Institutionalized homophobia in England has been intensified over the last decade, linked to concerns about “permissiveness” so prominent within the lower middle classes so courted by the modern Conservative party. However, anti-gay norms have long been embedded in working-class and middle-class cultures, more than in continental European and North American societies. Moralistic crusades against homosexuality have been common in England, and are still reinforced by the police, the courts and especially the tabloid press. Opposition has been roused within Labour party and Liberal/Liberal Democratic circles, but often reluctantly, and framed by a limited form of tolerance.

This article deals with the conception of the State defended by libertarian author Murray N. Rothbard. An American economist, Rothbard has been for more than three decades the foremost advocate and theoretician of anarcho-capitalism. The purpose of the article is to show that the theses put forward by Rothbard regarding the nature, origin and legitimacy of the State do not square with the methodological prescriptions and the fundamental axioms that he himself upholds as the ultimate judgment criteria of a theory. In fact, neither the definition of human action as end-governed, nor methodological individualism, nor the concept of demonstrated preference can be reconciled with explanations in which conspiration, manipulation and involuntary ignorance play a decisive part.

Contracting out of rent control is possible if the tenant's right to a controlled tenancy is made legally transferable, thereby allowing the landlord to decontrol the property by purchasing the right to a controlled tenancy. This article outlines the basic features of contracting out and compares three forms of contracting out with vacancy decontrol. It argues that one form of contracting out may be much more politically feasible than other methods of decontrol because of the way it distributes the benefits of decontrol between landlords and sitting tenants.

The pairing of Australia and Canada has become a rich source of comparative studies with respect to foreign economic policy. This matching has been largely inspired by the like-mindedness of the two countries. Yet, if Australia and Canada may be said to have similar objectives in terms of the international system, the methods through which they have attempted to pursue these objectives have differed sharply. Using international-level and domestic-level modes of analysis, this article explains the reasons for the contrasting style in the case of agricultural trade. It is demonstrated that a number of mutually reinforcing factors combine to give a tough-minded quality to Australia's approach. In contrast, because of both a greater complexity in the domestic policy-making process and the range of foreign policy options, Canada's style in the agricultural trade issue has become increasingly nuanced.