondi Is an Enemy of Freedom
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hate-speech-isnt-real-and-pam-bondi-enemy-freedom
Following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many critics of Kirk posted content on social media in which they said rude things about Kirk—and even about his family members—while expressing delight about Kirk’s death. Not surprisingly, many of Kirk’s supporters—and many other ordinary people—found these comments offensive and reprehensible.
Perhaps as part of an effort to exploit the situation to improve her own political fortunes, US Attorney General Pam Bondi then declared that she, a government prosecutor, will “go after” those who engage in what she called “hate speech.”
“Hate speech,” however, does not exist. At all. That’s a phrase the Left invented to define speech the Left doesn’t like as outside the legal protections of Bill of Rights. Put another way, the concept of “hate speech” was invented to justify state-enforced censorship of speech. That Bondi buys into this nonsense is made clear by Bondi’s pledge to “go after” people who are guilty of this hate-speech “crime” that Bondi apparently imagines in her head.
These comments, coming from a sitting Attorney General, are extremely problematic, to say the least. The very fact that Bondi unironically uses the term “hate speech” illustrates how deeply immersed she is in the culture of coercion and despotism that permeates the Washington ruling class. Any politician who promotes the concept of “hate speech” should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently.
There Is No Such Thing as Hate Speech
Bondi’s dangerous comments on so-called hate speech came as part of her Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast. When asked by the host if colleges and universities are somehow complicit in Kirk’s murder, Bondi agreed and stated:
on a broader level, the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country— it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop. There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society …. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.
Miller then gave Bondi an opportunity to clarify her outlandish comments. But Bondi doubled down. Miller said “do you see more law enforcement going after these groups, who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?” Bondi responded: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech…”
Bondi’s comments are even worse when we read them in the full context because she’s connecting her assault on speech not just to nasty comments from Kirk-haters. She also seeks to justify prosecution of alleged “anti-Semites,” by which she really means people who don’t like the socialist State of Israel.
On this latter topic, the administration has already attempted to legally persecute—and prosecute— activists who are guilty of the non-crime of criticizing the Israeli state. One of the most famous examples is Rümeysa Öztürk who was supposedly arrested for supporting violent protests. No evidence, however, has ever been presented to this effect. It is now clear that Öztürk was arrested for the “crime” of writing an op-ed critical of Israel. In other words, the administration launched legal action against Öztürk for alleged hate speech against the Israeli state.
Perhaps feeling emboldened by the President’s support for attacks on op-ed writers, Bondi then pledged to “target” and “go after” people who say mean things on the internet.
This, of course, is blatantly contrary to the American Bill of Rights and more than 300 years of classical-liberal thinking. Frankly, if Bondi fancies herself as some sort of defender of American freedoms, she needs remedial lessons on the topic.
Speech Rights Are Property Rights
Importantly, the right to free speech is not something invented by the US Constitution or federal judges. The freedom of speech is a property right. It stems from the basic, natural right to own ourselves and to own property. That is, the right to use your body to express certain opinions stems from the basic, natural right of self-ownership.
To be sure, there are reasonable, non-state limitations on this right. A person cannot make speeches or express opinions in places where the property owner does not allow it. For example, a person cannot distribute political op-eds in the grocery store if the store owner says “no.” One cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) because it can be assumed the theater’s owner frowns on that sort of thing. On the other hand, if we respect property rights we are forced to conclude that a person is totally and utterly free to express opinions in a time, place, publication, or forum where the owner does not prohibit it.
Pam Bondi may not like it when people criticize the state of Israel or cheer the murder of Charlie Kirk on a privately-owned web site. But whether or not that person is allowed to say things in that place is not something the US government can legitimately regulate.
The only legitimate limitation on free speech is when that speech involves a real and specific threat against another person. On this, the US federal courts were more or less correct when, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court concluded that speech can only be limited when that speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” Saying “I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead” doesn’t even come close to that standard. Neither does saying “I hope members of the IDF get killed.” Vague attacks on foreign armies are a form of free speech, pure and simple.
Even the idea of incitement lends itself to abuse, since it is not always clear when speech is encouraging something in general, or if it involves a specific, imminent threat. Moreover, people are not automatons who simply act out whatever some other person on the internet says should happen. Not every call for violence is necessarily an incitement to “imminent lawless action.”
It is clear, however, that in her comments to Katie Miller, Pam Bondi is not concerned by either legal standards or by property rights. As she is a politician, we should not be at all surprised to discover that she is likely to be more concerned with sounding “tough” to pander to certain interest groups.
Bondi’s embrace of the absurd notion of “hate speech” is also dangerous because it is so vague, undefinable, and open to abuse. Whether or not speech is “hate” speech is totally subjective. What is one man’s hate is another man’s sensible observation. Any practicing Christian sees this every time the Left claims that opposition to gay marriage is a form of hate speech. The Bondi facsimiles on the Left would love nothing more than to “target” and “go after” any Christian clergyman who criticizes gay marriage from the pulpit.
If left up to government courts and government prosecutors, virtually anything can be defined as hate speech. This has been clear since the early days of the “hate speech” phenomenon more than twenty years ago. For example, in a lecture in 2004, historian Ralph Raico pointed out the inherent malleability of the hate-speech canard:
Hate speech can include everything that you might think of including. Hate speech might very well include—it could be argued in court—doing away with welfare in New York City. One might say, “Well, that’s hate speech because the implication is clearly that we should do away with welfare for minority populations, which are the great bulk of the people who get welfare in New York City.”
In other words, opposition to the welfare state could easily be defined as “racist” and therefore “hate speech.” All it takes is a sympathetic judge or a despotic AG like Pam Bondi.
Now, to the credit of many rank-and-file of the MAGA movement, Bondi has faced substantial blowback for position. Matt Walsh—to name just one MAGA activist who has denounced Bondi’s comments—has called for her to be fired.
Bondi then backtracked and rather disingenuously attempted to claim that she was really only talking about speech that calls for violence. She later claimed: ““Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.” This was little more than damage control.
It’s unlikely, however, that Bondi will be removed for declaring the First Amendment null and void. Donald Trump has shown a willingness to be “flexible” when it comes to the rule of law in that he is more than happy to use the same immoral and unconstitutional methods used by his own predecessors, both Left and Right.
Saturday, September 20, 2025
Friday, September 19, 2025
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Monday, September 15, 2025
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Saturday, September 13, 2025
Friday, September 12, 2025
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings Volume 3: Eye of the Phoenix | Full Movie
Thursday, September 11, 2025
What is right-libertarianism/right-wing libertarianism?
https://mises.org/mises-daily/left-and-right-within-libertarianism
I have modified my copy of this newsletter removing unneeded incendiary comments about classical laissez-fairists and people in favor of minimal compulsory taxation over complete voluntary taxation. I also removed Rothbards defense of fetuscide (abortion) as the libertarian view. As well as unneeded hatred for people with a more neolibertarian foreign policy over the paleo one.
Recently, a bewildering and seemingly new phenomenon has burst upon the public consciousness, “right-wing libertarianism.” While earlier forms of the movement received brief and scornful attention by professional “extremist”-baiting liberals, present attention is, almost miraculously for veterans of the movement, serious and respectful. The current implication is “maybe they’ve got something here. What, then, have they got?”
Whatever their numerous differences, all “right-wing libertarians” agree on the central core of their thought, briefly, that every individual has the absolute moral right to “self-ownership,” the ownership and control of his own body without aggressive interference by any other person or group. Secondly, libertarians believe that every individual has the right to claim the ownership of whatever goods he has created or found in a natural, unused state: this establishes an absolute property right, not only in his own person but also in the things that he finds or creates. Thirdly, if everyone has such an absolute right to private property, he therefore has the right to exchange such property titles for other titles to property: hence the right to give away such property to whomever he chooses (provided, of course, that the recipient is willing); hence the right of bequest — and the right of the recipient to inherit.
The emphasis on the rights of private property of course locates this libertarian creed as emphatically “right-wing,” as does the right of free contract, implying absolute adherence to freedom of enterprise and the free-market economy. It also means, however, that the right-libertarian stands foursquare for the “civil liberty” of freedom of speech, press, and assembly. It means that he necessarily favors total freedom for pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others. And, above all, he regards conscription as slavery pure and simple. All of these latter positions are of course now regarded as “leftist,” and so the right-libertarian is inevitably put in the position of being some form of “left-rightnik,” someone who agrees with conservatives on some issues and with leftists on others.
While others therefore see him as curiously fluctuating and inconsistent, he regards his position as virtually the only one that is truly consistent, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be against the violence of war and conscription and morality laws while yet favoring the violence of taxes and government controls? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while favoring conscription and the outlawing of activities he deems immoral?
While of course opposing any private or group aggression against the rights of private property, the right-libertarian unerringly zeroes in on the central, the overriding aggressor upon such rights: the State apparatus. While the leftist tends to regard the State as an evil enforcer of private-property rights, the right-libertarian, on the contrary, regards it as the prime aggressor on such rights.
In contrast to believers in democracy or monarchy or dictatorship, the right-libertarian steadfastly refuses to regard the State as invested with any sort of divine or any other sanction setting it up above the general moral law. If it is criminal for one man or a group of men to aggress against a man’s person or property, then it is equally criminal for an outfit calling itself the “government” or “State” to do the same thing.
Hence the right-libertarian regards “unjust war” as mass murder, “conscription” as slavery, and — for most libertarians — “taxation” as robbery. From such past mentors as Herbert Spencer (The Man vs. the State) and Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy, the State), the right-libertarian regards the State as the great enemy of the peaceful and productive pursuits of mankind.
On the extreme-right fringe of the movement, there are those who simply believe in old-fashioned, 19th-century laissez-faire; the major laissez-faire group is the Foundation for Economic Education, of Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, for which many of the middle-aged members of the right-libertarian movement have worked at one time or another.
The laissez-fairists believe that a central government must exist, and therefore that taxes must exist, but that taxation should be confined to the prime “governmental” function of defending life and property against attack. Any pressing of government beyond this function is considered illegitimate.
The great bulk of libertarians, especially among the youth, have, however, gone beyond laissez-faire, for they have seen its basic inconsistency: for if taxation is robbery for building dams or steel plants, then it is also robbery when financing such supposedly “governmental” functions as police and the courts.
If it is legitimate for the State to coerce the taxpayer into financing the police, then why is it not equally legitimate to coerce the taxpayer for myriad other activities, including building steel factories, subsidizing favored groups, etc.? If taxation is robbery, surely then it is robbery regardless of the ends, benevolent or malevolent, for which the State proposes to employ these stolen funds.
Moving on, we come to the Randian and neo-Randian movements, those who follow or have been influenced by the novelist Ayn Rand. From the publication of Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in 1958, the Randian movement developed into what seemed to be destined as a mighty force. For the emotional impact of Rand’s powerfully-plotted novels attracted a vast following of young people into her “Objectivist” movement.
In addition to the emotional drawing power of the novels, Randianism provided the eager acolyte with an integrated philosophical system, a system grounded on Aristotelian epistemology, and blending it with Nietszchean egoism and hero worship, rationalist psychology, laissez-faire economics, and a natural-rights political philosophy, a political philosophy grounded on the libertarian axiom of never aggressing upon the person or property of another.
Even at its peak, however, the effectiveness of the Randian movement was severely limited by two important factors:
One was its extreme and fanatical sectarianism; Randians refused to have anything to do with any person or group, no matter how close in outlook, who deviated by so much as an iota from the entire Randian canon — a canon, by the way, that has a rigid “line” on every conceivable question, from aesthetics to tactics. (An odd exception to this sectarianism, by the way, is the Republican Party and the Nixon administration, which includes several highly placed Randians as advisors.) Particularly hated by the Randians is any former colleague who has deviated from the total line; these people are reviled and personally blacklisted by the faithful. Indeed, Rand’s monthly magazine, The Objectivist, is probably the only magazine in the world that consistently cancels the subscription of anyone on their personal blacklist, including any subscribers who send in what they consider to be unworshipful questions.
The second, associated factor is the totalitarian atmosphere, the cultic atmosphere, of the Randian movement. While the official Randian creed stresses the importance of individuality, self-reliance, and independent judgment, the unofficial but crucial axiom for the faithful is that “Ayn Rand is the greatest person who has ever lived” and, as a practical corollary, that “everything Ayn Rand says is right.” With this sort of ruling mentality, it is no wonder that the turnover in the Randian movement has been exceptionally high: attracted by the credo of individualism, an enormous number of young people were either purged or drifted away in disgust.
The collapse of the Randian movement as an organized force came in the summer of 1968, when an unbelievable bombshell struck the movement: an irrevocable split between Rand and her appointed heir, Nathaniel Branden.
Since then, the Randian movement has happily become polycentric; and Branden repaired to California to set up his own schismatic movement there. But the latter is still a movement confined to psychological theories and publications, and to book reviews in the occasionally appearing Academic Associates News. As an organized movement, Randianism, whatever variant, is a mere shadow of its former self.
But the Randian creed still remains as a vital influence on the thinking of libertarians, so many of whom were former adherents to the cult. Politically, Rand rejected taxation as robbery, and therefore illegitimate.
Randian political theory wishes to preserve the existing unitary state, with its monopoly over coercion and ultimate decision-making; it wishes to define its “government” as an institution which retains its State monopoly but gains its revenue only by voluntary contributions from its citizens. Rand infuses into the political outlook of herself and her charges an emotional devotion to the existing American government and to the American Constitution that totally negates her own libertarian axioms.
While Rand opposes the war in Vietnam, for example, she does so on purely tactical reasons as a mistake not in our “national interest”; as a result, she is far more passionate in her hostility to the unpatriotic protestors against the war than she is against the war itself. She advocated the firing of Eugene Genovese from Rutgers, on the grounds that “no man may support the victory of the enemies of his country.” And even though Rand passionately opposes the draft as slavery, she also believes, with Read and the laissez-fairists, that it is illegitimate to disobey the laws of the American State, no matter how unjust — so long as her freedom to protest the laws remains.
Finally, Ayn Rand is a conventional right-winger, as well, in her attitude toward the “international Communist conspiracy.”
Many neo-Randians, devoted as they are to logical analysis, have seen the logical clinker in Randian political theory; that if no man may aggress upon another, then neither may an outfit calling itself “government” presume to exert a coercive monopoly on force and on the making of ultimate judicial decision. Hence, they saw that no government may be coercively preserved, and they therefore took the next crucial step; while retaining devotion to the free market and private property, this legion of youthful neo-Randians have concluded that all services, including police and courts, must become freely marketable. It is morally illegitimate to set up a coercive monopoly of such functions, and then revere it as “government.” Hence, they have become “free-market anarchists,” or “anarchocapitalists,” people who believe that defense, like any other service, should only be provided on the free market and not through monopoly or tax coercion.
Anarchocapitalism is a creed new to the present age. Its closest historical links are with the “individualist anarchism” of Benjamin R. Tucker and Lysander Spooner of the late 19th century, and it shares with Tucker and Spooner a devotion to private property, individualism, and competition. Furthermore, and in contrast to Read and Rand, it shares with Spooner and Tucker their hostility to government officials as a criminal band of robbers and murderers. It is therefore no longer “patriotic.” It differs from the older anarchist in not believing that profits and interest would disappear in a fully free market, in holding the landlord-tenant relationship to be legitimate, and in holding that men can arrive through reason at objective law which does not have to be at the mercy of ad hoc juries. Lysander Spooner’s brilliantly hard-hitting No Treason, one of the masterpieces of antistatism and reprinted by an anarchocapitalist press, has had considerable influence in converting present-day youth to libertarianism.
It is safe to say that the great bulk of right-libertarians are anarchocapitalists, particularly among the youth. Anarchocapitalism, however, also contains within it a large spectrum of differing ideas and attitudes. For one thing, while they have all discarded any traits of devotion to the State and have become anarchists, many of them have retained the simplistic anticommunism, devotion to big business, and even American patriotism of their former creeds.
What we may call “anarchopatriots,” for example, take this sort of line: “Yes, anarchy is the ideal solution. But, in the meanwhile, the American government is the freest on earth,” etc. Much of this sort of attitude permeated the Libertarian Caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom, which split off or were expelled from YAF at the embroiled YAF convention at St. Louis in August, 1969. This split — based on their libertarianism and their refusal to be devoted to such unjust laws as the draft — led to the splitting off from YAF of almost the entire California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey sections of that leading conservative youth organization. These groups then formed “Libertarian Alliances” in the various states.
A group of older anarchocapitalists centered in New York founded the Libertarian Forum as a semimonthly, in early 1969, and formed the Radical Libertarian Alliance (RLA), which had a considerable impact in fueling and sparking the 1969 YAF split in St. Louis. Its ideas were propagated among the youth with particular effect by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
Childs had particular effect in converting Jarret Wollstein from Randianism to anarchocapitalism and then to a realistic view of the American State. Wollstein, an energetic young Marylander, had been ejected from the Randian movement, and had formed his own Society for Rational Individualism, publishing the monthly National Individualist. Finally, at the end of 1969, Wollstein’s SRI merged with the bulk of the old Libertarian Alliance members of YAF to form the Society of Individual Liberty, which has become by far the leading organization of libertarians in this country. SIL has thousands of members, and numerous campus chapters throughout the country, and is loosely affiliated with the California Libertarian Alliance, consisting largely of the ex-YAFers and which itself has over a thousand members within the state.
In many ways, California, with the largest right-libertarian population, differs from the movement in the rest of the country. The movement there is led by the California Libertarian Alliance (CLA), of over a thousand members. Led by youthful former YAFers, the CLA is rightist and neo-Randian in tendency, although over the last year and a half it too has abandoned many of its Randian tenets.
Isolationism is Not an Option by Bruce McQuain
https://web.archive.org/web/20060218084116/http://neolibertarian.net/articles/isolation.aspx
In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson famously said that the US should strive for "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson would probably be keenly disappointed that his advocacy for isolationism has, for the most part, been ignored by subsequent presidents. Still, Jefferson 's dictum has become the lynchpin of present day libertarian and Libertarian Party foreign policy.
There are serious defense and security concerns that arise from such a policy today. In Jefferson's day, America was protected by two very wide oceans. Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was relatively easy and inexpensive for the US . In addition, America had and economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy. So, the Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy made some sense then. Today, however, it would be an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.
Libertarians are often accused of being Jeffersonian isolationists who want the US to withdraw inside its borders, stay out of international relations, refuse entangling alliances, and adopt a policy of non-intervention in others' affairs. But various libertarians such as David Bergland, author of "Libertarianism in One Lesson", claim that in reality "libertarians oppose isolationism". He contends, "Some people mistakenly confuse neutrality and non-intervention with "isolationism."
Unfortunately, that claim isn't reflected in the Libertarian Party's platform foreign policy plank which describes it in terms of classic isolationism: "The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel."
Why then do Neolibertarians eschew this stance on foreign policy? Because the world and America 's role in it has changed dramatically since the 18 th century. Isolationism may have made some sense in a time where wide oceans and limited technology gave a young America an almost insurmountable protective geographic barrier, and the country was both agrarian and self-sufficient. But those conditions no longer apply.
Sufficient argument, therefore, can be made on purely pragmatic grounds that isolationism-or its libertarian redefinition as "neutrality and non-intervention"-is an impractical and dangerous a policy today, and that its implicit assumptions rest upon a false premise.
The premise, as Bergland states it is that "the globe is covered with governments of sovereign nations each having authority over their own area". He further states that the United States , or any nation, has no right to interfere in the business of another sovereign nation. Per libertarian foreign policy, it's none of our business what another nation does, be it war with a neighbor, extermination of its own people, or any other action which we find unpleasant.
Such a policy premise holds the sovereignty of nations above the sovereignty and rights of individuals. It places all nations on the same moral plane, be they a democracy or a totalitarian regime. That premise seems to be inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.
In the libertarian view which Bergland represents, one country's expansion into another country by force of arms would be none of our concern. As a neutral, our only concerns would be peaceful trade and self-defense, with the latter only implemented when the aggressor was actually on our borders.
Thankfully US policy makers eschewed this policy during the Cold War with Soviet Communism, and formed alliances by taking sides with our ideological friends against our ideological enemies. As a result, a threat to our sovereignty and freedom-as well as a threat to the rest of the world-was thwarted. Adopting a self-defeating policy of non-intervention would have allowed the Soviet Union a free hand to pursue its hegemony.
Ironically, Bergland characterizes the collapse of the USSR as one of the most important events in our lifetime before launching into a critique of the very interventionist foreign policy principles which led to the collapse. That sort of ideological blindness and unwillingness to rethink its principles has made libertarianism a less attractive alternative to the major parties.
Neolibertarians acknowledge the realities of the world today, not the 18 th century. Practical foreign policy in a neolibertarian world includes engagement with like-minded democracies through treaties and alliances. It also encourages peaceful and free trade among those nations. Neolibertarian foreign policy rejects the equal sovereignty premise of traditional libertarian foreign policy and differentiates between free countries and oppressed countries. It also holds as its highest standard the rights of free people, not the 'rights' of nations. Neolibertarians have no problem with condemnation of and, if necessary, intervention in those oppressed countries, if they pose a threat to our nation's security or citizens. Neolibertarian foreign policy also reserves for the US the right to preemptively act against any threat anywhere in the world in the name of national self-defense or critical self-interest.
A foreign policy that consists of hiding in the 18th century is both dangerous and impractical. Instead, the Neolibertarian policy is to engage the world proactively in order to maximize liberty and freedom.
September 10, 2025 9:58AM Are Neoliberalism and Globalization Undermining Democracy? By Jeffrey Miron
https://www.cato.org/blog/are-neoliberalism-globalization-undermining-democracy
From recent research:
Neoliberalism and globalization are two distinct yet interrelated processes that began to spread across the world in the 1970s and 1980s. Neoliberalism aims to limit the role of the government in the economy; globalization creates an interconnected world and removes barriers between countries. Some scholars argue that these processes have contributed to the democratic recession—the current weakening of democratic institutions around the world—by giving rise to populism. Our research evaluates this claim using data from more than 140 countries between 1980 and 2022. … [We] find no evidence to corroborate this claim. In fact, increases in economic freedom and globalization are positively correlated with several measures of democracy.
The research emphasizes that its results may not be causal; and the research does not address whether democracy is “better” than the alternatives; see here, here, and here for discussions of this issue.
The new research nevertheless undermines a standard critique of neoliberalism and globalization; at a minimum, the critics have not made their case, given their assumption that promoting democracy is the right goal.