https://bobzadek.com
America has lost its way, but it cannot and does not need to be reinvented. Our founders were correct about their approach to government, as were John Locke, Adam Smith and the other great political philosophers who influenced them. The country’s first principles are economic and social freedom, republicanism, the rule of law, and liberty. Bob believes we must take the best of our founding principles and work from them because a country without principles is just a landmass.]]>enPoliticsCopyright The Bob Zadek Showhttps://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/f3ac2ccf21d9cda2c493d47918215fb3.jpghttps://bobzadek.comTue, 30 May 2023 01:30:45 +0000Bob ZadekThe Bob Zadek Showproducer@bobzadek.comThe longest-running libertarian talk radio show in California – airing LIVE every Sunday at 8am. The show of ideas, not attitude.
America has lost its way, but it cannot and does not need to be reinvented. Our founders were correct about their approach to government, as were John Locke, Adam Smith and the other great political philosophers who influenced them. The country’s first principles are economic and social freedom, republicanism, the rule of law, and liberty. Bob believes we must take the best of our founding principles and work from them because a country without principles is just a landmass.]]>falseepisodichttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/confronting-the-cancelists-with-alan-dershowitz--53188107Taking the Stand was a New York Times bestseller. Other notable books include The Trials of Zion, Rights From Wrongs, The Case for Israel, and Chutzpah.

His forthcoming book Dershowitz on Killing examines the complex issue of determining rules regarding life and death decisions. Following the principles that have guided his long, distinguished career, he argues these rules should reflect the irreversibility of death.

In this episode, Dershowitz explains how he became unfairly "canceled" for adhering to his principles, and what upholding these principles has cost him.

His most recent book, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences (July 2022), takes a broad stance against the dangerous trend of cancellations—both of specific people as well as the very idea of neutral justice. It’s not only right-wingers provocateurs being cancelled on college campuses anymore. Liberal ideas, including some of the most cherished principles of American government, are now being cast aside.

Take the presumption of innocence. It’s the bedrock of our adversarial legal system. We all pay lip service to the idea that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense. Yet the principle seems to go out the window whenever the person being defended is unpopular, as when Dershowitz pointed out the shaky legal grounds for impeaching former President Trump.

In recent years, Dershowitz himself has suffered the ‘price of principle’ as the latest victim of cancel culture. Former friends like Larry David refuse to talk to him; he’s been shunned from events at which he used to be top-billed speaker. And his principled defenses of unpopular figures like Trump have been used against him in the court of public opinion.

Unlike most celebrities whom the “cancelists” go after, Alan was exonerated. Still, Dershowitz has found few defenders. He has had to defend himself.

Furthermore, he writes that principles have taken a backseat to partisan identity politics. Partisan Democrats forget that his defense of Trump was based on the same principles he had used to defend Clinton against partisan attacks. He argues that too many people abandon their principles in favor of whatever stance benefits their political party or social group, and believes we are heading towards a "dystopia of partisanship and discrimination" if this trend continues.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53188107Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:47:09 +0000Bob ZadekToday's guest, renowned civil liberties attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, raises the bar and exceeds the highest standards. Professor Dershowitz has published over a thousand articles and 50 books, including several national...Taking the Stand was a New York Times bestseller. Other notable books include The Trials of Zion, Rights From Wrongs, The Case for Israel, and Chutzpah.

His forthcoming book Dershowitz on Killing examines the complex issue of determining rules regarding life and death decisions. Following the principles that have guided his long, distinguished career, he argues these rules should reflect the irreversibility of death.

In this episode, Dershowitz explains how he became unfairly "canceled" for adhering to his principles, and what upholding these principles has cost him.

His most recent book, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences (July 2022), takes a broad stance against the dangerous trend of cancellations—both of specific people as well as the very idea of neutral justice. It’s not only right-wingers provocateurs being cancelled on college campuses anymore. Liberal ideas, including some of the most cherished principles of American government, are now being cast aside.

Take the presumption of innocence. It’s the bedrock of our adversarial legal system. We all pay lip service to the idea that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense. Yet the principle seems to go out the window whenever the person being defended is unpopular, as when Dershowitz pointed out the shaky legal grounds for impeaching former President Trump.

In recent years, Dershowitz himself has suffered the ‘price of principle’ as the latest victim of cancel culture. Former friends like Larry David refuse to talk to him; he’s been shunned from events at which he used to be top-billed speaker. And his principled defenses of unpopular figures like Trump have been used against him in the court of public opinion.

Unlike most celebrities whom the “cancelists” go after, Alan was exonerated. Still, Dershowitz has found few defenders. He has had to defend himself.

Furthermore, he writes that principles have taken a backseat to partisan identity politics. Partisan Democrats forget that his defense of Trump was based on the same principles he had used to defend Clinton against partisan attacks. He argues that too many people abandon their principles in favor of whatever stance benefits their political party or social group,...]]>3140falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fixing-the-broken-two-party-system--53112910
The Democrats have effectively had One Party Rule here for the last two decades. Since 1996, Democrats have continuously held a majority in the State Assembly and currently hold a dominant 62-18 supermajority in the 80-seat chamber.

Most forget what happened in the 1990s that permanently changed the balance of power. In 1994, Proposition 187 passed by referendum, with strong support from then-Governor Pete Wilson. The law banned undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency healthcare, public schools, and other services in California. Since then, Hispanic voters have largely voted as a bloc for Democrats, leaving Republicans all but irrelevant.

Tom Campbell served five terms in the US Congress, and one two-year term in the State Senate. He created the Common Sense Party to combine fiscal responsibility with inclusivity to appeal to the wide swath of voters who want more choice in their political candidates. Sounds a lot like libertarianism, without all the baggage that the word carries.

Is it too much to ask for an independent-minded politician who is neither bought and paid for by the public sector unions, nor an anti-immigrant fanatic?

The California Common Sense Party has aligned with Andrew Yang’s “Forward” Party movement – trying to break the “two-party doom loop,” and find common sense solutions. Tom Campbell joins me this Sunday to break the latest news about their plans to disrupt California politics.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53112910Mon, 06 Mar 2023 19:03:05 +0000Bob ZadekCalifornians enjoy abundant choice when it comes to cuisine, entertainment and leisure activities. Yet in the political arena, we are stuck with just one choice. The Democrats have effectively had One Party Rule here for the last two decades. Since...
The Democrats have effectively had One Party Rule here for the last two decades. Since 1996, Democrats have continuously held a majority in the State Assembly and currently hold a dominant 62-18 supermajority in the 80-seat chamber.

Most forget what happened in the 1990s that permanently changed the balance of power. In 1994, Proposition 187 passed by referendum, with strong support from then-Governor Pete Wilson. The law banned undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency healthcare, public schools, and other services in California. Since then, Hispanic voters have largely voted as a bloc for Democrats, leaving Republicans all but irrelevant.

Tom Campbell served five terms in the US Congress, and one two-year term in the State Senate. He created the Common Sense Party to combine fiscal responsibility with inclusivity to appeal to the wide swath of voters who want more choice in their political candidates. Sounds a lot like libertarianism, without all the baggage that the word carries.

Is it too much to ask for an independent-minded politician who is neither bought and paid for by the public sector unions, nor an anti-immigrant fanatic?

The California Common Sense Party has aligned with Andrew Yang’s “Forward” Party movement – trying to break the “two-party doom loop,” and find common sense solutions. Tom Campbell joins me this Sunday to break the latest news about their plans to disrupt California politics.]]>3142falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ted-galen-carpenter-on-unreliable-watchdog--52844494
In his new book Unreliable Watchdog, Ted Galen Carpenter argues that the news media has become a tool for propaganda rather than a watchdog for the American people, leading to a distorted view of U.S. foreign policy and a “garrison state” mentality.

He examines the media's willingness to accept official accounts and policy justifications without skepticism, particularly in regards to the Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, the Balkans, Iraq War, Libya and Syria civil wars, and post–Cold War relations with Russia and China.

He questions why journalists and social media platforms collaborate with government officials in pushing an activist foreign policy, even when results are questionable or disastrous.

Are we repeating the same mistakes with Ukraine as the media cheerleads the escalation of another unwinnable war?





]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52844494Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:00:03 +0000Bob ZadekBack in early 2021, Cato Institute senior fellow Ted Galen Carpenter urged Washington "to abandon its efforts to torpedo Nord Stream 2." His warnings have been proven prescient by Seymour Hersh's recent revelations, which seem to confirm the US...
In his new book Unreliable Watchdog, Ted Galen Carpenter argues that the news media has become a tool for propaganda rather than a watchdog for the American people, leading to a distorted view of U.S. foreign policy and a “garrison state” mentality.

He examines the media's willingness to accept official accounts and policy justifications without skepticism, particularly in regards to the Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, the Balkans, Iraq War, Libya and Syria civil wars, and post–Cold War relations with Russia and China.

He questions why journalists and social media platforms collaborate with government officials in pushing an activist foreign policy, even when results are questionable or disastrous.

Are we repeating the same mistakes with Ukraine as the media cheerleads the escalation of another unwinnable war?





]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-public-sector-unions-unconstitutional--52698181https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52698181Wed, 22 Feb 2023 23:49:30 +0000Bob ZadekGeorge Will calls it the year's "most-needed book on public affairs"—Philip K. Howard's Not Accountable tackles public sector unions head-on, arguing that they're not only dangerous, but unconstitutional. Not Accountable is a non-partisan vision for...3160falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-the-chaos-at-the-border--52686009Alex Nowrasteh, the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, returns to the show Sunday to lay out pragmatic solutions for alleviating the chaos at the border.It starts with simplifying the system, and allowing more opportunities for immigrants to live and work here legally.

Alex is the director of economic and social policy studies. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and most other major publications in the United States.He is the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of the book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration. He is also the coauthor (with Mark S. Krikorian) of the booklet Open Immigration: Yea and Nay (Encounter Broadsides, 2014) and has contributed numerous book chapters about immigration to various edited volumes.Our own immigration series “Let Them All In” has answered 5 of the main populist objections to open immigration. The series will conclude with an essay on policy solutions - the topic for our show this week.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52686009Mon, 13 Feb 2023 18:30:14 +0000Bob ZadekImages of illegal crossings are disturbingly chaotic and make it clear that there is indeed an immigration crisis. People perceive that chaos means we need government to exercise even more control, even when government is to blame for the chaos (as in...Alex Nowrasteh, the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, returns to the show Sunday to lay out pragmatic solutions for alleviating the chaos at the border.It starts with simplifying the system, and allowing more opportunities for immigrants to live and work here legally.

Alex is the director of economic and social policy studies. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and most other major publications in the United States.He is the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of the book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration. He is also the coauthor (with Mark S. Krikorian) of the booklet Open Immigration: Yea and Nay (Encounter Broadsides, 2014) and has contributed numerous book chapters about immigration to various edited volumes.Our own immigration series “Let Them All In” has answered 5 of the main populist objections to open immigration. The series will conclude with an essay on policy solutions - the topic for our show this week.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-to-blame-for-california-s-housing-crisis--52632566
Christian Britschgi is an associate editor at Reason Magazine who has written extensively about housing policy. His work shines a light on the root causes of the housing crisis, and why the patchwork of solutions coming from California’s legislative houses has failed to significantly ameliorate the problem.

Christian will join the show of ideas to explain how the California Environmental Quality Act makes the approval of new housing nearly impossible.What will it take to break through the thicket of regulations when the most powerful lobbies have an interest in keeping them in place?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52632566Sun, 05 Feb 2023 16:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekPeople, and families in particular, are fleeing California in droves. Last year, the population shrank for the second year in a row, in large part because of the lack of new housing and exorbitant prices of the dwindling existing stock. Politicians...
Christian Britschgi is an associate editor at Reason Magazine who has written extensively about housing policy. His work shines a light on the root causes of the housing crisis, and why the patchwork of solutions coming from California’s legislative houses has failed to significantly ameliorate the problem.

Christian will join the show of ideas to explain how the California Environmental Quality Act makes the approval of new housing nearly impossible.What will it take to break through the thicket of regulations when the most powerful lobbies have an interest in keeping them in place?]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jawboning-against-speech-with-will-duffield--52590723https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52590723Tue, 31 Jan 2023 04:34:31 +0000Bob ZadekEveryone knows that special interests lobby government for favors. The Twitter Files have revealed that lobbying is a two-way street, with government lobbying corporations too – often to silence critics of its policies. Will Duffield of the Cato...3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/civil-asset-forfeiture-revisited--52523417– The Fourth Amendment to the ConstitutionSeems pretty clear cut to me. Greenberg and I will discuss the facts of the case before delivering a verdict.What will the consequences be for the FBI this time?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52523417Mon, 23 Jan 2023 23:58:52 +0000Bob ZadekJust when you think you’ve seen it all, the FBI goes and does something so egregious that it shocks even long-time Institute for Justice attorneys.If you’ve been following the issue of civil asset forfeiture, you may remember the case of Timbs v....– The Fourth Amendment to the ConstitutionSeems pretty clear cut to me. Greenberg and I will discuss the facts of the case before delivering a verdict.What will the consequences be for the FBI this time?]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-broken-window-fallacy-is-back--52443115Mike Munger, prolific blogger and Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy at Duke University, has another name for the typical thinking behind sustainability: sophistry.

His latest article for AIER quotes Frederic Bastiat’s “Economic Sophisms” at length to make the critical point that costs are not benefits. Destroying wealth in order to create jobs is a losing proposition.

Munger, a modern-day Bastiat, skewers today’s environmentalist sophists just by showing the logical conclusion of their preferred policies: “Burn all the gas-powered cars? Jobs! Tear down all the oil and gas-powered power plants, so we have shortages of electricity? So many jobs!” Munger returns to the show this Sunday to explore the seen vs. the unseen in green energy and sustainability.

We’ll focus on one of my personal bugaboos—recycling—and Mike will explain why it’s typically worse for the environment than just throwing stuff away.Finally, we’ll revisit Mike’s clear-eyed defense of capitalism, Is Capitalism Sustainable?The question of sustainability boils down to this: how can we best fulfill the needs of the current generations without compromising the needs of future generations? We can talk all day about alternative energy, but Munger notes that there is no to alternative capitalism. Only the market can solve our sustainability woes.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52443115Sun, 15 Jan 2023 16:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekThe word sustainability is rather slippery. We’re told that our current energy consumption is “unsustainable,” and are thus cajoled into spending billions on Green New Deal type legislation by politicians and celebrities who criss-cross the country on...Mike Munger, prolific blogger and Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy at Duke University, has another name for the typical thinking behind sustainability: sophistry.

His latest article for AIER quotes Frederic Bastiat’s “Economic Sophisms” at length to make the critical point that costs are not benefits. Destroying wealth in order to create jobs is a losing proposition.

Munger, a modern-day Bastiat, skewers today’s environmentalist sophists just by showing the logical conclusion of their preferred policies: “Burn all the gas-powered cars? Jobs! Tear down all the oil and gas-powered power plants, so we have shortages of electricity? So many jobs!” Munger returns to the show this Sunday to explore the seen vs. the unseen in green energy and sustainability.

We’ll focus on one of my personal bugaboos—recycling—and Mike will explain why it’s typically worse for the environment than just throwing stuff away.Finally, we’ll revisit Mike’s clear-eyed defense of capitalism, Is Capitalism Sustainable?The question of sustainability boils down to this: how can we best fulfill the needs of the current generations without compromising the needs of future generations? We can talk all day about alternative energy, but Munger notes that there is no to alternative capitalism. Only the market can solve our sustainability woes.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-the-irs-s-hiring-spree-means-for-you--52381287https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52381287Sun, 08 Jan 2023 16:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekAshley Varner of the Freedom Foundation on the financial boon to the Democrats; Looking around today, do we see evidence that the government fears the people? Why should they?Remember when Lois Lerner targeted Tea Party freedom activists as head of...3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/life-line-guest-hosting-robert-mahoney-on-the-infodemic--52334754https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52334754Mon, 02 Jan 2023 18:07:47 +0000Bob Zadek2728falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/shining-a-spotlight-on-the-stealth-airline-bailouts--52325537https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52325537Sun, 01 Jan 2023 16:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekWe all remember the bank bailouts of 2008, but almost nobody talks about the more recent COVID bailouts. $50 billion here; $25 billion there – pretty soon we're talking about real money. The airlines were one of several industries that enjoyed special...3164falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/which-side-are-you-on--52293510Professor Richard Epstein joined the show, we took up the “pig case” aka NPPC v. Ross. The Supreme Court is now deciding whether California can foist its values on the rest of the country through regulations that would impact pork producers nationwide. Based on oral arguments in October, it looks like it will be a close call. Meanwhile, a new battle has been brewing over fast food restaurants and other franchises in the Golden State. Governor Newsom signed the FAST Recovery Act (AB 257) into law on Labor Day, celebrating the bill’s dramatic minimum increase from $15 to $22 for fast food and other franchise workers. Organized labor cheered, but the bill has now been put on hold until voters can weigh in by referendum in 2024. We can hope that voters will see through the bill’s lofty promises for workers to the harms of minimum wage increases for workers, employers, and consumers alike. Even the Washington Post called the bill “ham-handed.” Professor Epstein joins me to review the economic case against the minimum wage. However, this is not like normal minimum wage legislation. The FAST Recovery Act also gives sweeping new powers to the state – and “Emperor Newsom” in particular – to regulate every aspect of thousands of businesses in California that qualify as large franchises. Such powers were unthinkable for the Founders, but Epstein points out that the courts have increasingly deferred to state authority since the New Deal Era. The FAST Act takes the administrative overreach that has become common and goes a step fruther – consolidating that power into the governor’s hand. Beyond the possibility of overturning the law by citizen vote, Epstein sees a larger opportunity to challenge its constitutionality on equal protection grounds – setting a precedent for similar cases of power grabs by state executives. The battlelines have been drawn. To quote an old Union hymn, Which Side Are You On? Team Liberty or Team Newsom?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52293510Sat, 31 Dec 2022 17:55:11 +0000Bob ZadekIt’s said that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. The State of California has repurposed this adage lately, finding ways to remake the country in its own progressive image through the food industry. The last time...Professor Richard Epstein joined the show, we took up the “pig case” aka NPPC v. Ross. The Supreme Court is now deciding whether California can foist its values on the rest of the country through regulations that would impact pork producers nationwide. Based on oral arguments in October, it looks like it will be a close call. Meanwhile, a new battle has been brewing over fast food restaurants and other franchises in the Golden State. Governor Newsom signed the FAST Recovery Act (AB 257) into law on Labor Day, celebrating the bill’s dramatic minimum increase from $15 to $22 for fast food and other franchise workers. Organized labor cheered, but the bill has now been put on hold until voters can weigh in by referendum in 2024. We can hope that voters will see through the bill’s lofty promises for workers to the harms of minimum wage increases for workers, employers, and consumers alike. Even the Washington Post called the bill “ham-handed.” Professor Epstein joins me to review the economic case against the minimum wage. However, this is not like normal minimum wage legislation. The FAST Recovery Act also gives sweeping new powers to the state – and “Emperor Newsom” in particular – to regulate every aspect of thousands of businesses in California that qualify as large franchises. Such powers were unthinkable for the Founders, but Epstein points out that the courts have increasingly deferred to state authority since the New Deal Era. The FAST Act takes the administrative overreach that has become common and goes a step fruther – consolidating that power into the governor’s hand. Beyond the possibility of overturning the law by citizen vote, Epstein sees a larger opportunity to challenge its constitutionality on equal protection grounds – setting a precedent for similar cases of power grabs by state executives. The battlelines have been drawn. To quote an old Union hymn, Which Side Are You On? Team Liberty or Team Newsom?]]>3175falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-weaponization-of-consumer-finance--52215445https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52215445Wed, 21 Dec 2022 18:34:00 +0000Bob ZadekNot long ago, many businesses competed to extend credit to consumers through unsecured lending, auto loans, home mortgage loans or installment sales. Sadly, true competition is no longer.In today's consumer lending environment, businesses are nothing...3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-political-pollution-of-capital-markets--52168570
Today's topic we can subtitle as “Financial markets meet Environmental Social Governance (ESG),” which sounds rather benign, but it's far from it. Imagine you're seeking the best physician to cure a serious medical condition. What's the likelihood you'll ask the prospective physician her opinion on immigration, cash bail, or criminal justice reform?

As Paul will explain, financial regulation is forcing the politics of ESG into our financial markets, resulting in lower yields for all of us and the misallocation of capital.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52168570Mon, 12 Dec 2022 23:44:13 +0000Bob ZadekTwo-term SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins is the chief executive of Patomak Global Partners – a New York and DC-based financial services consultancy. Paul served as a member of the congressional oversight panel for TARP (remember that?), was a partner at...
Today's topic we can subtitle as “Financial markets meet Environmental Social Governance (ESG),” which sounds rather benign, but it's far from it. Imagine you're seeking the best physician to cure a serious medical condition. What's the likelihood you'll ask the prospective physician her opinion on immigration, cash bail, or criminal justice reform?

As Paul will explain, financial regulation is forcing the politics of ESG into our financial markets, resulting in lower yields for all of us and the misallocation of capital.]]>3164falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/do-you-know-your-rights--52090375
As we explored last week with Carissa Hessick, it is a far graver injustice to deprive an innocent person of the liberty than to let a guilty person go free. That is why the founders gave the accused so many protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) was created to uphold these protections against rules passed under the Title IX legislation that require colleges to effectively prosecute students outside of the criminal justice system. In these campus tribunals, those accused of serious misconduct like sexual assault have been denied basic protections like the right to a live hearing, to cross examine witnesses, and even to hear the full charges being levied against them.

Joe Cohn, director of FIRE’s Legislative and Policy department, joins me this Sunday to discuss a proposed rule change from the same administrative office behind the infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter. The new language would turn certain kinds of constitutionally-protected free speech into a punishable offense under the broad umbrella of “sexual harassment.” Under the new rule, the “trial” that results from alleged misconduct would be conducted by a single college administrator acting as judge, jury, and prosecutor.

Anyone connected with an American university that receives federal funding (aka, virtually all colleges) should tune in to this important broadcast. The first step to protecting your rights is to know what they are. Be sure to share this with any college students who may not know their rights, and check out FIRE’s free Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52090375Sun, 04 Dec 2022 16:00:03 +0000Bob Zadek“Innocent until proven guilty” has been the rule of the American justice system since its inception. It still is today. Unless, that is, you happen to be accused of wrongdoing on a college campus. In that case, you might as well be dragged before the...
As we explored last week with Carissa Hessick, it is a far graver injustice to deprive an innocent person of the liberty than to let a guilty person go free. That is why the founders gave the accused so many protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) was created to uphold these protections against rules passed under the Title IX legislation that require colleges to effectively prosecute students outside of the criminal justice system. In these campus tribunals, those accused of serious misconduct like sexual assault have been denied basic protections like the right to a live hearing, to cross examine witnesses, and even to hear the full charges being levied against them.

Joe Cohn, director of FIRE’s Legislative and Policy department, joins me this Sunday to discuss a proposed rule change from the same administrative office behind the infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter. The new language would turn certain kinds of constitutionally-protected free speech into a punishable offense under the broad umbrella of “sexual harassment.” Under the new rule, the “trial” that results from alleged misconduct would be conducted by a single college administrator acting as judge, jury, and prosecutor.

Anyone connected with an American university that receives federal funding (aka, virtually all colleges) should tune in to this important broadcast. The first step to protecting your rights is to know what they are. Be sure to share this with any college students who may not know their rights, and check out FIRE’s free Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fbi-our-uninvited-federal-police-force--52051774https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52051774Wed, 30 Nov 2022 04:45:43 +0000Bob Zadek3334falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/punishment-without-trial-it-s-the-new-normal--52020198
It’s the first question the judge asks you in a criminal trial. But before the accused even has a chance to answer “guilty” or “not guilty,” there is another, prior legal proceeding that rarely gets talked about – even though it pre-empts the need for a trial in 97% of convictions. Jury trials were one of the founders’ critical safeguards against the tyranny of overzealous government prosecutors. Thomas Jefferson viewed the institution as the most vital form of democracy – above the ability to vote for legislators. And yet the American legal system has largely abandoned this bedrock principle in favor of the “efficiency” of the plea bargain.

Carissa Hessick is the director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project, Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and author of an important new book, Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal.

Professor Hessick joins me to explain how this practice persists as the norm, while jury trials have been turned into a rare exception. What would the Founders say about this state of affairs? And why hasn’t the Supreme Court done something about it?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52020198Sun, 27 Nov 2022 16:00:03 +0000Bob Zadek“How do you plea?” It’s the first question the judge asks you in a criminal trial. But before the accused even has a chance to answer “guilty” or “not guilty,” there is another, prior legal proceeding that rarely gets talked about – even though it...
It’s the first question the judge asks you in a criminal trial. But before the accused even has a chance to answer “guilty” or “not guilty,” there is another, prior legal proceeding that rarely gets talked about – even though it pre-empts the need for a trial in 97% of convictions. Jury trials were one of the founders’ critical safeguards against the tyranny of overzealous government prosecutors. Thomas Jefferson viewed the institution as the most vital form of democracy – above the ability to vote for legislators. And yet the American legal system has largely abandoned this bedrock principle in favor of the “efficiency” of the plea bargain.

Carissa Hessick is the director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project, Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and author of an important new book, Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal.

Professor Hessick joins me to explain how this practice persists as the norm, while jury trials have been turned into a rare exception. What would the Founders say about this state of affairs? And why hasn’t the Supreme Court done something about it?]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-presumption-of-liberty-occupational-licensing--51981886
What's wrong with that, you might wonder? Licensing might sound like an important form of consumer protection. But does licensing actually increase the safety and quality of services offered? To answer that, we need data.

Dick M. Carpenter, II, senior director of strategic research at the Institute for Justice, recently published a report analyzing Yelp! reviews for six occupations across several states – some with licensing requirements and others without.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who understands the nature of licensing, the license made no difference to the service quality according to Yelp’s ratings.

In some cases, licensing actually seems to correlate with inferior service. The reality is that it represents a barrier to competition promoted by industry insiders to earn more profit.

Carpenter joins me this Sunday to explain how good intent by legislators backfires when lobbyists get their way.

We will discuss the constitutionality of various licensing requirements through Randy Barnett's "presumption of liberty" framework, and review the voluntary alternatives to licensing that actually improve service quality. Barnett argues that people should be presumed to have economic rights – i.e., the ability to work without government permission – unless there is a very compelling reason for the restriction.

However, the Supreme Court has often decided in favor of a “presumption of constitutionality” – giving states the authority to interfere with our personal and economic liberties for virtually no reason at all. Hence licensing laws. Thankfully, the IJ is fighting for our rights every day in court and in the arena of public opinion.

Read the IJ’s report and tune in Sunday from 8-9am PACIFIC to the show of ideas – not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51981886Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:29:22 +0000Bob ZadekWhat do landscape architects, manicurists, kickboxing trainers, and yoga instructors from California all have in common? Besides making our state healthier and better looking, all of these professions require an occupational license. What's wrong...
What's wrong with that, you might wonder? Licensing might sound like an important form of consumer protection. But does licensing actually increase the safety and quality of services offered? To answer that, we need data.

Dick M. Carpenter, II, senior director of strategic research at the Institute for Justice, recently published a report analyzing Yelp! reviews for six occupations across several states – some with licensing requirements and others without.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who understands the nature of licensing, the license made no difference to the service quality according to Yelp’s ratings.

In some cases, licensing actually seems to correlate with inferior service. The reality is that it represents a barrier to competition promoted by industry insiders to earn more profit.

Carpenter joins me this Sunday to explain how good intent by legislators backfires when lobbyists get their way.

We will discuss the constitutionality of various licensing requirements through Randy Barnett's "presumption of liberty" framework, and review the voluntary alternatives to licensing that actually improve service quality. Barnett argues that people should be presumed to have economic rights – i.e., the ability to work without government permission – unless there is a very compelling reason for the restriction.

However, the Supreme Court has often decided in favor of a “presumption of constitutionality” – giving states the authority to interfere with our personal and economic liberties for virtually no reason at all. Hence licensing laws. Thankfully, the IJ is fighting for our rights every day in court and in the arena of public opinion.

Read the IJ’s report and tune in Sunday from 8-9am PACIFIC to the show of ideas – not attitude.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-s-to-blame-for-the-opioid-crisis--51858531
More recently, Republican politicians have tried to score points against the Biden administration by scapegoating illegal immigrants for the problem of Fentanyl smuggling. Smuggling has indeed increased. However, a Washington Post op-ed by Cato scholars Singer and David Bier (associate director of immigration studies) reveals the folly of the Republicans’ accusations. Illegal immigrants are not the ones bringing Fentanyl across the border, they note. It’s mostly US citizens doing the smuggling. Ever since border enforcement has tightened, it has become more common for smugglers to conceal small amounts of the much more potent Fentanyl in otherwise legal border crossings.

David and Jeff join the show of ideas to discuss the inevitable unintended consequences of both the war on drugs and the war on immigrants. We will investigate the issue from the angle of the failure of drug prohibition, as well as the failure of strict immigration policy. Both of these problems share a common root cause – they seek to interfere with free markets. The laws of supply and demand don’t stop functioning just because an artificial legal boundary is erected – whether you’re talking about drugs or people.

The solution is simpler than you think – but first, we must assign the blame correctly. Will politicians examine their own role in creating the crisis, or will they continue to scapegoat innocent people?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51858531Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekWhen things aren’t going well, people always look for a scapegoat. When it comes to the opioid epidemic, the CDC’s preferred scapegoat has been pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, the DEA blames doctors for over-prescribing pain medication, and has...
More recently, Republican politicians have tried to score points against the Biden administration by scapegoating illegal immigrants for the problem of Fentanyl smuggling. Smuggling has indeed increased. However, a Washington Post op-ed by Cato scholars Singer and David Bier (associate director of immigration studies) reveals the folly of the Republicans’ accusations. Illegal immigrants are not the ones bringing Fentanyl across the border, they note. It’s mostly US citizens doing the smuggling. Ever since border enforcement has tightened, it has become more common for smugglers to conceal small amounts of the much more potent Fentanyl in otherwise legal border crossings.

David and Jeff join the show of ideas to discuss the inevitable unintended consequences of both the war on drugs and the war on immigrants. We will investigate the issue from the angle of the failure of drug prohibition, as well as the failure of strict immigration policy. Both of these problems share a common root cause – they seek to interfere with free markets. The laws of supply and demand don’t stop functioning just because an artificial legal boundary is erected – whether you’re talking about drugs or people.

The solution is simpler than you think – but first, we must assign the blame correctly. Will politicians examine their own role in creating the crisis, or will they continue to scapegoat innocent people?]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midterm-elections-special-the-surprising-history-of-gerrymandering--51735589
Seabrook is a professor of political science and public administration at the University of North Florida. He joins me this Sunday to explain why the biggest threat to our democracy comes from the way we draw lines on the map.

The “Gerrymander” – named for the under-appreciated founding father, Elbridge Gerry – is a frightening creature, Seabrook says, because it reverses the traditional mode of democratic decision-making. Instead of the voters selecting their elected officials, the elected officials select the voters. The end result is a rigged system that favors incumbents and party insiders at the expense of We, the People.

Nick will take us through the highlights of Gerrymandering history – from the most egregious examples to the pivotal moments when a Gerrymander forever changed the country’s trajectory. He will also explain how the courts view their role in policing unfair redistricting practices, and which states are the worst offenders.

Before casting your ballot for the midterms, be sure to catch this episode of the show of ideas.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51735589Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekBooks about American history are often dry. Even more when the topic is political history. Most of us remember the boredom of civics lessons on log-rolling, pork barrel spending, and Gerrymandering – shortcomings in our democratic system rooted in the...
Seabrook is a professor of political science and public administration at the University of North Florida. He joins me this Sunday to explain why the biggest threat to our democracy comes from the way we draw lines on the map.

The “Gerrymander” – named for the under-appreciated founding father, Elbridge Gerry – is a frightening creature, Seabrook says, because it reverses the traditional mode of democratic decision-making. Instead of the voters selecting their elected officials, the elected officials select the voters. The end result is a rigged system that favors incumbents and party insiders at the expense of We, the People.

Nick will take us through the highlights of Gerrymandering history – from the most egregious examples to the pivotal moments when a Gerrymander forever changed the country’s trajectory. He will also explain how the courts view their role in policing unfair redistricting practices, and which states are the worst offenders.

Before casting your ballot for the midterms, be sure to catch this episode of the show of ideas.]]>3094falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/gone-viral-goes-viral--51512042
Nearly three years after lockdowns first went into effect, the early days of COVID hysteria are starting to recede into the collective memory for many of us. Some of us have stopped highlighting the government’s insanity and deprivations of our essential liberties (I haven’t done a show on COVID in almost a year). Justin, however, has continued the fight – leveraging his skills as a data guy to continue to expose the bureaucrats and COVID “Karens” for their hysterical overreactions.
Justin’s new book, Gone Viral: How Covid Drove the World Insane, has persuaded me to do whatever I can to help his message “go viral,” so that a majority of Americans will look back on this period with the appropriate level of cynicism about our health authorities. We must never let them persuade us to abandon our freedoms so readily for the sake of a false measure of security. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51512042Sun, 09 Oct 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekLike most Americans, Justin Hart was minding his own business – a successful data visualization business – when the pandemic snuck up on us in early 2020. Seeing that something was amiss in the reported figures, he felt compelled to start the Rational...
Nearly three years after lockdowns first went into effect, the early days of COVID hysteria are starting to recede into the collective memory for many of us. Some of us have stopped highlighting the government’s insanity and deprivations of our essential liberties (I haven’t done a show on COVID in almost a year). Justin, however, has continued the fight – leveraging his skills as a data guy to continue to expose the bureaucrats and COVID “Karens” for their hysterical overreactions.
Justin’s new book, Gone Viral: How Covid Drove the World Insane, has persuaded me to do whatever I can to help his message “go viral,” so that a majority of Americans will look back on this period with the appropriate level of cynicism about our health authorities. We must never let them persuade us to abandon our freedoms so readily for the sake of a false measure of security. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/i-m-from-the-government-and-i-m-here-to-help-cathy-reisenwitz--51440861
Too often, Cathy notes, all sex work is conflated with the loathsome and illegal practice of sex trafficking. However, the response by well-intentioned religious groups and certain feminists has been to criminalize the choices of women who enter the profession voluntarily—making their work more dangerous in the process. Thus, these activist groups end up harming many of the very women they are trying to help.

We witnessed the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s, which ruined the lives of those falsely accused of abusing children. Today, we see a similar moral panic around pornography and prostitution that must be exposed to the light of day. Cathy has the data on what happens when you legalize sex work, and how places like Germany and New Zealand have combatted genuine sex trafficking by cooperating with rather than prosecuting sex workers.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51440861Sun, 02 Oct 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekMy guest this Sunday is Cathy Reisenwitz, author of the Sex and the State Substack, and one of the clearest thinkers on the topic of decriminalizing sex work. Too often, Cathy notes, all sex work is conflated with the loathsome and illegal practice...
Too often, Cathy notes, all sex work is conflated with the loathsome and illegal practice of sex trafficking. However, the response by well-intentioned religious groups and certain feminists has been to criminalize the choices of women who enter the profession voluntarily—making their work more dangerous in the process. Thus, these activist groups end up harming many of the very women they are trying to help.

We witnessed the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s, which ruined the lives of those falsely accused of abusing children. Today, we see a similar moral panic around pornography and prostitution that must be exposed to the light of day. Cathy has the data on what happens when you legalize sex work, and how places like Germany and New Zealand have combatted genuine sex trafficking by cooperating with rather than prosecuting sex workers.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/patri-friedman-on-the-competitive-governance-universe--51373569
Patri was one of my first guests when I started broadcasting in 2009. Much has changed since he first launched the Seasteading Institute, and I invited Patri to share what he’s been up to and how the landscape (seascape?) has changed in the last 13 years.

Seasteading and related land-based projects represent the next frontier for radical libertarianism, following in the footsteps of Patri’s father – the anarcho-capitalist thinker David Friedman – and his grandfather, the late Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman showed how free trade areas like Hong Kong could supercharge growth and lead millions out of poverty. Patri’s ambition is to revive the fading legacy of Hong Kong, enabling the establishment of a thousand new nations – floating or otherwise – to pull humanity into the more optimistic scenario for the future. However, as we will discuss, these new governing entities need not adopt libertarian principles to still advance the broader libertarian agenda of enhancing freedom and competition at the level of choosing one’s jurisdiction. What freedom could be more important?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51373569Sun, 25 Sep 2022 15:00:03 +0000Bob ZadekAt the center of the competitive governance movement is Patri Friedman –the co-founder and Director of the Seasteading Institute, who more recently founded Pronomos Capital, a venture capital firm devoted to transforming the “governance industry” by...
Patri was one of my first guests when I started broadcasting in 2009. Much has changed since he first launched the Seasteading Institute, and I invited Patri to share what he’s been up to and how the landscape (seascape?) has changed in the last 13 years.

Seasteading and related land-based projects represent the next frontier for radical libertarianism, following in the footsteps of Patri’s father – the anarcho-capitalist thinker David Friedman – and his grandfather, the late Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman showed how free trade areas like Hong Kong could supercharge growth and lead millions out of poverty. Patri’s ambition is to revive the fading legacy of Hong Kong, enabling the establishment of a thousand new nations – floating or otherwise – to pull humanity into the more optimistic scenario for the future. However, as we will discuss, these new governing entities need not adopt libertarian principles to still advance the broader libertarian agenda of enhancing freedom and competition at the level of choosing one’s jurisdiction. What freedom could be more important?]]>3157falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-mass-surveillance-nobody-is-talking-about--51295305
His report on the worrisome new technology caught my attention, and I wanted to learn more. What I didn’t know when I invited him on my show is that Hofer himself was the victim of an error in the vast, byzantine database that law enforcement uses to link license plate numbers with suspected criminals.

Tune in this Sunday to find out how Hofer ended up with his rental car being surrounded by half a dozen patrol cars, before being tackled to the ground by an armed police officer in a dark parking lot on a cold November night (Spoiler alert: he wasn’t guilty).

While the presence of cameras on the roads may not seem like a threat to our liberties, Hofer’s personal story, and the countless other similar anecdotes he relays, should give us pause about adopting such mass surveillance technology given the propensity for serious “user error.”]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51295305Sun, 18 Sep 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekWhen you hear the words “mass surveillance,” you probably think of Edward Snowden’s revelations that the NSA tracks everything we do online. However, such surveillace may not be our greatest concern. Jonathan Hofer, a research associate at the...
His report on the worrisome new technology caught my attention, and I wanted to learn more. What I didn’t know when I invited him on my show is that Hofer himself was the victim of an error in the vast, byzantine database that law enforcement uses to link license plate numbers with suspected criminals.

Tune in this Sunday to find out how Hofer ended up with his rental car being surrounded by half a dozen patrol cars, before being tackled to the ground by an armed police officer in a dark parking lot on a cold November night (Spoiler alert: he wasn’t guilty).

While the presence of cameras on the roads may not seem like a threat to our liberties, Hofer’s personal story, and the countless other similar anecdotes he relays, should give us pause about adopting such mass surveillance technology given the propensity for serious “user error.”]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lies-damned-lies-the-inflation-reduction-act--52051886
Most Americans are aware that recent price increases are connected with new government spending, although fewer want to face the music that the solution is cutting said spending – not cutting new checks and subsidies to temporarily relieve some pain for some citizens.

Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics, is not afraid to speak the truth and name names. His assessment of the poorly-named “Inflation Reduction Act” is grim, but we must face economic reality before we can improve it.

While politicians are certainly to blame for the Orwellian naming of bills that accomplish the opposite of what their name suggests, DiLorenzo makes an underappreciated point about the average economist’s complicity in such shenanigans. The economics profession, he writes, “has been turned into the handmaiden of government in order to give a scientistic justification for things the government … wants to do.”


DiLorenzo – a senior faculty member at the Mises Institute – joined me last Sunday to expose what’s actually in the Inflation Reduction Act, and why it is virtually certain to increase inflation – especially energy costs – as well as production costs of most things we buy.

We also discussed the enduring appeal of socialism among young people, and how DiLorenzo has disabused his students of their misguided ideas over the years through teaching sound economics.

Listen to the podcast or subscribe to read the condensed summary of DiLorenzo’s “politically incorrect guide to economics.”]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/52051886Tue, 13 Sep 2022 04:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhenever you encounter a claim by a politician that they are going to “create jobs” or “reduce inflation,” you should be very suspicious. Most Americans are aware that recent price increases are connected with new government spending, although...
Most Americans are aware that recent price increases are connected with new government spending, although fewer want to face the music that the solution is cutting said spending – not cutting new checks and subsidies to temporarily relieve some pain for some citizens.

Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics, is not afraid to speak the truth and name names. His assessment of the poorly-named “Inflation Reduction Act” is grim, but we must face economic reality before we can improve it.

While politicians are certainly to blame for the Orwellian naming of bills that accomplish the opposite of what their name suggests, DiLorenzo makes an underappreciated point about the average economist’s complicity in such shenanigans. The economics profession, he writes, “has been turned into the handmaiden of government in order to give a scientistic justification for things the government … wants to do.”


DiLorenzo – a senior faculty member at the Mises Institute – joined me last Sunday to expose what’s actually in the Inflation Reduction Act, and why it is virtually certain to increase inflation – especially energy costs – as well as production costs of most things we buy.

We also discussed the enduring appeal of socialism among young people, and how DiLorenzo has disabused his students of their misguided ideas over the years through teaching sound economics.

Listen to the podcast or subscribe to read the condensed summary of DiLorenzo’s “politically incorrect guide to economics.”]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/student-loan-debt-forgiveness--51227664
She is also co-founder of the libertarian feminist group Feminists for Liberty, and a professional affiliate of the journalism program at the University of Cincinnati. Last time she joined my show, Elizabeth and I discussed her work on the War on Sex Work:
This week we take up the news of Biden’s unilateral action cancelling billions of dollars of student loan debt. Elizabeth calls it a fiasco, and she’s hardly alone in this sentiment. Even President Obama’s former economic adviser Jason Furman has called the plan “reckless.”
If we have time, we will also take up the question of whether Walgreens should be prosecuted as an illicit drug dealer for fulfilling opioid prescriptions (hint: no).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51227664Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:39:45 +0000Bob ZadekElizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason and the main author of Reason's morning newsletter, the Reason Roundup – an essential part of my daily reading. She is also co-founder of the libertarian feminist group Feminists for Liberty, and...
She is also co-founder of the libertarian feminist group Feminists for Liberty, and a professional affiliate of the journalism program at the University of Cincinnati. Last time she joined my show, Elizabeth and I discussed her work on the War on Sex Work:
This week we take up the news of Biden’s unilateral action cancelling billions of dollars of student loan debt. Elizabeth calls it a fiasco, and she’s hardly alone in this sentiment. Even President Obama’s former economic adviser Jason Furman has called the plan “reckless.”
If we have time, we will also take up the question of whether Walgreens should be prosecuted as an illicit drug dealer for fulfilling opioid prescriptions (hint: no).]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dick-morris-on-the-2022-and-2024-elections--51080213
None of the members of Team Conservative were available to comment on their report in the NCC’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project, but I may have found an even better spokesperson for the frustration of the 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump, regarding the outcome.

My guest, legendary political consultant Dick Morris, will be the first to admit that Biden won both the popular vote, as well as the electoral college count.

“[T]he fact is, we ultimately lost because the Democrats got more legal, eligible voters to cast ballots than we did,” writes Morris in his latest book, The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback.
However, the former advisor to the Clintons diagnoses a deeper flaw in the electoral system – one that can’t be fixed by Congress or any branch of the federal government. Instead, Morris urges voters to elect Republican or neutral secretaries of state in key swing states to overturn the abuses of mail-in voting, same-day registration, and unaccountable tabulation methods – often used behind closed doors, long after the polls have closed. Morris continues:

“The election of 2020 was, in a real sense, won by the Democrats in 2018, when swing states elected their governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state. The Democrats knew that, in order to maximize the turnout of their voters in 2020, they had to build a network of complicit, election officials to cooperate—within the law, and outside it—to swell the Biden vote and diminish Trump’s.”


The book goes on to detail Morris’s close personal relationship with Trump, and a strategy for leveling the playing field before the 2024 elections.

After revealing how state governors and secretaries of state paved the way for Biden’s win, Morris turns to Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to institutionalize these sketchy practices at the federal level through HR 1 - aka the “For the People Act of 2021.” Nevermind that the founders explicitly gave state legislatures power to regulate elections, Pelosi and the Democrats want to “vest the power" to draw district lines and adopt other regulations about elections in the federal Department of Justice and the US attorney general, appointed by the president.

Morris joined me to lay out the prospects for real reform in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and other states with Republican legislatures. What about Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democrats control the governorship? Who wins in 2024 could depend on whether the Republicans sweep the midterms in these states.

Finally, Morris explained why the Republican nominee “Has to Be Trump,” along with the message that he believes will propel his campaign to victory.

I was also joined in the second half of the show by my new friend John Georgopolous of Sports Grumblings, who recently interviewed me on the Big Questions with Big John podcast.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/51080213Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:46:41 +0000Bob ZadekMuch of the discussion around the 2020 election has hinged around the question of who won – i.e., who got the most votes – while skirting more important questions about the procedure. Was it fair? None of the members of Team Conservative were...
None of the members of Team Conservative were available to comment on their report in the NCC’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project, but I may have found an even better spokesperson for the frustration of the 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump, regarding the outcome.

My guest, legendary political consultant Dick Morris, will be the first to admit that Biden won both the popular vote, as well as the electoral college count.

“[T]he fact is, we ultimately lost because the Democrats got more legal, eligible voters to cast ballots than we did,” writes Morris in his latest book, The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback.
However, the former advisor to the Clintons diagnoses a deeper flaw in the electoral system – one that can’t be fixed by Congress or any branch of the federal government. Instead, Morris urges voters to elect Republican or neutral secretaries of state in key swing states to overturn the abuses of mail-in voting, same-day registration, and unaccountable tabulation methods – often used behind closed doors, long after the polls have closed. Morris continues:

“The election of 2020 was, in a real sense, won by the Democrats in 2018, when swing states elected their governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state. The Democrats knew that, in order to maximize the turnout of their voters in 2020, they had to build a network of complicit, election officials to cooperate—within the law, and outside it—to swell the Biden vote and diminish Trump’s.”


The book goes on to detail Morris’s close personal relationship with Trump, and a strategy for leveling the playing field before the 2024 elections.

After revealing how state governors and secretaries of state paved the way for Biden’s win, Morris turns to Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to institutionalize these sketchy practices at the federal level through HR 1 - aka the “For the People Act of 2021.” Nevermind that the founders explicitly gave state legislatures power to regulate elections, Pelosi and the Democrats want to “vest the power" to draw district lines and adopt other regulations about elections in the federal Department of Justice and the US attorney general, appointed by the president.

Morris joined me to lay out the prospects for real reform in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and other states with Republican legislatures. What about Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democrats control the governorship? Who wins in 2024 could depend on whether the Republicans sweep the midterms in these states.

Finally, Morris explained why the Republican nominee “Has to Be Trump,” along with the message that he believes will propel his campaign to victory.

I was also joined in the second half of the show by my new friend John Georgopolous of Sports Grumblings, who recently interviewed me on the Big Questions with Big John podcast.]]>3163falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/restoring-the-guardrails-of-democracy--50983606
Part 1 featured Ilya Somin representing Team Libertarian, who proposed foot voting (among other things) as a simple way to make American government more accountable to the people.

Part 2 will feature Professor Edward B. Foley – Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at Ohio State University – presenting the progressive team’s ideas for safeguarding our democracy. Their report is worth reading in its entirety, regardless of your political persuasion. Foley and his co-author, USC law professor Franita Tolson, make a compelling case for reforming the way we elect our representatives to ensure that they actually represent the will of the majority. What a concept!

While Foley is on the record saying he’d like to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, the report takes a more modest aim of electoral reform – looking only to what Congress could accomplish through mere legislation, short of a constitutional amendment.

Foley is particularly concerned with electoral procedures that allow more extreme minority factions to hold power. We’ve recently seen primaries in which the Democratic Party funds a far-right candidate who they believe will be easier to defeat in the general election. Foley criticizes this cynical ploy in part because it undermines the selection of “Condorcet Winners.” If you’re unfamiliar with the Condorcet method, pioneered by the Marquis de Condorcet, be sure to tune in live this Sunday.

The basic idea, summarized in Team Progressive’s report, is that the winner of an election should be the candidate “preferred by a majority of voters when compared individually against each of the other alternatives.”

One way to achieve this is through ranked-choice voting, which we recently saw in an Alaskan primary in which Sarah Palin advanced to the general. Dr. Robert Malone offers a valuable explainer on how ranked choice voting works on his Substack.

Join Ned and me this Sunday at 8am PACIFIC, or subscribe to the podcast, to expand your civic numeracy.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50983606Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekThis week I continue my series on the National Constitution Center’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project. While most commentators are glued to the political horse race – obsessing over the 2024 midterms or the latest twist in the Trump saga...
Part 1 featured Ilya Somin representing Team Libertarian, who proposed foot voting (among other things) as a simple way to make American government more accountable to the people.

Part 2 will feature Professor Edward B. Foley – Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at Ohio State University – presenting the progressive team’s ideas for safeguarding our democracy. Their report is worth reading in its entirety, regardless of your political persuasion. Foley and his co-author, USC law professor Franita Tolson, make a compelling case for reforming the way we elect our representatives to ensure that they actually represent the will of the majority. What a concept!

While Foley is on the record saying he’d like to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, the report takes a more modest aim of electoral reform – looking only to what Congress could accomplish through mere legislation, short of a constitutional amendment.

Foley is particularly concerned with electoral procedures that allow more extreme minority factions to hold power. We’ve recently seen primaries in which the Democratic Party funds a far-right candidate who they believe will be easier to defeat in the general election. Foley criticizes this cynical ploy in part because it undermines the selection of “Condorcet Winners.” If you’re unfamiliar with the Condorcet method, pioneered by the Marquis de Condorcet, be sure to tune in live this Sunday.

The basic idea, summarized in Team Progressive’s report, is that the winner of an election should be the candidate “preferred by a majority of voters when compared individually against each of the other alternatives.”

One way to achieve this is through ranked-choice voting, which we recently saw in an Alaskan primary in which Sarah Palin advanced to the general. Dr. Robert Malone offers a valuable explainer on how ranked choice voting works on his Substack.

Join Ned and me this Sunday at 8am PACIFIC, or subscribe to the podcast, to expand your civic numeracy.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-libertarian-dream-team-ilya-somin--50909966
If only there was a way to step back from heated partisan debates and the 24-hour news cycle to assess what is fundamentally wrong with our democracy and propose a remedy. Indeed, my wish has been answered in the form of another brilliant thought experiment from the National Constitution Center, which assembled a libertarian version of the Dream Team to lay out a plan for Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They also solicited reports from Progressive and Conservative teams, but this Sunday my show will focus on the Team Libertarian’s report.

Team Libertarian includes both Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, as well as frequent guest and friend of the show, Ilya Somin, who returns this Sunday to summarize the team’s findings. The report puts a strong emphasis on criminal justice reform – something that the former President is likely to appreciate more now that he has been a victim of overzealous prosecution and the weaponization of the law. Their solution involves greater citizen participation, mainly through the restoration of jury trials as the norm in criminal cases, as opposed to plea bargains.

Team Libertarian also takes Ilya Somin’s ideas in Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom as a meaningful way to strengthen small-d democracy. Ballot voting, of course, is only one component of a healthy democratic system. When “voice” fails, citizens need many “exit” options to guarantee their liberties.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50909966Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekCommentators across the political spectrum are scrambling for the hottest take on the raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, with Jonah Goldberg and Kurt Schlicter taking opposing views. But only the libertarians like Neily are consistent in...
If only there was a way to step back from heated partisan debates and the 24-hour news cycle to assess what is fundamentally wrong with our democracy and propose a remedy. Indeed, my wish has been answered in the form of another brilliant thought experiment from the National Constitution Center, which assembled a libertarian version of the Dream Team to lay out a plan for Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They also solicited reports from Progressive and Conservative teams, but this Sunday my show will focus on the Team Libertarian’s report.

Team Libertarian includes both Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, as well as frequent guest and friend of the show, Ilya Somin, who returns this Sunday to summarize the team’s findings. The report puts a strong emphasis on criminal justice reform – something that the former President is likely to appreciate more now that he has been a victim of overzealous prosecution and the weaponization of the law. Their solution involves greater citizen participation, mainly through the restoration of jury trials as the norm in criminal cases, as opposed to plea bargains.

Team Libertarian also takes Ilya Somin’s ideas in Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom as a meaningful way to strengthen small-d democracy. Ballot voting, of course, is only one component of a healthy democratic system. When “voice” fails, citizens need many “exit” options to guarantee their liberties.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/arizona-chooses-students-over-systems-matt-beienburg--50839748
HB 2853 made universal an earlier “Empowerment Scholarship Account” program that grants parents a choice over where Arizona’s tax dollars are spent for their kids’ schooling.

Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, touts the reform as the gold standard model for the rest of the country, and other states are sure to follow suit once politicians realize how overwhelmingly popular school choice has become with parents.

The popularity of school choice has been steadily rising but reached a tipping point in Arizona during COVID-19, when parents could see firsthand the extent of indoctrination taking place in virtual public school classrooms. In the end, it would seem that teacher’s unions’ insistence on extended remote learning has backfired dramatically, as the parent-led revolution in taking back control over education continues.

Beienburg joins the show this Sunday to discuss the Goldwater Institute’s role in crafting the original ESA legislation that empowered particularly disadvantaged students to opt out of failing public schools. He will also answer some of the many objections to school choice trotted out by the left to insulate the government from competition in the arena of education.

I previously covered many of these myths on my show with Corey DeAngelis, and it’s thrilling to see the ideas from the book translated into concrete policy in Arizona:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50839748Sun, 07 Aug 2022 15:00:03 +0000Bob ZadekLast week I reported on a huge victory for state-based liberty in Arizona, where Governor Doug Ducey recently signed into law a bill that makes school choice available to all K-12 students in the Grand Canyon State. HB 2853 made universal an...
HB 2853 made universal an earlier “Empowerment Scholarship Account” program that grants parents a choice over where Arizona’s tax dollars are spent for their kids’ schooling.

Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, touts the reform as the gold standard model for the rest of the country, and other states are sure to follow suit once politicians realize how overwhelmingly popular school choice has become with parents.

The popularity of school choice has been steadily rising but reached a tipping point in Arizona during COVID-19, when parents could see firsthand the extent of indoctrination taking place in virtual public school classrooms. In the end, it would seem that teacher’s unions’ insistence on extended remote learning has backfired dramatically, as the parent-led revolution in taking back control over education continues.

Beienburg joins the show this Sunday to discuss the Goldwater Institute’s role in crafting the original ESA legislation that empowered particularly disadvantaged students to opt out of failing public schools. He will also answer some of the many objections to school choice trotted out by the left to insulate the government from competition in the arena of education.

I previously covered many of these myths on my show with Corey DeAngelis, and it’s thrilling to see the ideas from the book translated into concrete policy in Arizona:]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/which-state-is-the-most-free--50761053
This week, there has been more bad news – as usual. Two pieces from the American Institute for Economic Research especially caught my eye: one about the Fed’s recent interest rate hikes, and another about attempts to combat climate change through “de-growth” (read: coercion and green energy handouts). Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Economic Research seems to be defining down the definition of a recession to exclude the past two months of consecutive negative growth.

However, there is always good news to find if you just know where to look.

Reason #1: There is Still Freedom in the 50 States
The biggest reason I find to be optimistic this week comes from a Cato Institute project led by AIER President and Cato research fellow William Ruger as well as Jason Sorens. Ruger and Sorens are the authors of the “Freedom in the 50 States” report, which gives an annual assessment of which states are increasing and decreasing in the rankings of a broad index of liberties.

They both will join my show for the first time to discuss how the index weighs different broad categories of freedom – from regulatory, to financial to personal – as well as specific freedoms that vary in importance for different people. Of course, there are many people who would be happy to live in a state that restricts other people’s liberty, while their own cherished freedoms are left untouched. But which states guarantee liberty for all? Find out this Sunday on the show of ideas what separates the #freestates from the unfree.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50761053Sun, 31 Jul 2022 15:00:01 +0000Bob ZadekMy listeners know that I am an optimist, despite all of the doom-and-gloom type stories we read daily. This week, there has been more bad news – as usual. Two pieces from the American Institute for Economic Research especially caught my eye: one...
This week, there has been more bad news – as usual. Two pieces from the American Institute for Economic Research especially caught my eye: one about the Fed’s recent interest rate hikes, and another about attempts to combat climate change through “de-growth” (read: coercion and green energy handouts). Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Economic Research seems to be defining down the definition of a recession to exclude the past two months of consecutive negative growth.

However, there is always good news to find if you just know where to look.

Reason #1: There is Still Freedom in the 50 States
The biggest reason I find to be optimistic this week comes from a Cato Institute project led by AIER President and Cato research fellow William Ruger as well as Jason Sorens. Ruger and Sorens are the authors of the “Freedom in the 50 States” report, which gives an annual assessment of which states are increasing and decreasing in the rankings of a broad index of liberties.

They both will join my show for the first time to discuss how the index weighs different broad categories of freedom – from regulatory, to financial to personal – as well as specific freedoms that vary in importance for different people. Of course, there are many people who would be happy to live in a state that restricts other people’s liberty, while their own cherished freedoms are left untouched. But which states guarantee liberty for all? Find out this Sunday on the show of ideas what separates the #freestates from the unfree.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/progressive-conservatism-with-f-h-buckley--50692281
Progressive conservatism sounds like an oxymoron – a bit like an exact estimate, jumbo shrimp, or a dull roar. Buckley, however, argues that progressive conservatism is not only a meaningful political label, but that it has a rich history – both in America and around the world. A former speech writer for President Trump, Buckley believes that Trump voters will still determine the future of the Republican Party, even though Trump has disgraced himself.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50692281Sun, 24 Jul 2022 15:00:02 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, I’m happy to welcome F.H. Buckley back to the show to discuss his newest book, Progressive Conservatism: How Republicans Will Become America's Natural Governing Party. Progressive conservatism sounds like an oxymoron – a bit like an...
Progressive conservatism sounds like an oxymoron – a bit like an exact estimate, jumbo shrimp, or a dull roar. Buckley, however, argues that progressive conservatism is not only a meaningful political label, but that it has a rich history – both in America and around the world. A former speech writer for President Trump, Buckley believes that Trump voters will still determine the future of the Republican Party, even though Trump has disgraced himself.]]>3165falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/exploring-the-borderlands-of-legal-whiteness-with-david-bernstein--50641274
GMU Law Professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein explores “the borderlands of legal whiteness” in his new book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.

Fellow conspiracist and Prof. Randy Barnett has already included it in the syllabus for his upcoming Georgetown Law seminar, Recent Books on the Constitution.

Bernstein joins to discuss the many contradictions involved in the government’s attempt to put clear labels on complex categories.

Should Hispanics of Spanish descent be considered minorities, or European whites? Why are Asians discriminated against in college admissions – especially given the incredible range of geographies, cultures, and socio-economic statuses contained within that broad designation?

What will the Supreme Court decide in the pending suit against Harvard and the University of North Carolina brought by the “Students for Fair Admissions” group?

Tune in every Sunday morning on AM radio, or streaming online
Having had a sneak preview of the book, I can tell you that it is a must-read for Constitutional Law buffs, and anyone interested in American legal history.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50641274Tue, 19 Jul 2022 01:18:10 +0000Bob ZadekYou’ve heard of legally blind, and even legally blonde, but what about legally white? GMU Law Professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein explores “the borderlands of legal whiteness” in his new book, Classified: The Untold Story of...
GMU Law Professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein explores “the borderlands of legal whiteness” in his new book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.

Fellow conspiracist and Prof. Randy Barnett has already included it in the syllabus for his upcoming Georgetown Law seminar, Recent Books on the Constitution.

Bernstein joins to discuss the many contradictions involved in the government’s attempt to put clear labels on complex categories.

Should Hispanics of Spanish descent be considered minorities, or European whites? Why are Asians discriminated against in college admissions – especially given the incredible range of geographies, cultures, and socio-economic statuses contained within that broad designation?

What will the Supreme Court decide in the pending suit against Harvard and the University of North Carolina brought by the “Students for Fair Admissions” group?

Tune in every Sunday morning on AM radio, or streaming online
Having had a sneak preview of the book, I can tell you that it is a must-read for Constitutional Law buffs, and anyone interested in American legal history.]]>3166falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-economist-s-view-of-the-world--50536388
However, his recent Tweet demanding that gas stations lower their prices to alleviate the “pain at the pump” is far more embarrassing than his accidental public speaking fumbles.
Even Jeff Bezos had to correct the President for his ignorance of basic economics, which combined blatant scapegoating with a denial of the universal laws of supply and demand. However, in a nation where the vast majority of citizens have likely never taken an undergraduate economics course, can Biden be blamed for engaging in such classic political opportunism?

Perhaps we can channel former President Barack Obama in considering this a “teachable moment.” Or as Rahm Emmanuel once said, we should never let a good crisis go to waste.

I’m delighted to welcome Professor Emeritus ****Steven E. Rhoads to the show to discuss the new and substantially revised 35th anniversary edition of his best-selling book, *[The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being](https://amazon.com/Economists-View-World-Quest-Well-Being/dp/1108845940).*

Rhoads wrote the book as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia (home of the Public Choice economics), and was surprised when the original edition skyrocketed to the tops of best-seller lists and made economic principles accessible to millions who would have otherwise believed the fallacies embedded in Biden’s tweet.

David Henderson – editor of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics – calls it “A Wide-Ranging Book for Non-Economists and Economists" alike, and the WSJ named it one of the best books of 2021.

Steven E. Rhoads and I attempted to distill an entire semester’s worth of economic thinking into a full hour. Don’t miss it.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50536388Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:01:46 +0000Bob ZadekJoe Biden’s gaffes are usually unplanned slips of the tongue – not pre-meditated social media posts that presumably received approval from staffers prior to publication. However, his recent Tweet demanding that gas stations lower their prices to...
However, his recent Tweet demanding that gas stations lower their prices to alleviate the “pain at the pump” is far more embarrassing than his accidental public speaking fumbles.
Even Jeff Bezos had to correct the President for his ignorance of basic economics, which combined blatant scapegoating with a denial of the universal laws of supply and demand. However, in a nation where the vast majority of citizens have likely never taken an undergraduate economics course, can Biden be blamed for engaging in such classic political opportunism?

Perhaps we can channel former President Barack Obama in considering this a “teachable moment.” Or as Rahm Emmanuel once said, we should never let a good crisis go to waste.

I’m delighted to welcome Professor Emeritus ****Steven E. Rhoads to the show to discuss the new and substantially revised 35th anniversary edition of his best-selling book, *[The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being](https://amazon.com/Economists-View-World-Quest-Well-Being/dp/1108845940).*

Rhoads wrote the book as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia (home of the Public Choice economics), and was surprised when the original edition skyrocketed to the tops of best-seller lists and made economic principles accessible to millions who would have otherwise believed the fallacies embedded in Biden’s tweet.

David Henderson – editor of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics – calls it “A Wide-Ranging Book for Non-Economists and Economists" alike, and the WSJ named it one of the best books of 2021.

Steven E. Rhoads and I attempted to distill an entire semester’s worth of economic thinking into a full hour. Don’t miss it.]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/judicial-round-up-with-clark-neily--50460389
Libertarianism tolerates a wide range of views on the policy question of abortion access

But the policy question is only the beginning. The Constitutional question is what was taken up recently by the Supreme Court, and while the outcome may be disappointing to those who support abortion as a policy matter, Clark and Schweikert note that “there are still many valid grounds to criticize how the Court has constitutionalized abortion rights in particular.”

What makes abortion different from other “unenumerated rights” discovered by the court in the modern era, like contraception, parental rights over their child’s education, or the right to privacy in the bedroom? The *Dobbs* decision reconsiders *Roes* classification of abortion among these rights, and holds that question of individual liberty is not so straightforward where unborn life is concerned.

To be sure, we got to these delicate questions, but we also talked about an area where the Court has refused to reconsider a prior decision that appears to be in error.
The doctrine of qualified immunity, which the Cato Institute characterizes as an “Unlawful Shield,” protects prosecutors, police officers and other government officials from civil liability.

While pundits endlessly argue about the legal reasoning *Roe*, Clark and I will be talking about the 1982 case of *Harlow v. Fitzgerald*, in which the Supreme Court made it harder to prosecute violations of individual rights perpetrated by members of the protected class known as government employees.

Although I covered the topic in 2020, and Clark has been continuing the fight to “#AbolishQI,” it still doesn't get nearly enough attention.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50460389Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:54:54 +0000Bob ZadekI originally invited Clark Neily to join me to discuss his essay on what libertarians should think about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to make everyone happy with a discussion of such a controversial issue. And yet...
Libertarianism tolerates a wide range of views on the policy question of abortion access

But the policy question is only the beginning. The Constitutional question is what was taken up recently by the Supreme Court, and while the outcome may be disappointing to those who support abortion as a policy matter, Clark and Schweikert note that “there are still many valid grounds to criticize how the Court has constitutionalized abortion rights in particular.”

What makes abortion different from other “unenumerated rights” discovered by the court in the modern era, like contraception, parental rights over their child’s education, or the right to privacy in the bedroom? The *Dobbs* decision reconsiders *Roes* classification of abortion among these rights, and holds that question of individual liberty is not so straightforward where unborn life is concerned.

To be sure, we got to these delicate questions, but we also talked about an area where the Court has refused to reconsider a prior decision that appears to be in error.
The doctrine of qualified immunity, which the Cato Institute characterizes as an “Unlawful Shield,” protects prosecutors, police officers and other government officials from civil liability.

While pundits endlessly argue about the legal reasoning *Roe*, Clark and I will be talking about the 1982 case of *Harlow v. Fitzgerald*, in which the Supreme Court made it harder to prosecute violations of individual rights perpetrated by members of the protected class known as government employees.

Although I covered the topic in 2020, and Clark has been continuing the fight to “#AbolishQI,” it still doesn't get nearly enough attention.]]>3111falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/disney-versus-desantis--50391302
The story of how the Disney Corporation came to have the unique ability to run their own government on a swampy tract of land in Central Florida is documented in Richard Foglesong’s remarkable book, Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando. Foglesong, a retired Professor of Politics at Rollins College, has become a sought-after commentator in the wake of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s move to revoke the special privileges granted to Disney over 50 years ago. The proximate cause? Disney’s vocal opposition to Florida’s new “Parental Rights in Education” law (HB 1557) – sometimes called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

Some argue that DeSantis is just leveling the playing field, and finally treating all corporations the same, but given his status as a rising star in the Republican Party – known for being pro-growth – one might ask why DeSantis isn’t instead moving to give more legal autonomy to neighboring theme park resorts like Universal Studios, rather than put an end to one of the most successful experiments in private governance ever to be attempted?

Hong Kong is often cited as the greatest growth miracle of the 20th century – demonstrating the power of legal autonomy and the free enterprise system to supercharge a city’s economic engine. Free market Hong Kong outperformed communist China so spectacularly that the Communist Party had to effectively admit defeat and copy the free-market model in establishing its Special Economic Zones throughout the country.

And yet Walt Disney World in Orland Florida may be an even better poster child for charter cities – a truly Magical Kingdom, that continues to produce growth and prosperity for the surrounding region. The population of Orange County, Florida, doubled in less than thirty years at the behest of Disney executives and the business-friendly government based in Orlando. The secret sauce behind this sensational growth was the agreement to structure the theme park development as a “special district” that effectively granted the Disney Corporation complete autonomy to build the infrastructure according to its own vision and needs. Unlike Disneyland in Anaheim, California, Disney World was birthed as an autonomous city within the state of Florida – free to build out Walt Disney’s vision for the cities of the future.

Why would DeSantis be inclined to break up a marriage that by all appearances has been a wildly successful one? To understand this, we must consult Foglesong and his book, which analyzes the 55-year experiment through the lens of the marriage analogy, complete with successive stages of “serendipity", “seduction,” “secrecy,” “marriage,” “growth,” “conflict,” “abuse,” “negotiation,” and finally, therapy.

Today, Disney World’s special district status is at risk, since Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have moved to terminate the district in June of 2023. Foglesong, who knows the history of the marriage between Disney and Florida government better than anyone, is a trusted commentator on the looming “divorce.” He joined the show of ideas to discuss the implications of the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Special District, and what we can learn about urban growth and the politics of charter cities from the rich story he tells in his book.

We also discussed the tension between the ideals of free enterprise touted by Walt Disney, and the centralized administration of the theme park and surrounding community. Finally, we discussed the question of democracy in the context of an autonomous city, where a single corporation wishes to make political decisions efficiently and unilaterally.

Richard Foglesong reports in his remarkable book Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando that the population of Orange County, Florida, doubled in less than thirty years at the behest of Disney executives and the business-friendly government based in Orlando.

The secret sauce behind this sensational growth was the agreement to structure the theme park development as a “special district” that effectively granted the Disney Corporation complete autonomy to build the infrastructure according to its own vision and needs. Unlike Disney Land in Anaheim, California, Disney World was birthed as an autonomous city within the state of Florida – free to build out Walt Disney’s vision for the cities of the future.

Today, Disney World’s special district status is at risk, since Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have moved to terminate the district in June of 2023. Foglesong, who knows the history of the marriage between Disney and Florida government better than anyone, is a trusted commentator on the looming “divorce.” He joined the show of ideas to discuss the implications of the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Special District, and what we can learn about urban growth and the politics of charter cities from the rich story he tells in his book.

We also discussed the tension between the ideals of free enterprise touted by Walt Disney, and the centralized administration of the theme park and surrounding community. Finally, we discussed the question of democracy]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50391302Tue, 28 Jun 2022 13:41:45 +0000Bob Zadek“The bonds will be paid by Disney. They will be paying taxes, probably more taxes. They will follow the laws that every other person has to do, and they will no longer have the ability to run their own government.” – Governor Ron DeSantis, at a Fox...
The story of how the Disney Corporation came to have the unique ability to run their own government on a swampy tract of land in Central Florida is documented in Richard Foglesong’s remarkable book, Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando. Foglesong, a retired Professor of Politics at Rollins College, has become a sought-after commentator in the wake of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s move to revoke the special privileges granted to Disney over 50 years ago. The proximate cause? Disney’s vocal opposition to Florida’s new “Parental Rights in Education” law (HB 1557) – sometimes called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

Some argue that DeSantis is just leveling the playing field, and finally treating all corporations the same, but given his status as a rising star in the Republican Party – known for being pro-growth – one might ask why DeSantis isn’t instead moving to give more legal autonomy to neighboring theme park resorts like Universal Studios, rather than put an end to one of the most successful experiments in private governance ever to be attempted?

Hong Kong is often cited as the greatest growth miracle of the 20th century – demonstrating the power of legal autonomy and the free enterprise system to supercharge a city’s economic engine. Free market Hong Kong outperformed communist China so spectacularly that the Communist Party had to effectively admit defeat and copy the free-market model in establishing its Special Economic Zones throughout the country.

And yet Walt Disney World in Orland Florida may be an even better poster child for charter cities – a truly Magical Kingdom, that continues to produce growth and prosperity for the surrounding region. The population of Orange County, Florida, doubled in less than thirty years at the behest of Disney executives and the business-friendly government based in Orlando. The secret sauce behind this sensational growth was the agreement to structure the theme park development as a “special district” that effectively granted the Disney Corporation complete autonomy to build the infrastructure according to its own vision and needs. Unlike Disneyland in Anaheim, California, Disney World was birthed as an autonomous city within the state of Florida – free to build out Walt Disney’s vision for the cities of the future.

Why would DeSantis be inclined to break up a marriage that by all appearances has been a wildly successful one? To understand this, we must consult Foglesong and his book, which analyzes the 55-year experiment through the lens of the marriage analogy, complete with successive stages of “serendipity", “seduction,” “secrecy,” “marriage,” “growth,” “conflict,” “abuse,” “negotiation,” and finally, therapy.

Today, Disney World’s special district status is at risk, since Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have moved to terminate the district in June of 2023. Foglesong, who knows the history of the marriage between Disney and Florida government better than anyone, is a trusted commentator on the looming “divorce.” He joined the show of ideas to discuss the implications of the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Special District, and what we can learn about urban growth and the politics of charter cities from the rich story he tells in his book.

We also discussed the tension between the ideals of free enterprise touted by Walt Disney, and the centralized administration of the theme park and surrounding community. Finally, we discussed the question of democracy in the context of an autonomous city, where a single corporation wishes to make political decisions efficiently and unilaterally.

Richard Foglesong...]]>3163falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/abusive-fines-and-fees--50264164https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50264164Mon, 20 Jun 2022 13:27:49 +0000Bob Zadek3157falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/food-waste-freedom--50186824
The law, S.B. 1383 … "requires supermarkets and other big food providers to divert as much as a quarter of edible food now destined for dumps to food banks to feed the needy," the Los Angeles Times.


Sounds great, right? Not so fast…

Yet multiple reports now highlight the fact that complying with the law is "proving easier said than done," ABC7 in Los Angeles reports. That's because grocers, restaurants, food banks, local governments, and others haven't "figure[d] out who is responsible for reclaiming [food] leftovers under the law, and how to pay the costs of doing so." Those costs have only skyrocketed due to [record gas prices. Given these challenges, it's "been hard for local food banks and small towns to implement the law due to climbing fuel costs and uncertainty over who pays for food recovery," Reuters notes.


The problem of food waste is a perfect encapsulation of the broader issue of food freedom, and indeed of all “solutions” to perceived market failures. The government gets involved to right a wrong, without considering the myriad ways that the invisible hand is being thwarted in the process.

Linnekin returned to the show to revisit his now classic book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press, 2016), and how California’s law fits the broader pattern we see over and over again.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/50186824Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:33:10 +0000Bob ZadekTo paraphrase Ronald Reagan, there are few things more terrifying than a government bureaucrat who is trying to help us. In California, we are confronted with the stuff of nightmares on an almost daily basis. Baylen Linnekin of Reason Magazine reports...
The law, S.B. 1383 … "requires supermarkets and other big food providers to divert as much as a quarter of edible food now destined for dumps to food banks to feed the needy," the Los Angeles Times.


Sounds great, right? Not so fast…

Yet multiple reports now highlight the fact that complying with the law is "proving easier said than done," ABC7 in Los Angeles reports. That's because grocers, restaurants, food banks, local governments, and others haven't "figure[d] out who is responsible for reclaiming [food] leftovers under the law, and how to pay the costs of doing so." Those costs have only skyrocketed due to [record gas prices. Given these challenges, it's "been hard for local food banks and small towns to implement the law due to climbing fuel costs and uncertainty over who pays for food recovery," Reuters notes.


The problem of food waste is a perfect encapsulation of the broader issue of food freedom, and indeed of all “solutions” to perceived market failures. The government gets involved to right a wrong, without considering the myriad ways that the invisible hand is being thwarted in the process.

Linnekin returned to the show to revisit his now classic book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press, 2016), and how California’s law fits the broader pattern we see over and over again.]]>3168falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/splintered-critical-race-theory-and-the-progressive-war-on-truth--49989062
The recall was a strong sign, like the ousting of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, that most Americans still believe that schools should be in the education business, not the indoctrination industry. The term critical race theory has been thrown around a lot in the conversations surrounding the appropriate way to teach American history. Oddly, the proponents and defenders of critical race theory seem afraid to admit that it is already being taught in many places (as if they had a guilty conscience), while its detractors often seem confused about what they are opposing.

Thus, Heritage Foundation fellow Jonathan Butcher has done the American public a great service with his new book, Splintered: Critical Race Theory and the Progressive War on Truth. The book charts the evolution of the idea in understandable terms, from its Marxian roots in academia, through the law schools, and now trickling down into grade schools across the country. Forget the universities – they’re too far gone. But can we still save elementary school kids from being lectured about privilege, while minority students are taught that they can’t advance because of system racism in the United States?

Butcher’s book is a powerful antidote to the ignorance on both sides of the issue. If we are to preserve America’s founding ideals, parents and policymakers must read and understand the ideas they are protesting.

Butcher and I discussed the main points from his book. Be sure to subscribe to the mailing list for a condensed summary of the book, plus show highlights and announcements.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49989062Sun, 29 May 2022 19:08:49 +0000Bob ZadekBack in February, frustrated San Francisco parents voted to recall three school board members for spending more time renaming schools than planning their post-pandemic re-opening. Among the school names being “canceled” were Abraham Lincoln, George...
The recall was a strong sign, like the ousting of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, that most Americans still believe that schools should be in the education business, not the indoctrination industry. The term critical race theory has been thrown around a lot in the conversations surrounding the appropriate way to teach American history. Oddly, the proponents and defenders of critical race theory seem afraid to admit that it is already being taught in many places (as if they had a guilty conscience), while its detractors often seem confused about what they are opposing.

Thus, Heritage Foundation fellow Jonathan Butcher has done the American public a great service with his new book, Splintered: Critical Race Theory and the Progressive War on Truth. The book charts the evolution of the idea in understandable terms, from its Marxian roots in academia, through the law schools, and now trickling down into grade schools across the country. Forget the universities – they’re too far gone. But can we still save elementary school kids from being lectured about privilege, while minority students are taught that they can’t advance because of system racism in the United States?

Butcher’s book is a powerful antidote to the ignorance on both sides of the issue. If we are to preserve America’s founding ideals, parents and policymakers must read and understand the ideas they are protesting.

Butcher and I discussed the main points from his book. Be sure to subscribe to the mailing list for a condensed summary of the book, plus show highlights and announcements.]]>3091falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fda-s-new-rules-against-smoking--49905267
However, the regulators at the FDA are not content with people’s free and informed choices. They have moved to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, along with many flavored “vape” cartridges, in the name of public health and (of course) protecting the children.

[Guy Bentley](http://twitter.com/gbentley1), Director of Consumer Freedom Research at the Reason Foundation, has been the “Voice of Reason” in multiple respects on this issue, calmly and rationally pointing out the facts that regulators have ignored, such as…

- E-cigarettes have helped countless adults quit smoking.
- Vaping is far less dangerous than traditional cigarette smoking.
- Menthol bans will disproportionately affect African Americans.

And last, but not least, the continuation of failed prohibition policies — this time applied to cigarettes instead of alcohol or drugs — creates yet more victimless crimes and empowers law enforcement to abuse their power in new and creative ways.

Remember the cautionary tale of Eric Garner, detained and ultimately suffocated to death by a policeman for selling “loosies” outside a corner store? Bentley reminds us of this, and other flaws with the seemingly “liberal” policy of protecting people from themselves.

Guy joined me to review the evidence on relative harms to adults and children of various nicotine and tobacco products, and put the proposed FDA rule in its proper historical and modern context.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49905267Mon, 23 May 2022 12:46:55 +0000Bob ZadekThe sun has set on the Golden Era of Tobacco, much like the bygone Golden Era of Hollywood. Perhaps once movie stars stopped smoking cigarettes on the Silver Screen, audiences found the activity less glamorous. Or perhaps the dramatic decline in...
However, the regulators at the FDA are not content with people’s free and informed choices. They have moved to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, along with many flavored “vape” cartridges, in the name of public health and (of course) protecting the children.

[Guy Bentley](http://twitter.com/gbentley1), Director of Consumer Freedom Research at the Reason Foundation, has been the “Voice of Reason” in multiple respects on this issue, calmly and rationally pointing out the facts that regulators have ignored, such as…

- E-cigarettes have helped countless adults quit smoking.
- Vaping is far less dangerous than traditional cigarette smoking.
- Menthol bans will disproportionately affect African Americans.

And last, but not least, the continuation of failed prohibition policies — this time applied to cigarettes instead of alcohol or drugs — creates yet more victimless crimes and empowers law enforcement to abuse their power in new and creative ways.

Remember the cautionary tale of Eric Garner, detained and ultimately suffocated to death by a policeman for selling “loosies” outside a corner store? Bentley reminds us of this, and other flaws with the seemingly “liberal” policy of protecting people from themselves.

Guy joined me to review the evidence on relative harms to adults and children of various nicotine and tobacco products, and put the proposed FDA rule in its proper historical and modern context.]]>3078falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rethinking-industrial-policy--49812044
Whether we’re talking about steel, oil, or semi-conductors, the proponents of a robust industrial policy argue that we’ve become too reliant on our potential foes for strategic resources, and must set national production goals through legislation rather than impartial market forces. This can range from Soviet-style central planning (which led to the ultimate collapse of the USSR), to the use of trade barriers, tax incentives and subsidies - i.e., “picking winners and losers.”

Even with the latter approach, Lincicome points out many flaws in modern American industrial policy. In a recent Cato white paper, Questioning Industrial Policy, he highlights the inefficiencies brought about by injecting politics into the market’s discovery process, and notes how most recent attempts to “improve” the outcomes of global competition have tended to hinder even our vital domestic industries.

Scott joined me to break down the report, and make the case for embracing globalization and free trade in the 21st century rather than hunkering down in our domestic silo.

Check out Scott’s excellent newsletter “Capitolism” at the Dispatch.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49812044Mon, 16 May 2022 10:56:13 +0000Bob ZadekWe’ve been hearing about the end of globalization for the better part of the last decade, and yet rumors of its demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated. The latest calls for American energy independence and re-shoring manufacturing are part of...
Whether we’re talking about steel, oil, or semi-conductors, the proponents of a robust industrial policy argue that we’ve become too reliant on our potential foes for strategic resources, and must set national production goals through legislation rather than impartial market forces. This can range from Soviet-style central planning (which led to the ultimate collapse of the USSR), to the use of trade barriers, tax incentives and subsidies - i.e., “picking winners and losers.”

Even with the latter approach, Lincicome points out many flaws in modern American industrial policy. In a recent Cato white paper, Questioning Industrial Policy, he highlights the inefficiencies brought about by injecting politics into the market’s discovery process, and notes how most recent attempts to “improve” the outcomes of global competition have tended to hinder even our vital domestic industries.

Scott joined me to break down the report, and make the case for embracing globalization and free trade in the 21st century rather than hunkering down in our domestic silo.

Check out Scott’s excellent newsletter “Capitolism” at the Dispatch.]]>3136falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/evan-bernick-on-the-dobbs-draft--49728434
I find the details of the leak uninteresting (except insofar as it impacts the legitimacy of the court). I am much more interested in how the five Justices voting in the majority arrived at their tentative opinion.

Evan Bernick, a law professor at North Illinois University’s College of Law, is an expert on Originalism the judicial philosophy on which the Dobbs decision is ostensibly based. Bernick joined me to dissent from this assumption. Instead, he argues, Alito’s decision stems from a judicial philosophy that seeks to “stop the Court from recognizing unenumerated rights.” Bernick believes in a more activistic judiciary when it comes to defending individual rights, as we discussed [the last time he was on my show.
We discussed the constitutional considerations behind both the Roe decision and the *Dobbs* reversal of an almost 50-year-old precedent. I’ll also ask Evan how the policy issue is likely to play out in the states, with progressive states becoming destinations for women seeking abortions.

Follow Evan on Twitter, and check out his book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, co-authored with Randy Barnett.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49728434Mon, 09 May 2022 14:54:03 +0000Bob ZadekPolitico’s publication of a leaked draft of the Dobbs decision has turned the Internet upside-down, with rampant speculation about who the leaker was, whether the decision is final, and what will happen next if early-term abortion once again becomes a...
I find the details of the leak uninteresting (except insofar as it impacts the legitimacy of the court). I am much more interested in how the five Justices voting in the majority arrived at their tentative opinion.

Evan Bernick, a law professor at North Illinois University’s College of Law, is an expert on Originalism the judicial philosophy on which the Dobbs decision is ostensibly based. Bernick joined me to dissent from this assumption. Instead, he argues, Alito’s decision stems from a judicial philosophy that seeks to “stop the Court from recognizing unenumerated rights.” Bernick believes in a more activistic judiciary when it comes to defending individual rights, as we discussed [the last time he was on my show.
We discussed the constitutional considerations behind both the Roe decision and the *Dobbs* reversal of an almost 50-year-old precedent. I’ll also ask Evan how the policy issue is likely to play out in the states, with progressive states becoming destinations for women seeking abortions.

Follow Evan on Twitter, and check out his book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, co-authored with Randy Barnett.]]>3059falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/art-carden-on-price-theory-its-discontents--49625036
Carden is a senior fellow with [the American Institute for Economic Research. He joined the show to discuss the article that caught my eye on AIER.org, which is one of the best explanations I’ve ever read of the price mechanism of free markets.

What happens when we stop the price system of competitive markets from working? In a word, untruth. It’s why price-gouging laws always fail, and increase human misery. A price control, Carden says, is a kind of institutionalized lie. Just because the government says it’s so, doesn’t mean that the underlying scarcity of the good has been altered.

You don’t have to be either a philosopher or an economist to understand the importance of having reliable information when making decisions. Hear Carden’s accessible explanation of the complex topic of price theory only on the Show of Ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49625036Mon, 02 May 2022 14:04:42 +0000Bob ZadekWhat do competitive markets have to do with truth? Ask a philosopher and you might get one answer. Ask an economist and you will get another. Ask an economist with a philosophical grounding, and you get Art Carden’s fantastic piece, The Misuse of...
Carden is a senior fellow with [the American Institute for Economic Research. He joined the show to discuss the article that caught my eye on AIER.org, which is one of the best explanations I’ve ever read of the price mechanism of free markets.

What happens when we stop the price system of competitive markets from working? In a word, untruth. It’s why price-gouging laws always fail, and increase human misery. A price control, Carden says, is a kind of institutionalized lie. Just because the government says it’s so, doesn’t mean that the underlying scarcity of the good has been altered.

You don’t have to be either a philosopher or an economist to understand the importance of having reliable information when making decisions. Hear Carden’s accessible explanation of the complex topic of price theory only on the Show of Ideas, not attitude.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-food-fight--49547326
This past week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in an important case that could determine the structure of American interstate markets for years to come. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross involves a constitutional challenge to Proposition 12, a 2018 California referendum that requires all pork products sold in the state be prepared in facilities meeting California standards of animal health and safety, no matter where they are raised. As the plaintiffs explain in their brief, virtually all of the pork products (some 99.8 percent) sold in California come from out of state. On the flip-side, California represents 13 percent of the national consumer market for pork products.


In its unique and inverted version of federalism, California seems to always find a way to impose its own strict regulations on the rest of the country—using its economic might to foist “progressive values” on other states. Can California legislate outside its own borders? Well, it’s complicated.

As usual, when I’m faced with a complex hybrid legal/economic questions, I turn to the Libertarian himself. And as usual, we will try to pack a semester’s worth of economics into an hour of radio. Epstein holds positions as a law professor at NYU, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and Senior fellowship at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49547326Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:38:48 +0000Bob ZadekHoover Senior Fellow and host of the Defining Ideas podcast “The Libertarian” , Richard Epstein returns to the program to discuss a new case making it’s way to the Supreme Court: This past week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in an...
This past week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in an important case that could determine the structure of American interstate markets for years to come. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross involves a constitutional challenge to Proposition 12, a 2018 California referendum that requires all pork products sold in the state be prepared in facilities meeting California standards of animal health and safety, no matter where they are raised. As the plaintiffs explain in their brief, virtually all of the pork products (some 99.8 percent) sold in California come from out of state. On the flip-side, California represents 13 percent of the national consumer market for pork products.


In its unique and inverted version of federalism, California seems to always find a way to impose its own strict regulations on the rest of the country—using its economic might to foist “progressive values” on other states. Can California legislate outside its own borders? Well, it’s complicated.

As usual, when I’m faced with a complex hybrid legal/economic questions, I turn to the Libertarian himself. And as usual, we will try to pack a semester’s worth of economics into an hour of radio. Epstein holds positions as a law professor at NYU, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and Senior fellowship at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.]]>3156falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/free-speech-the-scientific-method--49467373In other words, what was once heterodox only became accepted as orthodox truth when the defenders of the old paradigm died off, or could no longer maintain their position of authority in the face of clear new evidence.

Dr. Jeffrey Singer – senior fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor to Reason Magazine – has been my go-to guest on topics of medical science since well before the pandemic. His latest article in the May 2022 edition of Reason takes on a set of philosophical questions about the nature of scientific truth, and how we arrive at it. In it, Singer contrasts what he calls the “Priesthood” acting as gatekeepers of information, with the sole authority to decide which experts can be heard. Using examples from the pandemic, such as the silencing and smearing of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Singer points out how often the “official” narrative has been proven wrong by subsequent studies, such as those confirming that in fact lockdowns did little to slow the spread.

Now, the California Assembly is debating a bill that would threaten doctors with the loss of their license for offering any medical advice that is considered contrary to official CDC guidelines regarding vaccination. As epidemiologist and noted COVID expert Jay Bhattacharya notes, the law would essentially take away a physician's ability to offer individualized care to their patients, who may have valid reasons (like prior immunity or other conditions) for not getting the vaccine.

It appears that politics has infected our public discourse around science. Someone call the doctor! The Doctor for Liberty, that is. Singer joined me to separate the real experts from the phony high priests of the public health establishment.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49467373Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:20:39 +0000Bob Zadek“Science,” it has been said, “advances one funeral at a time.” In other words, what was once heterodox only became accepted as orthodox truth when the defenders of the old paradigm died off, or could no longer maintain their position of authority in...In other words, what was once heterodox only became accepted as orthodox truth when the defenders of the old paradigm died off, or could no longer maintain their position of authority in the face of clear new evidence.

Dr. Jeffrey Singer – senior fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor to Reason Magazine – has been my go-to guest on topics of medical science since well before the pandemic. His latest article in the May 2022 edition of Reason takes on a set of philosophical questions about the nature of scientific truth, and how we arrive at it. In it, Singer contrasts what he calls the “Priesthood” acting as gatekeepers of information, with the sole authority to decide which experts can be heard. Using examples from the pandemic, such as the silencing and smearing of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Singer points out how often the “official” narrative has been proven wrong by subsequent studies, such as those confirming that in fact lockdowns did little to slow the spread.

Now, the California Assembly is debating a bill that would threaten doctors with the loss of their license for offering any medical advice that is considered contrary to official CDC guidelines regarding vaccination. As epidemiologist and noted COVID expert Jay Bhattacharya notes, the law would essentially take away a physician's ability to offer individualized care to their patients, who may have valid reasons (like prior immunity or other conditions) for not getting the vaccine.

It appears that politics has infected our public discourse around science. Someone call the doctor! The Doctor for Liberty, that is. Singer joined me to separate the real experts from the phony high priests of the public health establishment.]]>3056covid,sciencefalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/checking-in-on-bail-reform--49398801
I have previously covered the civil liberties issues associated with cash bail back in 2018, and how a wave of states was starting to test out alternatives. Since then, New York has joined that wave — eliminating their bail system for pre-trial offenders who are not deemed high risk. This is great news: other states have proven that it works to reduce jail populations and ensure that people who do not belong behind bars are released prior to trial.

But just when I thought it was time to celebrate, Reason Magazine’s Joe Lancaster informs me that these reforms are in jeopardy. New York Governor Kathy Hochul is working behind the scenes to roll back the reforms – expanding the number of crimes eligible for bail, against the findings of a new report that shows the change in the law is working as intended.

Joe Lancaster, an assistant editor at Reason, joined me to break down the findings of the report, and the status of other state-based bail reforms.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49398801Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:19:49 +0000Bob ZadekAmerica’s high prison incarceration rates are known around the world – an embarrassment for an alleged beacon of liberty. Yet few realize that we have another problem associated with our jails. Those charged with a crime are supposed to be innocent...
I have previously covered the civil liberties issues associated with cash bail back in 2018, and how a wave of states was starting to test out alternatives. Since then, New York has joined that wave — eliminating their bail system for pre-trial offenders who are not deemed high risk. This is great news: other states have proven that it works to reduce jail populations and ensure that people who do not belong behind bars are released prior to trial.

But just when I thought it was time to celebrate, Reason Magazine’s Joe Lancaster informs me that these reforms are in jeopardy. New York Governor Kathy Hochul is working behind the scenes to roll back the reforms – expanding the number of crimes eligible for bail, against the findings of a new report that shows the change in the law is working as intended.

Joe Lancaster, an assistant editor at Reason, joined me to break down the findings of the report, and the status of other state-based bail reforms.]]>3151falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-united-states-of-anonymous--49224234
Who are the Junius’s today whose anonymity requires protection?

Jeff Kosseff is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy. He is the author of Cybersecurity Law (Wiley), the first comprehensive textbook on U.S. cybersecurity laws and regulations, and in Spring 2019 he published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (Cornell University Press), a nonfiction narrative history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Jeff has practiced cybersecurity and privacy law, and clerked for Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Michigan. Before becoming a lawyer, he was a journalist for The Oregonian and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49224234Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:11:16 +0000Bob ZadekIn the years leading up to the American Revolution, a pseudonymous writer who called himself “Junius” came under scrutiny for his letters protesting the abuses by the Crown against his fellow Englishmen. Professor Jeff Kosseff recounts the myriad...
Who are the Junius’s today whose anonymity requires protection?

Jeff Kosseff is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy. He is the author of Cybersecurity Law (Wiley), the first comprehensive textbook on U.S. cybersecurity laws and regulations, and in Spring 2019 he published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (Cornell University Press), a nonfiction narrative history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Jeff has practiced cybersecurity and privacy law, and clerked for Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Michigan. Before becoming a lawyer, he was a journalist for The Oregonian and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-economic-consequences-of-russian-sanctions--49136971
Those six ominous words are not what many Americans will want to hear when it comes to the increased prices they’ve been paying for everyday purchases. Whenever I want to break the bad news to my audience about the state of out-of-control spending or inflation in the United States, I turn to my friend Jonathan Bydlak. Jonathan is director of the Governance program at the R Street Institute, and the creator of SpendingTracker.org – the first ever real-time spending site that tracks the fiscal records of Members of Congress. If you’re looking for a hard dose of reality, follow Jonathan on Twitter – @JBydlak – and find out how much your representatives vote for in spending each year:
Then, give his latest essay for The Spectator a read, on the topic of what’s likely to result from our sanctions against Russia.

Who’s really behind rising gas prices? Moscow or Washington D.C.?

I continued my on-going, in-depth coverage of the Russia–Ukraine conflict with insights you won’t find anywhere else, as Jonathan Bydlak joined me for the full hour.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49136971Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:30:10 +0000Bob Zadek“This will only be the beginning.” Those six ominous words are not what many Americans will want to hear when it comes to the increased prices they’ve been paying for everyday purchases. Whenever I want to break the bad news to my audience about...
Those six ominous words are not what many Americans will want to hear when it comes to the increased prices they’ve been paying for everyday purchases. Whenever I want to break the bad news to my audience about the state of out-of-control spending or inflation in the United States, I turn to my friend Jonathan Bydlak. Jonathan is director of the Governance program at the R Street Institute, and the creator of SpendingTracker.org – the first ever real-time spending site that tracks the fiscal records of Members of Congress. If you’re looking for a hard dose of reality, follow Jonathan on Twitter – @JBydlak – and find out how much your representatives vote for in spending each year:
Then, give his latest essay for The Spectator a read, on the topic of what’s likely to result from our sanctions against Russia.

Who’s really behind rising gas prices? Moscow or Washington D.C.?

I continued my on-going, in-depth coverage of the Russia–Ukraine conflict with insights you won’t find anywhere else, as Jonathan Bydlak joined me for the full hour.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-decides--49057697
The book comes as a sequel to his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. Astute listeners will notice an uncanny similarity between both book covers and my own book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again.
Both books broadly make a case for states to take back powers from the federal government. But where my book emphasized the virtues of experimentation at the policy level, Sutton’s books inspect the balance of powers between federal and state judiciaries. The cover of his book, arranging the outlines of each state under the capitol rotunda, foreshadows his argument that federal courts have assumed too much power to decide what count as constitutional rights.
While this may sound like a classic argument for judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches, Sutton defends a more “activistic” approach to judging at the state level. He points out that the true precedent for judicial review was not Marbury v. Madison, as we all learned in high school civics, but in the many cases preceding it in the states that established the judiciary’s role in deciding which law should apply: the “higher” law of the state constitution, or the laws passed by the legislature.

Today, as the Supreme Court increasingly weighs in on partisan topics like vaccine mandates, it’s especially important that we frame the issue correctly: it’s not a question of how we or the judges feel personally about the outcome, but about who decides.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49057697Mon, 14 Mar 2022 15:03:39 +0000Bob ZadekThe Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, joined the show to discuss his new book, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation. The book comes as a sequel to his 2018...
The book comes as a sequel to his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. Astute listeners will notice an uncanny similarity between both book covers and my own book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again.
Both books broadly make a case for states to take back powers from the federal government. But where my book emphasized the virtues of experimentation at the policy level, Sutton’s books inspect the balance of powers between federal and state judiciaries. The cover of his book, arranging the outlines of each state under the capitol rotunda, foreshadows his argument that federal courts have assumed too much power to decide what count as constitutional rights.
While this may sound like a classic argument for judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches, Sutton defends a more “activistic” approach to judging at the state level. He points out that the true precedent for judicial review was not Marbury v. Madison, as we all learned in high school civics, but in the many cases preceding it in the states that established the judiciary’s role in deciding which law should apply: the “higher” law of the state constitution, or the laws passed by the legislature.

Today, as the Supreme Court increasingly weighs in on partisan topics like vaccine mandates, it’s especially important that we frame the issue correctly: it’s not a question of how we or the judges feel personally about the outcome, but about who decides.]]>3147falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/justin-logan-on-ukraine--48980232https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan) joined on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We will have the latest updates and analysis that you won’t get on cable news – with the depth you can’t find on Twitter or social media.


[**Listen Live →**](https://860amtheanswer.com/)



Logan says, “the US military cannot — and will not — come to Ukraine’s aid.” Is there any role for western intervention? What should we make of the apparent bullying by Putin’s Russia.

As usual, restraint and insight are rare commodities.

I hope we can go deeper than the superficial narratives and media coverage thus far.

[Follow Justin’s articles and other appearances at Cato.org](https://www.cato.org/people/justin-logan)**.**]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48980232Mon, 07 Mar 2022 16:27:23 +0000Bob Zadek[@JustinTLogan](https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan) joined on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We will have the latest updates and analysis that you won’t get on cable news – with the depth you can’t find on Twitter or social media. [**Listen...https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan) joined on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We will have the latest updates and analysis that you won’t get on cable news – with the depth you can’t find on Twitter or social media.


[**Listen Live →**](https://860amtheanswer.com/)



Logan says, “the US military cannot — and will not — come to Ukraine’s aid.” Is there any role for western intervention? What should we make of the apparent bullying by Putin’s Russia.

As usual, restraint and insight are rare commodities.

I hope we can go deeper than the superficial narratives and media coverage thus far.

[Follow Justin’s articles and other appearances at Cato.org](https://www.cato.org/people/justin-logan)**.**]]>3121falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-economics-of-immigration--48896121Since then, he collaborated with frequent guest and Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh in revisiting the subject in the book *[Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions](https://www.amazon.com/Wretched-Refuse-Political-Immigration-Institutions/dp/1108702457).*

Both books mix rigorous scientific analysis from the field of economics with clear explanations of how various studies should inform public policy. **

Powell joined me to narrow the gap between public perception and economic reality when it comes to the vital issue.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48896121Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:27:42 +0000Bob ZadekEconomists almost universally agree that immigration provides net benefits to the countries that allows it, yet the public stubbornly clings to myths about immigrants "taking our jobs," or otherwise reducing natives' welfare. Benjamin Powell compiled...Since then, he collaborated with frequent guest and Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh in revisiting the subject in the book *[Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions](https://www.amazon.com/Wretched-Refuse-Political-Immigration-Institutions/dp/1108702457).*

Both books mix rigorous scientific analysis from the field of economics with clear explanations of how various studies should inform public policy. **

Powell joined me to narrow the gap between public perception and economic reality when it comes to the vital issue.]]>3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fresh-approaches-to-the-overdose-crisis--48814197The narrative that doctors are getting people hooked on opioids is a myth, Singer says. Most people who are addicted and dying from overdoses are taking illegal fentanyl.

In 2016, the CDC issued guidelines that made it much harder for doctors like Singer to prescribe appropriate doses of painkillers following surgeries. Since then, the guidelines have become law in many states, making them difficult to reverse despite an evolving consensus in which even the CDC has had to admit the folly of its original recommendations.

What does a fresh approach to the opioid crisis look like? It begins with harm reduction, decriminalization, and treating people as responsible adults capable of making their own decisions about drugs – including in the context of a medical procedure.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48814197Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:53:58 +0000Bob ZadekDr. Jeffrey Singer returned to the program to discuss his presentation at the Cato Institute on fresh approaches to the overdose crisis, that do not limit doctor’s medical freedom or expand the failed War on Drugs. The narrative that doctors are...The narrative that doctors are getting people hooked on opioids is a myth, Singer says. Most people who are addicted and dying from overdoses are taking illegal fentanyl.

In 2016, the CDC issued guidelines that made it much harder for doctors like Singer to prescribe appropriate doses of painkillers following surgeries. Since then, the guidelines have become law in many states, making them difficult to reverse despite an evolving consensus in which even the CDC has had to admit the folly of its original recommendations.

What does a fresh approach to the opioid crisis look like? It begins with harm reduction, decriminalization, and treating people as responsible adults capable of making their own decisions about drugs – including in the context of a medical procedure.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/china-the-stupidity-of-war--48723907
John Mueller is a senior fellow at [the Cato Institute](http://Cato.org) and one of the world's foremost experts on international security, terrorism, and foreign policy. In his new book, *[The Stupidity of War: American Foreign Policy and the Case for Complacency](https://www.amazon.com/Stupidity-War-American-Foreign-Complacency/dp/1108843832/ref=asc_df_1108843832/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=475789621852&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2850844568086103520&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032082&hvtargid=pla-1073802049119&psc=1),* (Oxford University Press, 2016), Mueller contends that China is not in fact a serious threat to the United States, nor the remarkably durable peace of the last 75 years. The greater threat, he says, comes from treating China as an adversary, and provoking them into responding in kind.

China may have the second largest military in the world (after the United States), spending more on its military than Russia or Saudi Arabia. However, in a recent Cato report, Mueller lays out the many reasons why conflict would be in neither the U.S. nor China’s interest. His answer to the brewing tensions – “complacency” – may seem like a strange word to use in this context, yet he makes a compelling case that American military might has been used for harm more often than good since the end of World War II.
So why do certain elements within our government and military beat the war drum? Is it possible that there are special interests involved in making the threat seem larger than it really is? At a time when China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and our relationship with Russia is increasingly strained, Mueller's book is a much-needed voice of reason urging the U.S. to de-escalate.

Mueller returned to the show to help me and my audience understand what the pretext for alarm is this time, and why we shouldn’t take the bait and go to war (again) this time around.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48723907Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:50:32 +0000Bob ZadekAs Americans tune into the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, some may be wondering about a different sort of competition with the host nation, China, whose size and growing military power make them appear as one of the most significant threats to the...
John Mueller is a senior fellow at [the Cato Institute](http://Cato.org) and one of the world's foremost experts on international security, terrorism, and foreign policy. In his new book, *[The Stupidity of War: American Foreign Policy and the Case for Complacency](https://www.amazon.com/Stupidity-War-American-Foreign-Complacency/dp/1108843832/ref=asc_df_1108843832/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=475789621852&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2850844568086103520&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032082&hvtargid=pla-1073802049119&psc=1),* (Oxford University Press, 2016), Mueller contends that China is not in fact a serious threat to the United States, nor the remarkably durable peace of the last 75 years. The greater threat, he says, comes from treating China as an adversary, and provoking them into responding in kind.

China may have the second largest military in the world (after the United States), spending more on its military than Russia or Saudi Arabia. However, in a recent Cato report, Mueller lays out the many reasons why conflict would be in neither the U.S. nor China’s interest. His answer to the brewing tensions – “complacency” – may seem like a strange word to use in this context, yet he makes a compelling case that American military might has been used for harm more often than good since the end of World War II.
So why do certain elements within our government and military beat the war drum? Is it possible that there are special interests involved in making the threat seem larger than it really is? At a time when China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and our relationship with Russia is increasingly strained, Mueller's book is a much-needed voice of reason urging the U.S. to de-escalate.

Mueller returned to the show to help me and my audience understand what the pretext for alarm is this time, and why we shouldn’t take the bait and go to war (again) this time around.]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chris-preble-on-ukraine--48626995https://www.amazon.com/Peace-War-Liberty-Understanding-Foreign/dp/1948647168/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1556590857&sr=1-1)*.

Just as one long conflict in Afghanistan comes to an end, there are new rumors of war brewing in hotspots around the world. From Taiwan to Ukraine, the temptations for new exercises of American influence abroad are everywhere. The Biden Administration has put Americans on alert that Russia may invade Ukraine at any time. But should this happen, what is the right response? Few Americans, let alone Europeans, seem to have the stomach for a hot war with Russia.

Preble now serves as co-director of the New American Engagement Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at [the Atlantic Council](http://atlanticcouncil.org) in Washington DC. We discussed the shifting alliances underlying both NATO and Putin’s patchwork of strongmen in Eastern Europe, and how the struggle is likely to play out.

Do we have a compelling interest in “defending democracy” in far-flung regions? And what about “preserving credibility” in the wake of our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48626995Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:56:21 +0000Bob ZadekThe last time Chris Preble joined my show, we discussed the full sweep of U.S. foreign policy from the founding period to the “forever wars” in the middle east, all through the lens of his monumental book *[Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S....https://www.amazon.com/Peace-War-Liberty-Understanding-Foreign/dp/1948647168/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1556590857&sr=1-1)*.

Just as one long conflict in Afghanistan comes to an end, there are new rumors of war brewing in hotspots around the world. From Taiwan to Ukraine, the temptations for new exercises of American influence abroad are everywhere. The Biden Administration has put Americans on alert that Russia may invade Ukraine at any time. But should this happen, what is the right response? Few Americans, let alone Europeans, seem to have the stomach for a hot war with Russia.

Preble now serves as co-director of the New American Engagement Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at [the Atlantic Council](http://atlanticcouncil.org) in Washington DC. We discussed the shifting alliances underlying both NATO and Putin’s patchwork of strongmen in Eastern Europe, and how the struggle is likely to play out.

Do we have a compelling interest in “defending democracy” in far-flung regions? And what about “preserving credibility” in the wake of our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan?]]>3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/food-truck-v-farmville--48425234

📚 1) Hero takes a journey and
2) A stranger comes to town.



This topic featured both rolled up into one.

Mark Shirley was doing well as an auto salesman when he decided to quit his job to pursue his dream of operating a barbecue food truck: the 'Ole Time Smokehouse'
He moved to Farmville, NC, and soon business was booming – at least until the established barbecue joints decided they didn't like the competition. They petitioned the local government, which made it almost impossible for Shirley to keep his customers satisfied.

The Pacific Legal Foundation took on the case and is now defending the Ole Time Smokehouse's right to operate in court

Jessica Thompson, the attorney on the case, joined me to talk about the heroic battle for food freedom. Not all superheroes wear capes.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48425234Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:04:48 +0000Bob ZadekJoseph Campbell famously said that there are only two stories in the whole world: 📚 1) Hero takes a journey and 2) A stranger comes to town. This topic featured both rolled up into one. Mark Shirley was doing well as an auto salesman...

📚 1) Hero takes a journey and
2) A stranger comes to town.



This topic featured both rolled up into one.

Mark Shirley was doing well as an auto salesman when he decided to quit his job to pursue his dream of operating a barbecue food truck: the 'Ole Time Smokehouse'
He moved to Farmville, NC, and soon business was booming – at least until the established barbecue joints decided they didn't like the competition. They petitioned the local government, which made it almost impossible for Shirley to keep his customers satisfied.

The Pacific Legal Foundation took on the case and is now defending the Ole Time Smokehouse's right to operate in court

Jessica Thompson, the attorney on the case, joined me to talk about the heroic battle for food freedom. Not all superheroes wear capes.]]>3151falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/liz-warren-s-crusade-against-big-grocery--48334235https://www.warren.senate.gov/download/accountable-capitalism-act-one-pager) – which would have ended capitalism as we know it – was rejected, along with her candidacy.

But now Senator Warren is at it again. This time she is suggesting that inflation, and higher food prices in particular, are a result of "price gouging" by large grocery store companies. Her solution is to crack down on “Big Grocery” with antitrust legislation, claiming that chains like Kroger are earning monopoly profits while ordinary Americans pay the price. There’s just one problem: grocery stores operate on razor-thin profit margins, and represent one of the most competitive markets around.
Don Boudreaux alerted me to this story on his blog, Cafe Hayek, where I always start my day. He returned to the show to expose the fallacies at the heart of her proposal. Putting aside the more nuanced issue of price gouging (a topic I’ve covered with Don in the past), I couldn’t let Warren’s farcical claims about grocery store monopolies go unchallenged. We discussed whether the idea is born of ignorance, mendacity, or some combination of the two.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48334235Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:30:52 +0000Bob ZadekSometimes a policy proposal comes along that is so bad, it has to be intellectually dismantled before it ever sees the light of day. Senator Elizabeth Warren is famous for such plans. Remember her mantra in the 2020 presidential campaign, “I’ve got a...https://www.warren.senate.gov/download/accountable-capitalism-act-one-pager) – which would have ended capitalism as we know it – was rejected, along with her candidacy.

But now Senator Warren is at it again. This time she is suggesting that inflation, and higher food prices in particular, are a result of "price gouging" by large grocery store companies. Her solution is to crack down on “Big Grocery” with antitrust legislation, claiming that chains like Kroger are earning monopoly profits while ordinary Americans pay the price. There’s just one problem: grocery stores operate on razor-thin profit margins, and represent one of the most competitive markets around.
Don Boudreaux alerted me to this story on his blog, Cafe Hayek, where I always start my day. He returned to the show to expose the fallacies at the heart of her proposal. Putting aside the more nuanced issue of price gouging (a topic I’ve covered with Don in the past), I couldn’t let Warren’s farcical claims about grocery store monopolies go unchallenged. We discussed whether the idea is born of ignorance, mendacity, or some combination of the two.]]>3151falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/troubleshooting-the-constitution--48235842
I found aspects of each team’s revisions attractive, but if I could push a button to make one the law of the land, would I? Even if I thought that the original could be improved, what unintended consequences might there be from dismantling the document that has worked at least reasonably well for almost 250 years?

Professor Michael Munger returned to the show to elaborate on a topic [he recently discussed with Russ Roberts on the always-interested EconTalk podcast](https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-constitutions/#audio-highlights). They delved into the work of public choice economics like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, who concerned themselves with the nature of constitutions – rules about rules – and how groups can balance their collective interests against individual liberties.

We discussed the challenge of improving a constitutional order, when the document in question is the result of an evolutionary process. The American Constitution, for all of its faults, is the oldest document of its kind in the entire world. Does that mean we’re stuck with what we’ve got, whether we like it or not? Or could we possibly do better?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48235842Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:44:04 +0000Bob ZadekEven after doing three separate shows on rewriting the U.S. Constitution from three different perspectives (Libertarian, Progressive and Conservative), I’m still hungry for more insights on how to think about designing the ideal constitution. I found...
I found aspects of each team’s revisions attractive, but if I could push a button to make one the law of the land, would I? Even if I thought that the original could be improved, what unintended consequences might there be from dismantling the document that has worked at least reasonably well for almost 250 years?

Professor Michael Munger returned to the show to elaborate on a topic [he recently discussed with Russ Roberts on the always-interested EconTalk podcast](https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-constitutions/#audio-highlights). They delved into the work of public choice economics like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, who concerned themselves with the nature of constitutions – rules about rules – and how groups can balance their collective interests against individual liberties.

We discussed the challenge of improving a constitutional order, when the document in question is the result of an evolutionary process. The American Constitution, for all of its faults, is the oldest document of its kind in the entire world. Does that mean we’re stuck with what we’ve got, whether we like it or not? Or could we possibly do better?]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/manufacturing-militarism-a-fresh-look-at-propaganda--48149604 “Government propaganda is a direct threat to freedom and liberty because it empowers a small political elite who wields awesome discretionary powers to shape policies while keeping citizens in the dark about the underlying realities and the array of alternative options available.” – *Manufacturing Militarism*
>

I was excited to welcome Abigail Hall to the program to discuss her work on the U.S. government’s propaganda in the War on Terror. Her new book with Christopher Coyne, *Manufacturing Militarism*, reveals a disturbing influence exercised by the Department of Defense over public opinion, through subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda techniques. We learn that military propaganda has been a fixture since at least the world wars, but has gotten more advanced since 9/11.

It turns out that the lies about Saddam’s WMDs were just the tip of a much larger iceberg. Hall and Coyne frame the problem in terms of incentives by bureaucrats to gain public support for a bloated military and endless wars, when the public’s inclination would otherwise be to oppose war if they had full information.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48149604Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:11:39 +0000Bob Zadek> “Government propaganda is a direct threat to freedom and liberty because it empowers a small political elite who wields awesome discretionary powers to shape policies while keeping citizens in the dark about the underlying realities and the array of... “Government propaganda is a direct threat to freedom and liberty because it empowers a small political elite who wields awesome discretionary powers to shape policies while keeping citizens in the dark about the underlying realities and the array of alternative options available.” – *Manufacturing Militarism*
>

I was excited to welcome Abigail Hall to the program to discuss her work on the U.S. government’s propaganda in the War on Terror. Her new book with Christopher Coyne, *Manufacturing Militarism*, reveals a disturbing influence exercised by the Department of Defense over public opinion, through subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda techniques. We learn that military propaganda has been a fixture since at least the world wars, but has gotten more advanced since 9/11.

It turns out that the lies about Saddam’s WMDs were just the tip of a much larger iceberg. Hall and Coyne frame the problem in terms of incentives by bureaucrats to gain public support for a bloated military and endless wars, when the public’s inclination would otherwise be to oppose war if they had full information.]]>3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-year-in-review--48072784
Last time, I spoke with Professor Epstein’s about his book [*The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law](https://www.amazon.com/Dubious-Morality-Modern-Administrative-Law/dp/1538141493)* (published by the Manhattan Institute) – a 200-page *tour de force* and a must-read for any student of modern American government*.* After providing context for the history of the administrative state pre-New Deal, it shows how case after case set dangerous precedents requiring courts to defer to agency actions when the law in question is ambiguous.

Tune in for the Professor’s report card on Biden’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, and pandemic response. Epstein has been critical of government intervention in the economy since the beginning of COVID, which he says is now clearly *en*demic.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/48072784Mon, 27 Dec 2021 15:30:18 +0000Bob ZadekFrequent guest, the erudite and always interesting Richard Epstein – aka “the Libertarian” – joins me to review the first year of the Biden Administration. We will discuss the infrastructure bill, changes to the tax and regulatory code, the COVID...
Last time, I spoke with Professor Epstein’s about his book [*The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law](https://www.amazon.com/Dubious-Morality-Modern-Administrative-Law/dp/1538141493)* (published by the Manhattan Institute) – a 200-page *tour de force* and a must-read for any student of modern American government*.* After providing context for the history of the administrative state pre-New Deal, it shows how case after case set dangerous precedents requiring courts to defer to agency actions when the law in question is ambiguous.

Tune in for the Professor’s report card on Biden’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, and pandemic response. Epstein has been critical of government intervention in the economy since the beginning of COVID, which he says is now clearly *en*demic.]]>3142falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-conservative-constitution--47998003
We have already heard from the libertarian and progressive teams in the National Constitution Center's drafting project. Now it's time to hear from the lead of "Team Conservative." Professor Ilan Wurman of Arizona State's Sandra Day O'Connor Law School will be representing his colleague's revisions to America's founding document.

Wurman is author of a number of books and articles on the judicial philosophy of originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the framers' original intent. His most recent book is an introduction to the 14th amendment called "The Second Founding."

In addition to several nuts-and-bolts changes, Team Conservative took an interesting approach of altering the Constitution so as to emphasize the upholding of the common good. These days, there is much talk about the elusive common good, and roughly as many opinions about it as there are American citizens.

Can we unite around certain principles that will lead to the flourishing of the common good without eroding the individual liberties enshrined in the original Constitution?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47998003Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:00:07 +0000Bob ZadekThis show is the third in a series of three programs I am doing on the National Constitution Center's Constitution Drafting Project. Part II, with Caroline Fredrickson – representing Team Progressive – aired two weeks ago. Part I, with Timothy...
We have already heard from the libertarian and progressive teams in the National Constitution Center's drafting project. Now it's time to hear from the lead of "Team Conservative." Professor Ilan Wurman of Arizona State's Sandra Day O'Connor Law School will be representing his colleague's revisions to America's founding document.

Wurman is author of a number of books and articles on the judicial philosophy of originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the framers' original intent. His most recent book is an introduction to the 14th amendment called "The Second Founding."

In addition to several nuts-and-bolts changes, Team Conservative took an interesting approach of altering the Constitution so as to emphasize the upholding of the common good. These days, there is much talk about the elusive common good, and roughly as many opinions about it as there are American citizens.

Can we unite around certain principles that will lead to the flourishing of the common good without eroding the individual liberties enshrined in the original Constitution?]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/understanding-the-victim-cult--47907537
The recent controversy around the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools has pitted parents against teachers, old against young, and black against white in many communities. Many Americans are upset by the concepts being taught, but fail to articulate what is wrong with talking about the darker aspects of our history, from slavery to colonialism.

My guest this Sunday was [Mark Milke, Ph.D.](https://markmilke.com/about) – a Canadian author, policy analyst and columnist – who has written the definitive book to guide our national conversation on victimhood, while still grappling with America's past sins. *[The Victim Cult: How the culture of blame hurts everyone & wrecks civilization](https://markmilke.com/the-victim-cult)* takes readers beyond the tired arguments of conservative culture warriors, while exposing what's *really* wrong with the modern trend of "grievance culture," that has infected everything from history curricula to identity politics.

[The Victim Cult - Mark Milke](https://markmilke.com/the-victim-cult)

However, the victim cult itself is not a new phenomenon. Its origins go all the way back to the beginnings of humanity itself. Can we rid ourselves of the temptations toward blame and self-pity before it destroys American civilization as we know it?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47907537Mon, 13 Dec 2021 19:20:27 +0000Bob ZadekThe idea of a "national conversation" has never made much sense to me. 300 million people shouting over one another sounds unproductive at best, and yet, if we were ever able to have a civil "national conversation," I propose that the very top of the...
The recent controversy around the teaching of Critical Race Theory in elementary schools has pitted parents against teachers, old against young, and black against white in many communities. Many Americans are upset by the concepts being taught, but fail to articulate what is wrong with talking about the darker aspects of our history, from slavery to colonialism.

My guest this Sunday was [Mark Milke, Ph.D.](https://markmilke.com/about) – a Canadian author, policy analyst and columnist – who has written the definitive book to guide our national conversation on victimhood, while still grappling with America's past sins. *[The Victim Cult: How the culture of blame hurts everyone & wrecks civilization](https://markmilke.com/the-victim-cult)* takes readers beyond the tired arguments of conservative culture warriors, while exposing what's *really* wrong with the modern trend of "grievance culture," that has infected everything from history curricula to identity politics.

[The Victim Cult - Mark Milke](https://markmilke.com/the-victim-cult)

However, the victim cult itself is not a new phenomenon. Its origins go all the way back to the beginnings of humanity itself. Can we rid ourselves of the temptations toward blame and self-pity before it destroys American civilization as we know it?]]>3146falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/robert-glennon-on-water-scarcity--47704357
Robert Glennon is one of the nation's preeminent experts on water policy and law, and the author of Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It. He points to a fatal flaw in the allocation of water, particularly in the western states where resources are more limited: when the majority of water rights were assigned, several decades ago, they were based on incorrect assumptions about the supply. Today, there are more rights to water than there is water.

Glennon believes that the fix is multifaceted, and includes a mix of political and market solutions. He joined me to discuss how property rights can be clarified, and new markets created to allow for more efficient distribution of one of our most precious resources: freshwater.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47704357Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:48:09 +0000Bob ZadekWe take it for granted that water comes out when we turn on our faucets and garden hoses – even in the drought-stricken west. Yet the way some doomsayers talk about the issue, it seems like one day we might wake up to a dry spigot. Such an outcome is...
Robert Glennon is one of the nation's preeminent experts on water policy and law, and the author of Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It. He points to a fatal flaw in the allocation of water, particularly in the western states where resources are more limited: when the majority of water rights were assigned, several decades ago, they were based on incorrect assumptions about the supply. Today, there are more rights to water than there is water.

Glennon believes that the fix is multifaceted, and includes a mix of political and market solutions. He joined me to discuss how property rights can be clarified, and new markets created to allow for more efficient distribution of one of our most precious resources: freshwater.]]>3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/caroline-fredrickson-on-the-progressive-constitution--47596735
She joined me or part II of my series on the National Constitution Center's brilliant experiment, soliciting three revisions to the Constitution: one libertarian, one conservative and one progressive.

Can you guess which team Caroline will be representing?

Find out what "Team Progressive" prioritized in their rewriting of our founding document, and how the balance of power would shift among the branches of government.

If you missed my show with Timothy Sandefur, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcript to get up to speed on the libertarian perspective. I've decided to interview a representative from each team, and am delighted to welcome Caroline to the show of ideas.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47596735Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:41:45 +0000Bob ZadekCaroline Fredrickson is Distinguished Visitor from Practice at Georgetown Law Center, Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of The Democracy Fix, Under the Bus, and The AOC Way: The Secrets of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Success....
She joined me or part II of my series on the National Constitution Center's brilliant experiment, soliciting three revisions to the Constitution: one libertarian, one conservative and one progressive.

Can you guess which team Caroline will be representing?

Find out what "Team Progressive" prioritized in their rewriting of our founding document, and how the balance of power would shift among the branches of government.

If you missed my show with Timothy Sandefur, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcript to get up to speed on the libertarian perspective. I've decided to interview a representative from each team, and am delighted to welcome Caroline to the show of ideas.]]>3165falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ryan-bourne-on-the-economic-fallacies-of-the-pandemic-policymakers--47470564
Frederic Bastiat is credited with the original framing of the "seen" vs the "unseen," using the parable a broken window to expose the common fallacy that destruction begets economic growth. Later, Henry Hazlitt would demolish the recycled Keynesian ideas in his time, arguing that government can stimulate "aggregate demand" by spending tax dollars on make-work projects like digging holes. In both cases, the resources used to stimulate spending come out of the pockets of people who would have otherwise spent the money more productively.

This year, Ryan Bourne continues the noble tradition of Bastiat and Hazlitt in his new book Economics in One Virus – a clever spin on Hazlitt's famous "Economics in One Lesson." What can COVID teach us about the pitfalls of government intervention? Bourne lays out the high costs and murky benefits of policies such as lockdowns and mandatory masking, when voluntary alternatives would likely had achieved the same if not better results in terms of mitigating spread, without the devastating effects on small business.

Almost two years into "two weeks to slow the spread," we will revisit the problem of the pandemic from an economic standpoint. Bourne reminds us that economics is not all about dollars and cents – it's the stuff of our daily lives, including the trade-offs that determine our fundamental well-being. To ignore costs simply because they cannot be measured, such as the relationships weakened or business lost, is to commit the oldest economic fallacy in the book.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47470564Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:28:31 +0000Bob ZadekHow does one attempt to see the unseen? The question may seem more like a Zen koan than vital concern of economists. The idea of tracing hidden consequences of different policies, however, must be discovered anew with every generation of policymaker...
Frederic Bastiat is credited with the original framing of the "seen" vs the "unseen," using the parable a broken window to expose the common fallacy that destruction begets economic growth. Later, Henry Hazlitt would demolish the recycled Keynesian ideas in his time, arguing that government can stimulate "aggregate demand" by spending tax dollars on make-work projects like digging holes. In both cases, the resources used to stimulate spending come out of the pockets of people who would have otherwise spent the money more productively.

This year, Ryan Bourne continues the noble tradition of Bastiat and Hazlitt in his new book Economics in One Virus – a clever spin on Hazlitt's famous "Economics in One Lesson." What can COVID teach us about the pitfalls of government intervention? Bourne lays out the high costs and murky benefits of policies such as lockdowns and mandatory masking, when voluntary alternatives would likely had achieved the same if not better results in terms of mitigating spread, without the devastating effects on small business.

Almost two years into "two weeks to slow the spread," we will revisit the problem of the pandemic from an economic standpoint. Bourne reminds us that economics is not all about dollars and cents – it's the stuff of our daily lives, including the trade-offs that determine our fundamental well-being. To ignore costs simply because they cannot be measured, such as the relationships weakened or business lost, is to commit the oldest economic fallacy in the book.]]>3159falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/timothy-sandefur-on-the-libertarian-constitution--47370527
The National Constitution Center, however, recently posed this challenge to a group of libertarian legal scholars, along with two other groups of scholars: one progressive, and one conservative.

Timothy Sandefur, along with his Cato colleague Ilya Shapiro and Brooklyn Law School professor Christina Mulligan, drafted their version of the Constitution to include additional protections of individual liberties (unsurprisingly). In hindsight, we can see that the founders were insufficiently wary of executive authority – except for perhaps George Mason. They left the door open for the erosion of the separation of powers, especially by the administrative state – something corrected in the proposed Libertarian Constitution. Furthermore, Sandefur et al.'s "Ellis Island Clause" would restore immigration to early 20th-century policies, and limit arbitrary federal restrictions on who can move to the United States.

I spent the hour with Sandefur – the Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation – expanding my sense of possibility, and exploring what we can learn from various state constitutions in working towards a more perfect union.

Be sure to follow Timothy on Twitter: @TimothySandefur and subscribe to the Goldwater Institute's newsletter.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47370527Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:33:58 +0000Bob ZadekHere's a thought experiment: If the Constitution were re-written according to modern libertarian standards, how would it be different? The idea of a "libertarian Constitution" may seem redundant – the Founders were forerunners of the classical...
The National Constitution Center, however, recently posed this challenge to a group of libertarian legal scholars, along with two other groups of scholars: one progressive, and one conservative.

Timothy Sandefur, along with his Cato colleague Ilya Shapiro and Brooklyn Law School professor Christina Mulligan, drafted their version of the Constitution to include additional protections of individual liberties (unsurprisingly). In hindsight, we can see that the founders were insufficiently wary of executive authority – except for perhaps George Mason. They left the door open for the erosion of the separation of powers, especially by the administrative state – something corrected in the proposed Libertarian Constitution. Furthermore, Sandefur et al.'s "Ellis Island Clause" would restore immigration to early 20th-century policies, and limit arbitrary federal restrictions on who can move to the United States.

I spent the hour with Sandefur – the Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation – expanding my sense of possibility, and exploring what we can learn from various state constitutions in working towards a more perfect union.

Be sure to follow Timothy on Twitter: @TimothySandefur and subscribe to the Goldwater Institute's newsletter.]]>3154constitution,goldwater,history,law,libertarianfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/debt-taxes--47256901
Where to start? The skyrocketing debt has economists murmuring about inflation. But sometimes the proposed solutions are even more terrifying than the problem itself – as in the case of new taxes on capital gains, corporate income, and even a special so-called "billionaire's tax" on unrealized capital gains. Edwards returns to the show to break down the folly of scapegoating the wealthy, and why this approach is likely to backfire.

All the while, tax revenues have actually grown to their highest rates. Yet rather than using the windfall to reduce debt, Democrats are proposing a new spending binge that makes the 2008 stimulus look like chump change. As always, the government promises that its spending spree will stimulate innovation and growth, but Edwards points to the well-established link between debt and reduced growth.

They say that death and taxes are the two inevitabilities. Massive debt, however, is not inevitable.

Tune in for a special Halloween edition of The Bob Zadek Show to hear how we can turn back the debt clock, or at least stop the ticking time bomb that it represents.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47256901Mon, 01 Nov 2021 10:57:17 +0000Bob ZadekHalloween happens to fall on a Sunday this year, which means my guest this weekend will have to weave the topic in with the spooky holiday. Chris Edwards, my go-to expert at Cato on all things debt and tax-related, should have no trouble frightening...
Where to start? The skyrocketing debt has economists murmuring about inflation. But sometimes the proposed solutions are even more terrifying than the problem itself – as in the case of new taxes on capital gains, corporate income, and even a special so-called "billionaire's tax" on unrealized capital gains. Edwards returns to the show to break down the folly of scapegoating the wealthy, and why this approach is likely to backfire.

All the while, tax revenues have actually grown to their highest rates. Yet rather than using the windfall to reduce debt, Democrats are proposing a new spending binge that makes the 2008 stimulus look like chump change. As always, the government promises that its spending spree will stimulate innovation and growth, but Edwards points to the well-established link between debt and reduced growth.

They say that death and taxes are the two inevitabilities. Massive debt, however, is not inevitable.

Tune in for a special Halloween edition of The Bob Zadek Show to hear how we can turn back the debt clock, or at least stop the ticking time bomb that it represents.]]>3153falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/daniel-di-martino-on-immigration--47132531
I have frequently lamented the terrible treatment by Republicans of immigrants, in whom conservatives and libertarians should see a natural ally. Immigrants are the ultimate entrepreneurs – risking it all for a better life. They commit less crime than native populations. And above all, they work hard.

Daniel Di Martino – a young economist and Young Voices contributor originally from Venezuela –has made a forceful case for the GOP to become a pro-immigration party. While he was fortunate enough to obtain a scholarship that allowed him to come study in the United States in 2016, most Venezuelans have had nowhere to go. Di Martino notes how the Biden Administration's bumbling bureaucracy has slowed the processing of visa applications to below even Trump era levels. He joined me to offer an alternative to the partisan bickering that has done nothing to alleviate the plight of immigrants.

Can a more immigrant-friendly GOP break the Democratic monopoly on the immigrant vote, and turn the tide of socialism? Find out on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47132531Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:55:05 +0000Bob ZadekIn recent memory, Democrats have been considered the pro-immigration party in the United States. In California, the Republican's shameful trumpeting of Proposition 187, which scapegoated undocumented immigrants, has turned the state solid Blue after...
I have frequently lamented the terrible treatment by Republicans of immigrants, in whom conservatives and libertarians should see a natural ally. Immigrants are the ultimate entrepreneurs – risking it all for a better life. They commit less crime than native populations. And above all, they work hard.

Daniel Di Martino – a young economist and Young Voices contributor originally from Venezuela –has made a forceful case for the GOP to become a pro-immigration party. While he was fortunate enough to obtain a scholarship that allowed him to come study in the United States in 2016, most Venezuelans have had nowhere to go. Di Martino notes how the Biden Administration's bumbling bureaucracy has slowed the processing of visa applications to below even Trump era levels. He joined me to offer an alternative to the partisan bickering that has done nothing to alleviate the plight of immigrants.

Can a more immigrant-friendly GOP break the Democratic monopoly on the immigrant vote, and turn the tide of socialism? Find out on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3147falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-new-civil-liberties-movement--47021963
Philip Hamburger first joined my show in 2014, warning of the threat of the administrative state, which has only grown since he released his prescient book – Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Now, he has followed up with the sequel: Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom, which examines a frequent tool used by the "fourth branch of government" to further circumvent the Constitution. Hamburger explains that by imposing conditions on the recipients of government largesse, the administrative state has cleverly been able to evade the usual constitutional considerations.

I was recently joined by Hamburger's colleague at the National Civil Liberties Alliance – Jenin Younes – who has been fighting against unconstitutional vaccine mandates. However, Hamburger joined me to step back from the specifics of any single instance of administrative overreach and see the bigger picture. Tune in to learn about the patterns and mechanics of how the government gets away with its new assaults on civil liberties by essentially purchasing our constitutional rights through various conditions on its special favors.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47021963Mon, 18 Oct 2021 01:15:27 +0000Bob ZadekSouthwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly recently said on CNBC that he has always opposed vaccine mandates like the one recently announced by OSHA under President Biden's executive order, yet he has reluctantly chosen to enforce it as a matter of legal...
Philip Hamburger first joined my show in 2014, warning of the threat of the administrative state, which has only grown since he released his prescient book – Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Now, he has followed up with the sequel: Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom, which examines a frequent tool used by the "fourth branch of government" to further circumvent the Constitution. Hamburger explains that by imposing conditions on the recipients of government largesse, the administrative state has cleverly been able to evade the usual constitutional considerations.

I was recently joined by Hamburger's colleague at the National Civil Liberties Alliance – Jenin Younes – who has been fighting against unconstitutional vaccine mandates. However, Hamburger joined me to step back from the specifics of any single instance of administrative overreach and see the bigger picture. Tune in to learn about the patterns and mechanics of how the government gets away with its new assaults on civil liberties by essentially purchasing our constitutional rights through various conditions on its special favors.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/thomas-paine-apostle-of-liberty--46915459
In his recent biography of the “Apostle of Liberty,” historian Harlow Giles Ungers quotes John Adams again, asserting:

“I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.”

So how did this “father to the founding fathers” end up as a relatively obscure historical figure, known almost exclusively by his early pamphlet, “Common Sense”? Unger joins me this Sunday to explore the full, fascinating story of Paine’s life, prolific writings, his travels, and his prominent role in the French Revolution.

Thomas Paine and the Clarion Call for American Independence is the latest in the long line of Unger’s highly readable biographies of America’s founders. Much like the subject of his book, Unger writes in a way that is accessible to all audiences – from the uneducated layperson to the scholar of American history alike. Don’t miss the in-depth exploration of the man whose writings roused Washington’s soldiers to victory across the Delaware on Christmas morning.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46915459Mon, 11 Oct 2021 03:08:13 +0000Bob ZadekIt has become almost cliché to note that “the pen is mightier than sword.” Years before this aphorism entered the popular imagination, however, it was John Adams who exclaimed, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded...
In his recent biography of the “Apostle of Liberty,” historian Harlow Giles Ungers quotes John Adams again, asserting:

“I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.”

So how did this “father to the founding fathers” end up as a relatively obscure historical figure, known almost exclusively by his early pamphlet, “Common Sense”? Unger joins me this Sunday to explore the full, fascinating story of Paine’s life, prolific writings, his travels, and his prominent role in the French Revolution.

Thomas Paine and the Clarion Call for American Independence is the latest in the long line of Unger’s highly readable biographies of America’s founders. Much like the subject of his book, Unger writes in a way that is accessible to all audiences – from the uneducated layperson to the scholar of American history alike. Don’t miss the in-depth exploration of the man whose writings roused Washington’s soldiers to victory across the Delaware on Christmas morning.]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/founding-the-free-republic-of-liberland--46700601
It just might not be in America.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and even Madagascar are candidates for future beacons of freedom to the world, as most of Europe and the United States have forgotten the heritage of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and enlightenment tradition of freedom. One dark horse candidate for the next "America" is the Free Republic of Liberland – a new country project that has claimed a small strip of land between Serbia and Croatia, which neither country claims as its own. Croatia swears it belongs to Serbia, but Serbia begs to differ. Vit Jedlicka says they are both right – or is that neither? As President of Liberland, Vit has gathered a small country's worth of volunteers, citizen applicants, and supporters around the world, who could soon populate the world's newest country as freedom-seeking pioneers.

Vit returned to update us on Liberland's progress, and explain how this international movement is leveraging new technologies like cryptocurrency and the blockchain to build something of an America 2.0 – complete with a stable currency, clearly defined property rights, and an innovative Constitution for holding the future leaders of Liberland accountable.

"What is Liberland?" appeared as the correct question in a Jeopardy competition, showing that its fame is spreading. Now they just need recognition from five countries and they will themselves be eligible for UN membership and other perks of statehood.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46700601Mon, 27 Sep 2021 01:50:17 +0000Bob ZadekThere will always be America. It just might not be in America. Hong Kong, Singapore, and even Madagascar are candidates for future beacons of freedom to the world, as most of Europe and the United States have forgotten the heritage of the Magna...
It just might not be in America.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and even Madagascar are candidates for future beacons of freedom to the world, as most of Europe and the United States have forgotten the heritage of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and enlightenment tradition of freedom. One dark horse candidate for the next "America" is the Free Republic of Liberland – a new country project that has claimed a small strip of land between Serbia and Croatia, which neither country claims as its own. Croatia swears it belongs to Serbia, but Serbia begs to differ. Vit Jedlicka says they are both right – or is that neither? As President of Liberland, Vit has gathered a small country's worth of volunteers, citizen applicants, and supporters around the world, who could soon populate the world's newest country as freedom-seeking pioneers.

Vit returned to update us on Liberland's progress, and explain how this international movement is leveraging new technologies like cryptocurrency and the blockchain to build something of an America 2.0 – complete with a stable currency, clearly defined property rights, and an innovative Constitution for holding the future leaders of Liberland accountable.

"What is Liberland?" appeared as the correct question in a Jeopardy competition, showing that its fame is spreading. Now they just need recognition from five countries and they will themselves be eligible for UN membership and other perks of statehood.]]>3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-libertarian-legal-perspective-on-vaccine-mandates--46595226
The Cato Institute Chairman Bob Levy joined me to discuss the nuances of the libertarian perspective on vaccine mandates. He recently wrote an op-ed for the Hill titled, “Vaccine mandates: A liberty-minded perspective”, in which he helps us think through the various liberty concerns around bodily autonomy versus endangerment. He’ll also define the “nondelegation doctrine,” and explain why every thoughtful citizen should understand this 5-syllable word.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46595226Mon, 20 Sep 2021 01:52:34 +0000Bob ZadekWhere does Biden get the authority to mandate vaccination? It’s a difficult question, and everyone seems to have their opinion. Indeed, there are approximately as many opinions as there are arms that can receive the jab. Walter Olson predicts that the...
The Cato Institute Chairman Bob Levy joined me to discuss the nuances of the libertarian perspective on vaccine mandates. He recently wrote an op-ed for the Hill titled, “Vaccine mandates: A liberty-minded perspective”, in which he helps us think through the various liberty concerns around bodily autonomy versus endangerment. He’ll also define the “nondelegation doctrine,” and explain why every thoughtful citizen should understand this 5-syllable word.]]>3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/scott-horton-on-the-war-in-afghanistan--46529188
The story of the United States' involvement in the Middle East is a long one, that dates back to at least the Carter Administration. Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute and host of Antiwar Radio, has meticulously documented the long litany of errors and self-reinforcing planks of the misguided War on Terror in his writings, videos, and radio broadcasts over the years.

He joined me to offer a one-hour retrospective on the War in Afghanistan, with an emphasis on the patterns and principles that have characterized our broader foreign policy failures over the past 45 years. From Scott, I've learned that the failures can be boiled down to one word: blowback. For the full story, you'll have to read two of his most recent books, Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism (2021) & *Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan* (2017).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46529188Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:12:38 +0000Bob ZadekTo the American public, it may have seemed like the War and Afghanistan came to an abrupt end last month – a month earlier than the Biden Administration's self-imposed deadline of the 20-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. To those who...
The story of the United States' involvement in the Middle East is a long one, that dates back to at least the Carter Administration. Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute and host of Antiwar Radio, has meticulously documented the long litany of errors and self-reinforcing planks of the misguided War on Terror in his writings, videos, and radio broadcasts over the years.

He joined me to offer a one-hour retrospective on the War in Afghanistan, with an emphasis on the patterns and principles that have characterized our broader foreign policy failures over the past 45 years. From Scott, I've learned that the failures can be boiled down to one word: blowback. For the full story, you'll have to read two of his most recent books, Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism (2021) & *Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan* (2017).]]>3157falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/parents-voting-with-their-kids-feet--46395970
Even more tellingly, Matt Welch reports that "Families are Fleeing Government Run Schools" – voting with their kids' feet, as it were, against the sudden and unpredictable closures and suspensions of in-person learning. Welch, an editor at large at Reason Magazine, has been reporting on the shift taking place among the population – with an increasing number of both upper and lower-class progressives suddenly embracing school choice when the dysfunction of government-run schools became too glaring to ignore. He joined me to explain why parents are taking their kids out of public schools, and where they are all going.

Have the teachers' unions overplayed their hand in demanding indefinite virtual learning and protections for their members at the expense of learning outcomes for children?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46395970Mon, 06 Sep 2021 10:24:27 +0000Bob ZadekThe American taxpayer has long accepted that education is a public good – something worthy of funding with the common purse. Until recently, a majority of Americans, including parents, have also believed that public schools are a generally the right...
Even more tellingly, Matt Welch reports that "Families are Fleeing Government Run Schools" – voting with their kids' feet, as it were, against the sudden and unpredictable closures and suspensions of in-person learning. Welch, an editor at large at Reason Magazine, has been reporting on the shift taking place among the population – with an increasing number of both upper and lower-class progressives suddenly embracing school choice when the dysfunction of government-run schools became too glaring to ignore. He joined me to explain why parents are taking their kids out of public schools, and where they are all going.

Have the teachers' unions overplayed their hand in demanding indefinite virtual learning and protections for their members at the expense of learning outcomes for children?]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vaccine-mandates-george-mason-and-the-bill-of-rights--46294835
George Mason is rolling in his grave. Or at least, he was, until Professor Todd Zywicki was finally exempted from George Mason University's new mandatory vaccination policy. Zywicki, a professor at the Antonin Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas, is no Anti-Vaxxer; he is, however, an ardent believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents, if they are not to be considered artifacts, guarantee all Americans the right to privacy and the freedom from substantial interference with one's bodily autonomy without due process.

Zywicki was one of millions of Americans who already had the virus, and thus acquired the natural immunity that the vaccine is meant to mimic. That wasn't considered a good enough reason for GMU to exempt him, even though natural infection has been shown to create longer-lasting immunity. Faced with the threat of termination, Zywicki stood his ground – penning a WSJ article to make his case in the court of public opinion. He argued that those with prior infection were at a higher risk of adverse reaction, for a vaccine that would provide no proven additional benefits. Backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and his attorney Jenin Younes, he then filed briefs to challenge the constitutionality of the workplace policy, which is becoming increasingly common across the country. Since then, the George Mason University administration backed down, but the legal questions are far from settled.

I was joined by Todd and his lawyer, Jenin to review the case that would have been argued – both on the grounds of the latest science around natural immunity, as well as the constitutional considerations around privacy and bodily autonomy. We may not know what George Mason would have thought about the studies showing the relative risks and benefits of vaccination for the naturally immune, but I'd be willing to bet that the founder who insisted on a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution would have opposed his namesake's draconian mandate.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46294835Mon, 30 Aug 2021 08:19:35 +0000Bob Zadek“There is a Passion natural to the Mind of man, especially a free Man, which renders him impatient of Restraint.” ― George Mason George Mason is rolling in his grave. Or at least, he was, until Professor Todd Zywicki was finally exempted from George...
George Mason is rolling in his grave. Or at least, he was, until Professor Todd Zywicki was finally exempted from George Mason University's new mandatory vaccination policy. Zywicki, a professor at the Antonin Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas, is no Anti-Vaxxer; he is, however, an ardent believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents, if they are not to be considered artifacts, guarantee all Americans the right to privacy and the freedom from substantial interference with one's bodily autonomy without due process.

Zywicki was one of millions of Americans who already had the virus, and thus acquired the natural immunity that the vaccine is meant to mimic. That wasn't considered a good enough reason for GMU to exempt him, even though natural infection has been shown to create longer-lasting immunity. Faced with the threat of termination, Zywicki stood his ground – penning a WSJ article to make his case in the court of public opinion. He argued that those with prior infection were at a higher risk of adverse reaction, for a vaccine that would provide no proven additional benefits. Backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and his attorney Jenin Younes, he then filed briefs to challenge the constitutionality of the workplace policy, which is becoming increasingly common across the country. Since then, the George Mason University administration backed down, but the legal questions are far from settled.

I was joined by Todd and his lawyer, Jenin to review the case that would have been argued – both on the grounds of the latest science around natural immunity, as well as the constitutional considerations around privacy and bodily autonomy. We may not know what George Mason would have thought about the studies showing the relative risks and benefits of vaccination for the naturally immune, but I'd be willing to bet that the founder who insisted on a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution would have opposed his namesake's draconian mandate.]]>3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hard-questions-about-asylum-and-afghanistan--46201028
Most people agree that those who assisted the U.S. effort and thus find a target on their heads should be given priority for asylum status. But what about those who are seeking asylum from forced labor under terrorist groups like the Taliban or, in other countries, ISIS? In a recent USA Today article, GMU legal scholar Ilya Somin directs our attention to a bizarrely cruel ruling by the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals in 2018 classifies such slave laborers as ineligible for asylum because their forced labor qualifies as "material support" for terrorism.

Somin joined me to explain how such legal gymnastics were ever justified in the first place, and what the current Attorney General can do about it. We also considered the arguments for and against letting in larger numbers of refugees from Afghanistan and other countries.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46201028Mon, 23 Aug 2021 08:44:42 +0000Bob ZadekThe sudden but not entirely unpredictable collapse of the American-trained forces in Afghanistan has woken much of the country up to the futility of our "forever wars" in the Middle East. Beyond the waste of a trillion dollars and countless lives over...
Most people agree that those who assisted the U.S. effort and thus find a target on their heads should be given priority for asylum status. But what about those who are seeking asylum from forced labor under terrorist groups like the Taliban or, in other countries, ISIS? In a recent USA Today article, GMU legal scholar Ilya Somin directs our attention to a bizarrely cruel ruling by the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals in 2018 classifies such slave laborers as ineligible for asylum because their forced labor qualifies as "material support" for terrorism.

Somin joined me to explain how such legal gymnastics were ever justified in the first place, and what the current Attorney General can do about it. We also considered the arguments for and against letting in larger numbers of refugees from Afghanistan and other countries.]]>3014falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/carol-roth-on-the-war-on-small-business--46105172
Roth is a content creator, “recovering” investment banker, entrepreneur, TV pundit and host, and New York Times bestselling author. With 300+ pages of evidence, her new books makes the case that the government has been treating the little guy unfairly since long before COVID. However, the pandemic provided a perfect excuse to ramp up its preferential treatment of privileged cronies at corporations.

Can we even call this capitalism anymore?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46105172Sun, 15 Aug 2021 18:43:49 +0000Bob Zadek2020 was a bad year for small business. Government waged war on the entrepreneur in the name of public safety – imposing harsh lockdowns on those deemed "unessential." Carol Roth, author of a new book "The War on Small Business: How the Government...
Roth is a content creator, “recovering” investment banker, entrepreneur, TV pundit and host, and New York Times bestselling author. With 300+ pages of evidence, her new books makes the case that the government has been treating the little guy unfairly since long before COVID. However, the pandemic provided a perfect excuse to ramp up its preferential treatment of privileged cronies at corporations.

Can we even call this capitalism anymore?]]>3153falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rebranding-liberty-with-live-and-let-live--46020452
Marc J. Victor is an attorney who has fought for his clients' freedoms for decades, and is now turning his attention to a broader goal of building a global peace movement under the mantra of "Live and Let Live." His ideas are fundamentally libertarian, but the Live and Let Live Movement differs from the Libertarian Party in several key ways.

First, it is global—not national.

Second, it presents libertarian ideas in a way that should be agreeable to any reasonable person of principles. Rather than focusing on the arcane details of why the non-aggression principle passes moral and philosophical muster, Victor would prefer to let the principle speak for itself: just don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff. It's what we all learned in Kindergarten, although the majority of people could use a friendly reminder.

What better substitute for the often-confusing "NAP" (non-aggression principle) than the "3LP" – the Live and Let Live Principle? Victor joined the show to talk about this urgently needed rebranding of liberty, and how the ideas of Live and Let Live are taking hold in small communities across the world.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/46020452Mon, 09 Aug 2021 05:11:10 +0000Bob ZadekA Gallup study collecting polls over the last 13 years estimates that 17 to 23% of Americans identify as libertarian. One-fifth of the population is not bad, but even that never seems to translate into meaningful progress at the ballot box....
Marc J. Victor is an attorney who has fought for his clients' freedoms for decades, and is now turning his attention to a broader goal of building a global peace movement under the mantra of "Live and Let Live." His ideas are fundamentally libertarian, but the Live and Let Live Movement differs from the Libertarian Party in several key ways.

First, it is global—not national.

Second, it presents libertarian ideas in a way that should be agreeable to any reasonable person of principles. Rather than focusing on the arcane details of why the non-aggression principle passes moral and philosophical muster, Victor would prefer to let the principle speak for itself: just don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff. It's what we all learned in Kindergarten, although the majority of people could use a friendly reminder.

What better substitute for the often-confusing "NAP" (non-aggression principle) than the "3LP" – the Live and Let Live Principle? Victor joined the show to talk about this urgently needed rebranding of liberty, and how the ideas of Live and Let Live are taking hold in small communities across the world.]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/john-r-lott-on-gun-control-myths--45934681
Here to discuss with me the Biden Administration's plans for gun control, the rationale (if any) behind them, and the reality behind guns and crime rates in America, is Dr. John R. Lott.

You may know Dr. Lott as the meticulous researcher and economist behind books like Gun Control Myths, More Guns, Less Crime, and The Bias Against Guns. He is a world-recognized expert on guns and crime, and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center and has held various research and teaching positions, including at the University of Chicago, Yale, Wharton School of Business, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University.

John Lott was also the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-89, and has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.

When it comes to guns, it's important to separate the stuff from the fluff. Get the facts, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45934681Mon, 02 Aug 2021 10:42:18 +0000Bob ZadekRising violent crime rates in the United States has prompted a gun control push by the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. Biden has stated in a CNN town hall that he wants to target all "semi-automatic" guns – both rifles and pistols,...
Here to discuss with me the Biden Administration's plans for gun control, the rationale (if any) behind them, and the reality behind guns and crime rates in America, is Dr. John R. Lott.

You may know Dr. Lott as the meticulous researcher and economist behind books like Gun Control Myths, More Guns, Less Crime, and The Bias Against Guns. He is a world-recognized expert on guns and crime, and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center and has held various research and teaching positions, including at the University of Chicago, Yale, Wharton School of Business, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University.

John Lott was also the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-89, and has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.

When it comes to guns, it's important to separate the stuff from the fluff. Get the facts, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3134falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cuba-libre-the-july-11th-uprising--45836860
Ian is Vice President for international studies at the Cato Institute and director of its Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is a foreign policy correspondent for CNBC, NBC, C-SPAN, CNN, Telemundo, Canadian Television, NPR, and Voice of America. He is also the co-author of the Human Freedom Index – a subtopic for this Sunday’s show – the editor of Global Fortune: The Stumble and Rise of World Capitalism, and the coeditor of Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World.

Vasquez finds that technology and the arts are creating new possibilities for exposing the miserable results of the Cuban “experiment” with socialism, which could only be sustained for so long by repression and intimidation. The rallying cries for freedom have grown louder and louder since Cubans got a taste of freedom from the outside world.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45836860Sun, 25 Jul 2021 18:39:35 +0000Bob ZadekYou may have heard about Cuban American protests in the streets of Miami, but what’s happening in Cuba itself, where protest often carries stiff punishment from the communist dictatorship? It’s hard to find accurate coverage given the information...
Ian is Vice President for international studies at the Cato Institute and director of its Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is a foreign policy correspondent for CNBC, NBC, C-SPAN, CNN, Telemundo, Canadian Television, NPR, and Voice of America. He is also the co-author of the Human Freedom Index – a subtopic for this Sunday’s show – the editor of Global Fortune: The Stumble and Rise of World Capitalism, and the coeditor of Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World.

Vasquez finds that technology and the arts are creating new possibilities for exposing the miserable results of the Cuban “experiment” with socialism, which could only be sustained for so long by repression and intimidation. The rallying cries for freedom have grown louder and louder since Cubans got a taste of freedom from the outside world.]]>3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/damien-schiff-on-the-endangered-species-act--45748985
Remember the infamous Louisiana frog case? Federal agents in the Obama administration deprived a landowner of property by designating 1,500 acres of his land as "critical habitat" for the dusky gopher frog... a creature that hadn't been seen in the Bayou State for more than 50 years. Thankfully, Pacific Legal Foundation successfully defended the landowner in a 9-0 Supreme Court victory.

Now, the federal government under Biden is overreaching once again – weaponizing environmentalism against property rights. The Endanger Species Act may have good intentions, but its implementation has caused untold harm to countless human beings, while distorting incentives for achieving actual conservation.

I was joined by Damien Schiff to discuss the Biden administration's despotic approach to environmental regulation. Damien is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. He leads its environmental practice group, a unique initiative that draws broadly from PLF’s expertise and success in property rights and separation of powers litigation. Over the years, Damien has represented hundreds of landowners and property rights advocates to defend their liberties against heavy-handed and unwarranted environmental and land-use regulation.

Find out how you can help in the fight against federal overreach on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45748985Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:50:43 +0000Bob ZadekWhen does environmental protection become regulatory overreach? As part of the "Great Reset" agenda to "Build Back Better," Biden's new America the Beautiful report outlines plans to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030 –...
Remember the infamous Louisiana frog case? Federal agents in the Obama administration deprived a landowner of property by designating 1,500 acres of his land as "critical habitat" for the dusky gopher frog... a creature that hadn't been seen in the Bayou State for more than 50 years. Thankfully, Pacific Legal Foundation successfully defended the landowner in a 9-0 Supreme Court victory.

Now, the federal government under Biden is overreaching once again – weaponizing environmentalism against property rights. The Endanger Species Act may have good intentions, but its implementation has caused untold harm to countless human beings, while distorting incentives for achieving actual conservation.

I was joined by Damien Schiff to discuss the Biden administration's despotic approach to environmental regulation. Damien is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. He leads its environmental practice group, a unique initiative that draws broadly from PLF’s expertise and success in property rights and separation of powers litigation. Over the years, Damien has represented hundreds of landowners and property rights advocates to defend their liberties against heavy-handed and unwarranted environmental and land-use regulation.

Find out how you can help in the fight against federal overreach on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trouble-at-the-bar--45659297
Together, we will take a close look at the adverse effects that the ABA regulation has on the legal market and the economy as a whole – including the increase in cost, reduction in quality, and the limit of access to legal services for the general population. Clifford argues that by deregulating the legal industry, there would be a mutual benefit to both lawyers, prospective lawyers, and society in general.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45659297Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:32:56 +0000Bob ZadekOccupational licensing is often deployed by industries to limit job competition, and it is no different with the American Bar Association. I was joined by Clifford Winston, senior fellow at Brookings Institution's Economic Studies program, applied...
Together, we will take a close look at the adverse effects that the ABA regulation has on the legal market and the economy as a whole – including the increase in cost, reduction in quality, and the limit of access to legal services for the general population. Clifford argues that by deregulating the legal industry, there would be a mutual benefit to both lawyers, prospective lawyers, and society in general.]]>3138falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-s-second-founding--45574857
John Cribb has written the latest in a long line of books about Lincoln. Old Abe: A Novel distinguishes itself as one of the few historical novels – accurately retelling the story of Lincoln’s last five years leading up to his untimely demise. Cribb joined me to unpack the complex and fascinating legacy of Abraham Lincoln, from his election to the Presidency, through the tumultuous war that almost tore the country apart, to his assassination in 1865.

Of course, we will discuss the role Lincoln played in ending the “peculiar institution,” which the founders themselves had neglected to solve in their own struggle for emancipation. Can this help explain why celebrating the 4th of July has become less popular in recent years? I’ll ask John how “Old Abe” can help us recover a sense of patriotism in every generation.

Finally, we’ll discuss the murkier questions of Lincoln’s legacy, including the growth of federal power and the questionable suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45574857Mon, 05 Jul 2021 02:18:34 +0000Bob ZadekEvery 4th of July, we commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence – some 250 years ago – but the proclamation that all men are created equal was not truly realized until another proclamation was made some 90 years later, on September...
John Cribb has written the latest in a long line of books about Lincoln. Old Abe: A Novel distinguishes itself as one of the few historical novels – accurately retelling the story of Lincoln’s last five years leading up to his untimely demise. Cribb joined me to unpack the complex and fascinating legacy of Abraham Lincoln, from his election to the Presidency, through the tumultuous war that almost tore the country apart, to his assassination in 1865.

Of course, we will discuss the role Lincoln played in ending the “peculiar institution,” which the founders themselves had neglected to solve in their own struggle for emancipation. Can this help explain why celebrating the 4th of July has become less popular in recent years? I’ll ask John how “Old Abe” can help us recover a sense of patriotism in every generation.

Finally, we’ll discuss the murkier questions of Lincoln’s legacy, including the growth of federal power and the questionable suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.]]>3144falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/philip-hamburger-on-court-packing--45378909
Fast forward to April 15, 2021. Congress has introduced legislation that would add four more Justices to the Supreme Court. President Biden, meanwhile, has formed a commission to reform the Supreme Court, either via packing or term limits. The historical situation has striking parallel's to the 1937 Roosevelt court-packing attempt, which ultimately failed but caused the court to submit to his New Deal agenda in the hope of "saving the court," regardless of whether they thought the New Deal was constitutional or not.

Today, we seem to be in the same situation. The executive branch has taken on the role of bullying the court into adopting Biden's agenda, whether or not that agenda is constitutional. Even if the court packing attempt fails, many Americans wonder whether the threat on the court alone is sufficient to corrupt the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.

I was joined by Phillip Hamburger. Phillip is the creator of the Columbia Law School's Center for Law and Liberty and is the founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. He has authored two recent books on the administrative state, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, and The Administrative Threat. Phillip has recently written a Wall-Street Journal article on the dangers of court packing to the American Republic and the separation of powers, entitled, "Court Packing is a Dangerous Game."

What does this court packing attempt mean for the American Republic? Phillip and I will sift through the frightening implications of the Democrat's plan.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45378909Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:40:28 +0000Bob ZadekDuring the 2020 election campaign, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party floated the idea of "court packing"––adding Justices to the Supreme Court. The call for court reform was a response to Amy Coney Barrett's nomination following the death of Justice...
Fast forward to April 15, 2021. Congress has introduced legislation that would add four more Justices to the Supreme Court. President Biden, meanwhile, has formed a commission to reform the Supreme Court, either via packing or term limits. The historical situation has striking parallel's to the 1937 Roosevelt court-packing attempt, which ultimately failed but caused the court to submit to his New Deal agenda in the hope of "saving the court," regardless of whether they thought the New Deal was constitutional or not.

Today, we seem to be in the same situation. The executive branch has taken on the role of bullying the court into adopting Biden's agenda, whether or not that agenda is constitutional. Even if the court packing attempt fails, many Americans wonder whether the threat on the court alone is sufficient to corrupt the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.

I was joined by Phillip Hamburger. Phillip is the creator of the Columbia Law School's Center for Law and Liberty and is the founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. He has authored two recent books on the administrative state, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, and The Administrative Threat. Phillip has recently written a Wall-Street Journal article on the dangers of court packing to the American Republic and the separation of powers, entitled, "Court Packing is a Dangerous Game."

What does this court packing attempt mean for the American Republic? Phillip and I will sift through the frightening implications of the Democrat's plan.]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-tests-for-the-fourth-amendment--45289404
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “no unreasonable search and seizure,” but this hasn’t stopped government agencies from prying into our vast stores of personal data such as location information, shopping habits, etc. – all in the name of public safety. It should come as little surprise that tech companies do not discriminate against the government when it comes to selling our data to third parties, and this loophole has been exploited by the NSA and other agencies to create a brand new form of crony capitalism.

I was joined by Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein, who co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program and is a Senior Practitioner Fellow at the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government. Goitein has written a fascinating and frightening article in the Washington Post revealing how technology has rendered previous Supreme Court decisions protecting our privacy moot.

Can we preserve the Fourth Amendment in an age of mass data collection, or have we become so complacent that we are willing to surrender our privacy to Big Tech operating as a proxy for Big Government? Goitein and I will discuss the implications of a Supreme Court decision that was supposed to make this kind of behavior more difficult, and how Senators like Rand Paul are trying to shore up the abuses in the legislature.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45289404Mon, 14 Jun 2021 03:52:28 +0000Bob ZadekAmericans have been partially aware of the NSA’s surveillance of the public thanks to whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. But do they know that their own cell phone carriers and beloved apps are often complicit in these constitutionally questionable...
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “no unreasonable search and seizure,” but this hasn’t stopped government agencies from prying into our vast stores of personal data such as location information, shopping habits, etc. – all in the name of public safety. It should come as little surprise that tech companies do not discriminate against the government when it comes to selling our data to third parties, and this loophole has been exploited by the NSA and other agencies to create a brand new form of crony capitalism.

I was joined by Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein, who co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program and is a Senior Practitioner Fellow at the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government. Goitein has written a fascinating and frightening article in the Washington Post revealing how technology has rendered previous Supreme Court decisions protecting our privacy moot.

Can we preserve the Fourth Amendment in an age of mass data collection, or have we become so complacent that we are willing to surrender our privacy to Big Tech operating as a proxy for Big Government? Goitein and I will discuss the implications of a Supreme Court decision that was supposed to make this kind of behavior more difficult, and how Senators like Rand Paul are trying to shore up the abuses in the legislature.]]>3138falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-freedom-in-the-permission-society--45196929
Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has written something of a manual for Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance, following his last book, Permissionless Innovation , which offered a kind of cognitive therapy for the obsessive-compulsive personalities that head various regulatory agencies.

Thierer specializes in innovation, entrepreneurialism, Internet, and free-speech issues, with a particular focus on the public policy concerns surrounding emerging technologies.

From excessive playground rules to ride-sharing red tape, signs of the permission society are everywhere. Thierer says that legitimate concerns about new technology need not stymie innovation in areas that can make all of our lives better.

Is it sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45196929Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:41:00 +0000Bob ZadekWe live in a "permission society," where it sometimes feels like anything that is not prohibited is mandatory. What is the entrepreneur to do in such a climate? Perhaps, rather than using bad governance as an excuse not to innovate, we should see it...
Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has written something of a manual for Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance, following his last book, Permissionless Innovation , which offered a kind of cognitive therapy for the obsessive-compulsive personalities that head various regulatory agencies.

Thierer specializes in innovation, entrepreneurialism, Internet, and free-speech issues, with a particular focus on the public policy concerns surrounding emerging technologies.

From excessive playground rules to ride-sharing red tape, signs of the permission society are everywhere. Thierer says that legitimate concerns about new technology need not stymie innovation in areas that can make all of our lives better.

Is it sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission?]]>3148falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/curiosity-american-capitalism--45105036
Buckley introduces his new “rules” less as a self-help book than an antidote to the somewhat dour outlook of Peterson’s book, which Buckley says was written for people living in cold, harsh northern latitudes (like Canada). He exhorts Americans to think differently – embracing more risk and uncertainty in pursuit of originality, dynamism, and a life well-lived. The first rule? Ditch rules (he says they deprive us of a certain kind of responsibility and moral freedom).

While my previous conversations with Buckley have dealt with concrete topics – from the administrative state, to social media censorship, to “American Secession” – this week we try something different. I will ask Buckley – a Canadian-born American citizen – how curiosity has set the United States apart from the rest of the world in times past. What do we lose when our curiosity fades? Can American capitalism survive if we don’t produce new crops of entrepreneurs with an insatiable curiosity and drive for risk and reward? Perhaps being curious results in less order and more chaos, but it seems to me to be an essential part of being free.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/45105036Mon, 31 May 2021 06:48:40 +0000Bob ZadekJordan Peterson took the world by storm with his somber life lessons to YouTube disciples. He codified his appeal for order in his book, “12 Rules for Life.” F.H. Buckley – a Canadian like Peterson – has outlined a very different set of rules in...
Buckley introduces his new “rules” less as a self-help book than an antidote to the somewhat dour outlook of Peterson’s book, which Buckley says was written for people living in cold, harsh northern latitudes (like Canada). He exhorts Americans to think differently – embracing more risk and uncertainty in pursuit of originality, dynamism, and a life well-lived. The first rule? Ditch rules (he says they deprive us of a certain kind of responsibility and moral freedom).

While my previous conversations with Buckley have dealt with concrete topics – from the administrative state, to social media censorship, to “American Secession” – this week we try something different. I will ask Buckley – a Canadian-born American citizen – how curiosity has set the United States apart from the rest of the world in times past. What do we lose when our curiosity fades? Can American capitalism survive if we don’t produce new crops of entrepreneurs with an insatiable curiosity and drive for risk and reward? Perhaps being curious results in less order and more chaos, but it seems to me to be an essential part of being free.]]>3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/auditing-the-corporate-income-tax--44991197
Who bears the burden?
This week, I welcome the Wall Street Journal’s U.S tax policy reporter Richard Rubin to the show to help break down the concept of tax incidence, and explore the hidden downstream effects of increasing taxes on “the rich.” Rubin is a neutral observer with no particular agenda other than to help readers understand what to expect when politicians in Washington D.C. change the tax code.

The key question, Rubin says, is who actually pays the price? The corporations themselves? Corporate profits will suffer, as Biden seems to expect, as will the shareholders. But what about workers who depend on corporate investment in capital to enhance their productivity, and pay them living wages?

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
The President assures us that the infrastructure bill will boost jobs, but we must always make visible the unseen effects of pulling a dollar out of the private sector in order to spend it elsewhere.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44991197Sun, 23 May 2021 21:20:12 +0000Bob ZadekThe Biden administration has ambitious plans to spend over $2 trillion – an alleged “one-time” capital investment in our nation’s infrastructure. This spending is to be paid for largely by higher taxes on corporations. Biden’s “soak the rich” campaign...
Who bears the burden?
This week, I welcome the Wall Street Journal’s U.S tax policy reporter Richard Rubin to the show to help break down the concept of tax incidence, and explore the hidden downstream effects of increasing taxes on “the rich.” Rubin is a neutral observer with no particular agenda other than to help readers understand what to expect when politicians in Washington D.C. change the tax code.

The key question, Rubin says, is who actually pays the price? The corporations themselves? Corporate profits will suffer, as Biden seems to expect, as will the shareholders. But what about workers who depend on corporate investment in capital to enhance their productivity, and pay them living wages?

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
The President assures us that the infrastructure bill will boost jobs, but we must always make visible the unseen effects of pulling a dollar out of the private sector in order to spend it elsewhere.]]>3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-foundations-of-property--44880040
Law students are presented with the classic case of Pierson v. Post to illustrate how a dispute over the rightful owner of a fox carcass cannot be settled without surveying a whole host of historical legal treatises.

Pinning Down Property
Bart J. Wilson is a Professor of Economics and Law and the Donald P. Kennedy Endowed Chair in Economics and Law at Chapman University, where he co-founded the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy, for which he serves as the director.

His economic research aims to better understand humans as we interact with each other and our environment - especially with respect to things that can be considered as “yours” and “mine,” i.e., private property.

His new book, The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind, is one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of how we come to own stuff, and from whence this essential concept arises.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44880040Mon, 17 May 2021 21:35:11 +0000Bob ZadekProperty is a concept at once so simple that a 4-year-old can grasp it, yet so complex that the greatest legal minds have not been able to formally settle on a definition. Law students are presented with the classic case of Pierson v. Post to...
Law students are presented with the classic case of Pierson v. Post to illustrate how a dispute over the rightful owner of a fox carcass cannot be settled without surveying a whole host of historical legal treatises.

Pinning Down Property
Bart J. Wilson is a Professor of Economics and Law and the Donald P. Kennedy Endowed Chair in Economics and Law at Chapman University, where he co-founded the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy, for which he serves as the director.

His economic research aims to better understand humans as we interact with each other and our environment - especially with respect to things that can be considered as “yours” and “mine,” i.e., private property.

His new book, The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind, is one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of how we come to own stuff, and from whence this essential concept arises.]]>3111falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-socialism-still-a-dirty-word--44747191
Revisiting Socialism
Every so often, I like to re-assess my fundamental beliefs by inviting highly intelligent people to make the case for ideas like socialism on my program. A glance through my show archives reveals that I'm long overdue for a challenge, and John B. Judis is the perfect man for the job.

John is Editor-At-Large at Talking Points Memo and author of eight books, including most recently The Socialist Awakening – the last in his trilogy of books on the revival of the doctrines of nationalism, populism, and now, the "S" word.

Venezuela or Sweden – Which Way for the New Socialist Man?
Judis observed how Trump used populism to promote a nationalist agenda, and calls on today's progressives to use these same populist forces to advance a rebranded socialist program.

For Judis, Bernie Sanders is the poster-child of the evolution of socialism, from orthodox Marxist ideology calling for imminent revolution to an incremental approach of expanding the power of labor over capital in a modern "mixed economy." Where I see a flashing red DANGER sign in Sanders' appeal to young people, Judis sees a sign of hope.

Is Judis’s vision compatible with a robust economy, free markets, and individual autonomy, or will a single step toward Scandinavian-style socialism set us down the "Road to Serfdom"? Can socialists learn from the mistakes of the past, or are they doomed to be relegated to the dustbin of history?

If you couldn’t listen live, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and leave a 5-star review.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44747191Tue, 11 May 2021 04:36:00 +0000Bob ZadekNot long ago, the word “socialism” was something of a taboo. Following the failed Soviet experiment in hardcore socialism, most Americans of a certain age still shudder at the prospect. Libertarians schooled in Friedrich Hayek’s writings have learned...
Revisiting Socialism
Every so often, I like to re-assess my fundamental beliefs by inviting highly intelligent people to make the case for ideas like socialism on my program. A glance through my show archives reveals that I'm long overdue for a challenge, and John B. Judis is the perfect man for the job.

John is Editor-At-Large at Talking Points Memo and author of eight books, including most recently The Socialist Awakening – the last in his trilogy of books on the revival of the doctrines of nationalism, populism, and now, the "S" word.

Venezuela or Sweden – Which Way for the New Socialist Man?
Judis observed how Trump used populism to promote a nationalist agenda, and calls on today's progressives to use these same populist forces to advance a rebranded socialist program.

For Judis, Bernie Sanders is the poster-child of the evolution of socialism, from orthodox Marxist ideology calling for imminent revolution to an incremental approach of expanding the power of labor over capital in a modern "mixed economy." Where I see a flashing red DANGER sign in Sanders' appeal to young people, Judis sees a sign of hope.

Is Judis’s vision compatible with a robust economy, free markets, and individual autonomy, or will a single step toward Scandinavian-style socialism set us down the "Road to Serfdom"? Can socialists learn from the mistakes of the past, or are they doomed to be relegated to the dustbin of history?

If you couldn’t listen live, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and leave a 5-star review.]]>3147falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/restoring-common-sense-to-california--44597381
Today, a new Common Sense Party of California – led by Quentin Kopp and Tom Campbell – aims to free Californians from the yoke of single-party rule.
Ending One-Party Rule, Once and For All

California has problems. From drought to fires, a bankrupt pension system, homelessness, unemployment, and housing crises, the only “solutions” our leaders have offered are more regulation, higher taxes, and the declaration of a permanent state of emergency.

The primary crisis, however, is the lack of leadership.

The Democratic Party has failed liberal and conservative voters alike. Lacking serious competition from an increasingly irrelevant GOP, our legislature has let special interests write the laws – that is, when “Emperor Newsom” isn’t exercising indefinite and dubious “emergency powers.”

Help is On the Way

Meanwhile, former U.S. Congressman and California state senator Tom Campbell has been laying the groundwork for an independent third party that could run serious contenders for the state office as soon as 2022. Outside of his political career, Campbell has served as Dean of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, a Dean and professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, and Professor of Law at Stanford.

Campbell joined me to outline his vision of a party of principles and independence from political monopoly run by special interests. We’ll also discuss the ever-important question of separation of powers in the context of federalism and California’s COVID policy.

After learning about the Common Sense Party from Judge Quentin Kopp last fall, I’ve been eager to get an update. Signature gathering to get on the ballot was put on hold by the pandemic, but Campbell and Kopp are finally getting back to work. If the recall movement is any indicator of Californian’s dissatisfaction with the status quo, they should have no trouble getting the 70,000 required signatures to get on the ballot.

If you couldn’t listen live, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and leave a 5-star review.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44597381Sun, 02 May 2021 18:20:18 +0000Bob ZadekIn January of 1776, Thomas Paine anonymously penned a radical proposal for American independence. “Common Sense,” the title of his pamphlet, has been a rallying cry for American patriots since our founding and continues to unite a dissatisfied public...
Today, a new Common Sense Party of California – led by Quentin Kopp and Tom Campbell – aims to free Californians from the yoke of single-party rule.
Ending One-Party Rule, Once and For All

California has problems. From drought to fires, a bankrupt pension system, homelessness, unemployment, and housing crises, the only “solutions” our leaders have offered are more regulation, higher taxes, and the declaration of a permanent state of emergency.

The primary crisis, however, is the lack of leadership.

The Democratic Party has failed liberal and conservative voters alike. Lacking serious competition from an increasingly irrelevant GOP, our legislature has let special interests write the laws – that is, when “Emperor Newsom” isn’t exercising indefinite and dubious “emergency powers.”

Help is On the Way

Meanwhile, former U.S. Congressman and California state senator Tom Campbell has been laying the groundwork for an independent third party that could run serious contenders for the state office as soon as 2022. Outside of his political career, Campbell has served as Dean of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, a Dean and professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, and Professor of Law at Stanford.

Campbell joined me to outline his vision of a party of principles and independence from political monopoly run by special interests. We’ll also discuss the ever-important question of separation of powers in the context of federalism and California’s COVID policy.

After learning about the Common Sense Party from Judge Quentin Kopp last fall, I’ve been eager to get an update. Signature gathering to get on the ballot was put on hold by the pandemic, but Campbell and Kopp are finally getting back to work. If the recall movement is any indicator of Californian’s dissatisfaction with the status quo, they should have no trouble getting the 70,000 required signatures to get on the ballot.

If you couldn’t listen live, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and leave a 5-star review.]]>3157falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-immigration-crisis-in-context--44526973Of course, the President is not entirely to blame for 150 years of bad immigration law - ultimately it's up to Congress to replace the patchwork of executive orders with a rational framework and plan for naturalizing future American immigrants, while disincentivizing dangerous illegal crossings.
Wretched Refuse?
Alex Nowrasteh - my go-to immigration expert - returns to the show to unpack the root causes of this chaos, and offer practical solutions that don't put the blame on those seeking a better life in America.
I was eager to discuss Alex's new book, co-authored with Benjamin Powell, Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020). We grappled with the political problem of immigration reform, along with the misconceptions underlying nativist hostility to more open immigration.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44526973Wed, 28 Apr 2021 02:34:38 +0000Bob ZadekWhile Biden's idea of a solution includes cash payments to would-be immigrants to get them to stay in their home countries, Alex has a better plan that also doesn't cost nearly as much: "Encourage free trade, end the drug war, and liberalize...Of course, the President is not entirely to blame for 150 years of bad immigration law - ultimately it's up to Congress to replace the patchwork of executive orders with a rational framework and plan for naturalizing future American immigrants, while disincentivizing dangerous illegal crossings.
Wretched Refuse?
Alex Nowrasteh - my go-to immigration expert - returns to the show to unpack the root causes of this chaos, and offer practical solutions that don't put the blame on those seeking a better life in America.
I was eager to discuss Alex's new book, co-authored with Benjamin Powell, Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020). We grappled with the political problem of immigration reform, along with the misconceptions underlying nativist hostility to more open immigration.]]>3175falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/steven-b-smith-on-reclaiming-patriotism--44411618
Smith is careful to distinguish patriotism from nationalism, which often accompanies ethnic chauvinism, while also warning against the dangers of excessive cosmopolitanism that is so fashionable among elites in academic institutions and government.

Can patriotism be reclaimed in a way that brings these two extremes of American politics closer together under one banner? It turns out a certain amount of skepticism about America can be healthy and is even part of what makes our country so great. Professor Smith joined me live to help me understand first of all why patriotism has gotten such a bad rap, and secondly, how it can be revived without stoking the flames of international conflict or invoking a dangerous "us vs. them" mentality.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44411618Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:48:26 +0000Bob ZadekWhen Steven B. Smith told his Yale colleagues about the topic of the book he was working on – Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes– he was met with bewildered and even troubled looks. Perhaps they viewed patriotism (following British critic of...
Smith is careful to distinguish patriotism from nationalism, which often accompanies ethnic chauvinism, while also warning against the dangers of excessive cosmopolitanism that is so fashionable among elites in academic institutions and government.

Can patriotism be reclaimed in a way that brings these two extremes of American politics closer together under one banner? It turns out a certain amount of skepticism about America can be healthy and is even part of what makes our country so great. Professor Smith joined me live to help me understand first of all why patriotism has gotten such a bad rap, and secondly, how it can be revived without stoking the flames of international conflict or invoking a dangerous "us vs. them" mentality.]]>2722founders,nationalism,patriotism,political,sciencefalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-truth-about-the-student-loan-crisis--4774867853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:606f9dba6d22f43fb5040444Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:44:19 +0000Bob ZadekPreston Cooper of FREOPP says that the student loan crisis is not what we think.3179falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vaccines-the-totalitarian-principle--4774863753615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:6048f10dcbdafc7a0d651eadSun, 04 Apr 2021 15:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe vaccine is working, yet the government says we can’t go back to normal.3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/escaping-the-statrix-trevor-burrus-s-rent-control-red-pill--44108302

Bernie Sanders is obsessed with a vision of a national rent control policy, complete with a “Renter’s Bill of Rights.” However, this imaginary bill of rights couldn’t exist without violating the original bill of rights - in particular, the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause,” which guarantees that private land cannot be taken for public use without “just compensation.”

Burrus, a senior fellow at Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and editor‐in‐chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, has helped file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of NYC landlords whose rights have been violated by a new set of “rent stabilization laws.” Burrus notes that “The right to exclude people from occupying your property is obviously central to the concept of ‘property.’”

Among other illegal “takings” embedded in the law, the latest rent control push forces owners to transfer a lease from the original renter to their relatives. Advocates will argue that rent control helps the poor afford housing in areas where they otherwise couldn’t live. However, 93% of economists already agree that rent control hurts the very people it’s trying to help by restricting the supply, and decreasing the quality of the rentals on the market.

We might consider shifting our focus from doing more studies on rent control to trying to win hearts and minds. This Sunday, Burrus helped me imagine what city life could be like in New York if property owners were free to set rents at the market rate, and developers were allowed to build new real estate to meet the resulting demand. If you take the red pill, you’ll never look at our cities or government the same way again.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/44108302Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:33:14 +0000Bob ZadekIs a more prosperous world with less government intervention possible? Trevor Burrus of The Cato Institute joins me this Sunday to discuss the constitutionality of rent control and the related issue of expanding the "libertarian imagination,” in a...

Bernie Sanders is obsessed with a vision of a national rent control policy, complete with a “Renter’s Bill of Rights.” However, this imaginary bill of rights couldn’t exist without violating the original bill of rights - in particular, the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause,” which guarantees that private land cannot be taken for public use without “just compensation.”

Burrus, a senior fellow at Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and editor‐in‐chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, has helped file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of NYC landlords whose rights have been violated by a new set of “rent stabilization laws.” Burrus notes that “The right to exclude people from occupying your property is obviously central to the concept of ‘property.’”

Among other illegal “takings” embedded in the law, the latest rent control push forces owners to transfer a lease from the original renter to their relatives. Advocates will argue that rent control helps the poor afford housing in areas where they otherwise couldn’t live. However, 93% of economists already agree that rent control hurts the very people it’s trying to help by restricting the supply, and decreasing the quality of the rentals on the market.

We might consider shifting our focus from doing more studies on rent control to trying to win hearts and minds. This Sunday, Burrus helped me imagine what city life could be like in New York if property owners were free to set rents at the market rate, and developers were allowed to build new real estate to meet the resulting demand. If you take the red pill, you’ll never look at our cities or government the same way again.]]>3101falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-case-for-recalling-gavin-newsom--47748651indoors at the French Laundry while lecturing his “subjects” on masks and
banning restaurants from serving their customers.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:60537ad9c5cdea0bcd73c5c8Sun, 21 Mar 2021 16:50:00 +0000Bob ZadekEmperor Gavin fiddled while California Burned. He dined with lobbyists indoors at the French Laundry while lecturing his “subjects” on masks and banning restaurants from serving their customers.indoors at the French Laundry while lecturing his “subjects” on masks and
banning restaurants from serving their customers.]]>3127falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/criminal-memes-the-ballad-of-ricky-vaughn--4774865053615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:6048f365b350f31dd7bf9ef2Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:33:00 +0000Bob ZadekEugene Volokh on Libel, Free Speech, and Criminalization of Memes.3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/austrian-economics-triumphs--4774865253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:604157ffbc7b301c272673e6Sun, 07 Mar 2021 21:58:00 +0000Bob ZadekJeff Deist on Murray Rothbard and the Austrian School3147falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-freakout-about-gamestop--4774865653615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:60269e76c21f05468c2d7aecSun, 28 Feb 2021 15:27:00 +0000Bob ZadekJennifer Schulp on the function of markets and financial regulation3137falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-more-is-not-better--4774868053615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:601437246df9115b495a999eSun, 21 Feb 2021 16:26:00 +0000Bob ZadekRoger L. Martin on Overcoming America’s Obsession with Economic Efficiency3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-radio-right-and-the-fairness-doctrine--4774869753615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:601443f66df9115b495c425eSun, 14 Feb 2021 17:20:00 +0000Bob ZadekPaul Matzko on the Rise of Conservative Talk Radio3115falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stakeholder-value-a-new-story-about-business--4774867253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:601444058d6de035d2ca9b79Sun, 07 Feb 2021 16:29:00 +0000Bob ZadekR. Edward Freeman on The Power of And3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/questioning-biden-s-inequality-narrative--47748686the persistent myth of our time.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:600ee2b77ee73853fee1f2d1Sun, 31 Jan 2021 16:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekFormer Bain Capital partner and AEI adjunct follow Edward Conard takes on the persistent myth of our time.the persistent myth of our time.]]>3168falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/emperor-newsom-s-new-clothes--4774866253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:600876bfbd99df2d1c6e29e6Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:12:00 +0000Bob ZadekDaniel Dew on the Naked Abuse of Emergency Powers3125falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/populism-after-trump--47748654Democracy]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:600095fb7ec10f1e29cbb09dSun, 17 Jan 2021 19:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekWilliam Howell and Terry Moe on Presidents, Populism and the Crisis of DemocracyDemocracy]]>3121falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-capitol-riot-in-context--47748713Checkered Legacy]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fedfbbf673a147fcc5b4568Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekReason Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie offers a Retrospective on Trump’s Checkered LegacyCheckered Legacy]]>3137falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/welfare-for-the-rich--4774866653615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fedfe31fc8ee327ddcb9a05Sun, 03 Jan 2021 16:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekLisa Conyers on the New Welfare Kings and Queens3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/of-sex-work-and-censorship--47748660payments for PornHub]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fe6086db6901b29b8a1b132Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekUn-retired call girl Maggie McNeill on Visa’s decision to stop processing payments for PornHubpayments for PornHub]]>3098falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-it-too-late-to-step-back-from-the-edge-of-fiscal-insanity--4774868553615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fda38ab18cf313d21886f5fSun, 20 Dec 2020 17:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekChris Edwards on the Deepening Deficit3140falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/force-as-farce-unmasking-the-covid-hypocrites--4774869253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fd39d90684f6e562233eeb6Sun, 13 Dec 2020 16:48:00 +0000Bob ZadekJohn Miltimore of FEE.org on the new round of lockdowns3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/towards-a-libertarian-theory-of-anti-racism--47748689anti-racist policy agenda and reflects on the legacy of Walter Williams.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fc7cbca32674b490f61d0d1Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner offers the contours of a libertarian anti-racist policy agenda and reflects on the legacy of Walter Williams.anti-racist policy agenda and reflects on the legacy of Walter Williams.]]>3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-flight-of-the-golden-geese--47748702Wealthy Americans Renouncing their Citizenship]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fbff67ebc819f1cf4e13575Sun, 29 Nov 2020 19:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekInternational Tax & Immigration Expert David Lesperance on the Increase in Wealthy Americans Renouncing their CitizenshipWealthy Americans Renouncing their Citizenship]]>3137falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dr-jeff-singer-on-prescription-drug-freedom--47748694Reformation in prescription drug policy.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fb93ce9773f2a69297c05dbSat, 21 Nov 2020 16:28:28 +0000Bob ZadekThe Doctor for Liberty on his new Cato White Paper, calling for a Reformation in prescription drug policy.Reformation in prescription drug policy.]]>3146falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/students-not-systems--4774872153615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fac19baa3f40d428ded1570Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:58:58 +0000Bob ZadekCorey DeAngelis argues for funding students – not systems.3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-trustbusting-big-tech-is-a-bad-idea--4774879253615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5fa2fa068e60495399612388Wed, 04 Nov 2020 19:34:15 +0000Bob ZadekRyan Young’s Case Against Antitrust is more important than ever.3141falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-wrong-with-winner-takes-all-another-look-at-the-electoral-college--47748711Electoral College system.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f9af528497d9e59e9f83f37Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:43:26 +0000Bob ZadekCalifornia politician Ray Haynes on reforming the “Winner-takes-all” Electoral College system.Electoral College system.]]>3128falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mandatory-ppe--4774865753615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f91e238044fde04ce29da22Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:49:12 +0000Bob ZadekKevin Vallier on restoring Trust in a Polarized Age3075falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/populism-201-advanced-topics-in-american-democracy--47748700book *Pitchfork Populism: 10 Politcal Forces that Shaped an Election and
Continue to Change America]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f849aefd9ae0823ed69affcFri, 16 Oct 2020 00:49:07 +0000Bob ZadekAttorney and author Bradford R. Kane joins the show of ideas to discuss his book *Pitchfork Populism: 10 Politcal Forces that Shaped an Election and Continue to Change Americabook *Pitchfork Populism: 10 Politcal Forces that Shaped an Election and
Continue to Change America]]>3112falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/amy-coney-barrett-on-trial--47748712ACB’s confirmation hearings, beginning this week.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f7fe6905e38f224fe1659d8Fri, 09 Oct 2020 04:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekConstitutional lawyer Randy Barnett weighs in on the looming battle over ACB’s confirmation hearings, beginning this week.ACB’s confirmation hearings, beginning this week.]]>3110falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-ethnic-studies-curriculum-vs-trump-s-patriotic-education--47883543
The English poet and literary critic Samuel Johnson is often remembered for his exclamation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” A Washington Post journalist recently channeled this sentiment in comparing President Trump’s proposal for a national patriotic education commission to authoritarian propaganda taught in China, Turkey and Hungary.

In fairness to patriots, Samuel Johnson was only criticizing false patriotism used to cover up for ulterior motives. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead behind the NY Times' controversial 1619 Project, levies this accusation against the Founding Fathers. She claims the American Revolution was not really about independence, but rather slavery. This same narrative has been embraced in California's new ethnic studies curriculum, but not everyone is having it.

Williamson M. Evers Ph.D is the Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Educational Excellence. A founding member of the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, Evers has been warning about the watering down of educational standards in the name of diversity. Evers will join me this Sunday to explain the bewildering vocabulary being taught to schoolchildren, from "Hxrstory" to "Master narrative." This is a must-listen for those who were perplexed during this week’s Presidential debate, when Biden claimed that "critical race theory" was really just another term for racial sensitivity training.

Trump’s “1776 Commission” represents a challenge to the apparent bias of the 1619 Project and related ethnic studies classes. Where the media sees signs of a spiral towards fascism in the attempt to dictate a national curriculum, conservatives see an effort to reverse decades of indoctrination by public schools.

The unpopularity of America’s founding ideals within academia has trickled down to the elementary and secondary school curricula, where students in California, for example, spend little time learning basic civics or American history. Meanwhile, the left seems to once again be rediscovering the principles of Federalism – arguing that the federal government should stay out of the business of local school districts.

To his credit, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed the latest bill, which would have required all California high-schoolers to take an ethnic studies course to graduate.

Does the President's commission represent the true patriotism of the American founders or is it, as Johnson put it, the last refuge of scoundrels?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47883543Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:45:00 +0000Bob Zadek[NOTE: My new book *Essential Liberty: Finding Freedom in a Post-COVID World* is now available on Amazon. Buy it now or read more below.] The English poet and literary critic Samuel Johnson is often remembered for his exclamation, “Patriotism is the...
The English poet and literary critic Samuel Johnson is often remembered for his exclamation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” A Washington Post journalist recently channeled this sentiment in comparing President Trump’s proposal for a national patriotic education commission to authoritarian propaganda taught in China, Turkey and Hungary.

In fairness to patriots, Samuel Johnson was only criticizing false patriotism used to cover up for ulterior motives. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead behind the NY Times' controversial 1619 Project, levies this accusation against the Founding Fathers. She claims the American Revolution was not really about independence, but rather slavery. This same narrative has been embraced in California's new ethnic studies curriculum, but not everyone is having it.

Williamson M. Evers Ph.D is the Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Educational Excellence. A founding member of the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, Evers has been warning about the watering down of educational standards in the name of diversity. Evers will join me this Sunday to explain the bewildering vocabulary being taught to schoolchildren, from "Hxrstory" to "Master narrative." This is a must-listen for those who were perplexed during this week’s Presidential debate, when Biden claimed that "critical race theory" was really just another term for racial sensitivity training.

Trump’s “1776 Commission” represents a challenge to the apparent bias of the 1619 Project and related ethnic studies classes. Where the media sees signs of a spiral towards fascism in the attempt to dictate a national curriculum, conservatives see an effort to reverse decades of indoctrination by public schools.

The unpopularity of America’s founding ideals within academia has trickled down to the elementary and secondary school curricula, where students in California, for example, spend little time learning basic civics or American history. Meanwhile, the left seems to once again be rediscovering the principles of Federalism – arguing that the federal government should stay out of the business of local school districts.

To his credit, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed the latest bill, which would have required all California high-schoolers to take an ethnic studies course to graduate.

Does the President's commission represent the true patriotism of the American founders or is it, as Johnson put it, the last refuge of scoundrels?]]>3065falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-ethnic-studies-curriculum-vs-trump-s-patriotic-education--47748727Propaganda]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f75fae9883c6055aa1cf8c8Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:00:20 +0000Bob ZadekWilliamson Evers of the Independent Institute on California’s Educational PropagandaPropaganda]]>3065falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/eight-dimensional-chess--4774866353615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f6cfbe186585e0746b49f10Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:54:03 +0000Bob ZadekJosh Blackman on the future of the Supreme Court3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vote-to-float--47748696Seasteads & More]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f639ce0f0451c1266ac6877Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:22:05 +0000Bob ZadekJoe Quirk and Tom W. Bell on Private Governance: Free Ports, SEZs, Seasteads & MoreSeasteads & More]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-we-know-who-the-president-is-on-november-4--4774864553615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f5abe236f323f36b67f25e8Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:45:35 +0000Bob ZadekPeter Wallison on the Electoral College and Mail-in Ballots3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-kamala-harris-hopes-we-will-forget--4774871053615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f4e5832e22c90725979c27dFri, 04 Sep 2020 15:39:26 +0000Bob ZadekQuentin Kopp on Kamala Harris’s sketchy early career as a California DA.2430falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-decline-of-american-independence--47748717American small business.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f47fcaa734c5b73ce5b0d22Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:19:31 +0000Bob ZadekSo this is how the Republic dies? Robert C. Wright on the attack on American small business.American small business.]]>3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-re-hired-chief-economic-adviser-to-trump-on-what-it-s-really-like-to-work-in-the-white-house--47748661economic adviser.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f3eb2819f4ddb37e3fcc241Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:49:23 +0000Bob ZadekUniversity of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan on his time as Trump’s top economic adviser.economic adviser.]]>3090falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/back-to-school-a-history-lesson-from-the-1918-pandemic--47748725of the 1918 flu pandemic and its lessons for today.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f36aee1d76ee3582c255392Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:33:56 +0000Bob ZadekRon Jones, physical educator and historical kinesiologist, on the history of the 1918 flu pandemic and its lessons for today.of the 1918 flu pandemic and its lessons for today.]]>3019falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/reversing-the-ratchet--4774865853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f297b9bab906c1dbabac8b3Wed, 05 Aug 2020 15:33:51 +0000Bob ZadekRyan “Reg-of-the-day” Young of CEI on the Remedy for a Novel Recession3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-mini-administrative-state--47748698unconstitutional lockdowns in the states.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f22fc335415b9728ee8d96dThu, 30 Jul 2020 18:08:54 +0000Bob ZadekGlenn Roper of the Pacific Legal Foundation reviews the legal challenges to unconstitutional lockdowns in the states.unconstitutional lockdowns in the states.]]>3123falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ratchet-effect-in-real-time--47748676responsibilities.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f1871eb7e95ed6167b8f3f4Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:15:49 +0000Bob ZadekPortland is turning into the test-case for federal incursions on states’ responsibilities.responsibilities.]]>3151falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-new-union-gag-order-violates-1st-amendment--47748669Barke on California’s unconstitutional Section 3550]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f0f099f6091360aefec4189Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:05:20 +0000Bob ZadekTerry Pell of the Center for Individual Rights and his plaintiff Jeffrey Barke on California’s unconstitutional Section 3550Barke on California’s unconstitutional Section 3550]]>3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-government-regulation-of-tech-censorship-is-undesirable--47748714Board.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5f0740d6406e702802923c45Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:18:01 +0000Bob ZadekCato Vice President John Samples on his role on the Facebook Oversight Board.Board.]]>3137falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/terrible-new-worker-protection-laws-threaten-the-gig-economy--47748701worker protection laws hurt those they’re supposed to help.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5efd0fc6aece803352b4fe5cWed, 01 Jul 2020 23:04:06 +0000Bob ZadekAward-winning freelance writer Kim Kavin writes in Reason Magazine how new worker protection laws hurt those they’re supposed to help.worker protection laws hurt those they’re supposed to help.]]>3102falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/conscription-gets-a-face-lift--4774870953615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ef61786e152377cff216643Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:54:18 +0000Bob ZadekWarren C. Gibson writes in AIER on the dangers of national service.3109falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/here-comes-the-spike--47748729the COVID-19 lockdowns.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5eebad2755fc9f78258d0a7fFri, 19 Jun 2020 01:10:29 +0000Bob ZadekThe Doctor 4 Liberty joins the show of ideas to disucss trade-offs during the COVID-19 lockdowns.the COVID-19 lockdowns.]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-cities--47748677elites, and the future of cities.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ee2953012206419c0fa1450Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:32:05 +0000Bob ZadekAEI’s Brent Orrell – host of the Hardly Working podcast – on pandemics, elites, and the future of cities.elites, and the future of cities.]]>3126falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-unprecedented-opportunity-to-revisit-unqualified-immunity--47748659Law Warrior” Clark Neily, Jr.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5edeae358e3c56239550dc71Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:53:39 +0000Bob ZadekCivil Liability is the Remedy for Police Brutality, says “Constitutional Law Warrior” Clark Neily, Jr.Law Warrior” Clark Neily, Jr.]]>3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/immigration-myth-busting-redux--47748704busters.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5d8b9dc186d9f117ace4919eThu, 28 May 2020 22:00:14 +0000Bob ZadekAlex Nowrasteh returns for a special COVID-19 edition of immigration myth busters.busters.]]>3088falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/commonsense-covid-response--4774868853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ec47e3250673f7264e92bbaWed, 20 May 2020 01:41:17 +0000Bob ZadekSupervisor Jeff Hewitt is challenging the County Health Officer on the re-opening of Riverside County. 3120falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/foot-voting-ballot-voting--4774864853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ebd865348622e1c745184b2Thu, 14 May 2020 17:56:35 +0000Bob ZadekProfessor Ilya Somin has a new treatise on the case for voting with your feet.3133falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/john-tamny-on-experts-vs-the-wisdom-of-markets--4774870653615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5eb4e12c40adff0e80f647f9Fri, 08 May 2020 04:46:59 +0000Bob ZadekThe wisdom of crowds is an extension of the wisdom of markets – and it's better than most experts at processing information.3121falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-lending-after-covid-19--47748655Warren Buffett]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ead984ce85df0557fbedbbdSat, 02 May 2020 16:35:14 +0000Bob Zadek“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.” - Warren BuffettWarren Buffett]]>3789falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/prime-time-for-the-prime-act--4774868353615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5eab19ce981ccd458df2d613Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:45:02 +0000Bob Zadek“FOOD SHORTAGES ARE COMING” warns Rep. Thomas Massie.3101falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste--4774872653615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5ea308c5c50a6c61eaebc2e5Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:59:33 +0000Bob ZadekRandal O'Toole on Rethinking Public Transit post-COVID3114falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/did-california-just-declare-itself-a-nation-state--4774871853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e99e01bd784e470b57bcc41Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:58:25 +0000Bob ZadekFrank Buckley’s Predictions from American Secession are Looking Pretty Good Right Now3116falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/unprepared-government-failure-at-the-cdc-fda--4774870753615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e8f98caaf6f47477ebe8332Thu, 09 Apr 2020 22:22:20 +0000Bob ZadekAlex Tabarrok on the CDC and FDA’s ‘Failure of Historic Proportions’3089falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-single-most-common-economic-fallacy-in-covid-19-reporting--47748691and political errors being rushed through the Coronavirus pandemic.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e84a936130f6208e6b9e1f6Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:49:04 +0000Bob ZadekDon Boudreaux channels Robert Higgs and Friedrich Bastiat on the economic and political errors being rushed through the Coronavirus pandemic.and political errors being rushed through the Coronavirus pandemic.]]>3106falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-stay-sane-as-a-libertarian-on-lockdown--47748719weigh it against the economic controls being used to counter it.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e7e1a365ae8b938957a6a56Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:13:51 +0000Bob ZadekJacob Sullum helps Bob look at the latest data on Coronavirus calmly, and weigh it against the economic controls being used to counter it.weigh it against the economic controls being used to counter it.]]>3141falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/homelessness-housing-policy-in-the-golden-state--4774871653615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e6fa552aecb6364dfb11480Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:25:29 +0000Bob ZadekHow to Restore the California Dream with Lawrence J. McQuillan3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dubious-morality-of-the-modern-administrative-state--47748670it wanting]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e6a643fce8c66661a5c2136Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:08:41 +0000Bob ZadekProfessor Richard A. Epstein’s new book weights it in the balance and finds it wantingit wanting]]>3133falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-leverage-resources-within-the-liberty-movement--47906060
While occupational licensing and rolling back the administrative state may not be the most glamorous causes, I never tire of covering the work of organizations like the Institute for Justice in their fight against the most pervasive and regressive forms of government overreach.

Much like the entrepreneurs they serve, the Atlas Network also leverages scarce resources for maximum impact. They have cultivated a global network of think tanks working behind the scenes to advance free market competition and accelerate international development.

While the “problem” of development has stymied well-funded academics, and supranational government bodies, Atlas has used the same “engage and exchange” formula time and time again to spur growth and entrepreneurship without accepting a penny from any government or quasi-government institutions.
How?

Matt Warner, the Atlas Network’s president, reveals the secrets in his new book Poverty and Freedom: Case Studies on Global Economic Development. Warner recognizes development as an opportunity – not a problem. The case studies from the dozens of Atlas-supported think tanks around the world show that solutions are not handed down from on high by all-knowing government officials but discovered on the ground. Through the broader Poverty and Freedom initiative, Atlas Network is “harnessing local visions for change to free people to carve paths out of poverty.” The secret is property rights, aligning incentives, finding key partners and building bottom-up coalitions. Warner is a dissenter in the world of development economics and a self-described “positive deviant.”

In addition to summarizing uplifting case studies ranging from prison reform in the state of Georgia to innovative land rights reform in Ukraine, each chapter ends with important questions for everyone in the liberty movement (not to mention entrepreneurs, parents, and community leaders) such as:

How can I make the most of my scarce resources?

How can I communicate effectively to politicians and people in power?

How can I be a “positive deviant” and what unlikely innovations could I harness in pursuit of my unique mission?

If I am determined to achieve even more than I am now, what peers can I choose that are most relevant for a motivating comparison—and from whom can I learn the most?

If you need a break from all of the doom and gloom of current events, do yourself a favor and read Matt’s book – or tune in live to the show of ideas (never-ever, not one single time, the show of attitude). The arc of history is long, but it bends toward freedom.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47906060Wed, 04 Mar 2020 17:12:00 +0000Bob ZadekMy show has always been about promoting ideas that lead to a flourishing, free society. I try to leverage my resources to spotlight issues that are neglected by shallow politicians and mainstream media (see my free guide to *The Shallow State* for...
While occupational licensing and rolling back the administrative state may not be the most glamorous causes, I never tire of covering the work of organizations like the Institute for Justice in their fight against the most pervasive and regressive forms of government overreach.

Much like the entrepreneurs they serve, the Atlas Network also leverages scarce resources for maximum impact. They have cultivated a global network of think tanks working behind the scenes to advance free market competition and accelerate international development.

While the “problem” of development has stymied well-funded academics, and supranational government bodies, Atlas has used the same “engage and exchange” formula time and time again to spur growth and entrepreneurship without accepting a penny from any government or quasi-government institutions.
How?

Matt Warner, the Atlas Network’s president, reveals the secrets in his new book Poverty and Freedom: Case Studies on Global Economic Development. Warner recognizes development as an opportunity – not a problem. The case studies from the dozens of Atlas-supported think tanks around the world show that solutions are not handed down from on high by all-knowing government officials but discovered on the ground. Through the broader Poverty and Freedom initiative, Atlas Network is “harnessing local visions for change to free people to carve paths out of poverty.” The secret is property rights, aligning incentives, finding key partners and building bottom-up coalitions. Warner is a dissenter in the world of development economics and a self-described “positive deviant.”

In addition to summarizing uplifting case studies ranging from prison reform in the state of Georgia to innovative land rights reform in Ukraine, each chapter ends with important questions for everyone in the liberty movement (not to mention entrepreneurs, parents, and community leaders) such as:

How can I make the most of my scarce resources?

How can I communicate effectively to politicians and people in power?

How can I be a “positive deviant” and what unlikely innovations could I harness in pursuit of my unique mission?

If I am determined to achieve even more than I am now, what peers can I choose that are most relevant for a motivating comparison—and from whom can I learn the most?

If you need a break from all of the doom and gloom of current events, do yourself a favor and read Matt’s book – or tune in live to the show of ideas (never-ever, not one single time, the show of attitude). The arc of history is long, but it bends toward freedom.]]>3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/reviewing-judicial-review--4774866453615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e4f34b253e3bb524c77b016Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:40:52 +0000Bob ZadekAdvanced Topics in American Government with Keith Whittington3133falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-government-can-t-save-us-from-coronavirus--47748665Research, brings integrity, research and principles to the coronavirus
issue.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e4563eff157385d7a908525Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:12:10 +0000Bob ZadekJeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research, brings integrity, research and principles to the coronavirus issue.Research, brings integrity, research and principles to the coronavirus
issue.]]>3112falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop--4774870853615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e3b709bafa7a94dda572d08Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:16:43 +0000Bob ZadekWe know the two-party system is flawed. Is it completely busted?3126falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/remember-when-kids-were-free-to-be-kids--47748722show to discuss the latest trends in coddling vs. free range parenting.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e2f7f75244c017aba14387fTue, 28 Jan 2020 00:26:09 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, Lenore Skenazy - aka the “World’s Worst Mom” - returns to the show to discuss the latest trends in coddling vs. free range parenting.show to discuss the latest trends in coddling vs. free range parenting.]]>3145falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/withholding-judgment-on-impeachment-with-john-rothmann--47748720their ideological blinders off?]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e2ce8cc47e55f1b48720131Sun, 26 Jan 2020 02:22:03 +0000Bob ZadekHow would the analysis of the impeachment saga change if everyone took their ideological blinders off?their ideological blinders off?]]>3145falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-really-to-blame-for-california-and-australia-wildfires--47748695climate change, says CEI’s Myron Ebell.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e1f514a966d9f0902c55f08Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:05:13 +0000Bob ZadekAlarmist greens have created a fire hazard that they’re now using to blame climate change, says CEI’s Myron Ebell.climate change, says CEI’s Myron Ebell.]]>3132falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/secession-a-how-to-guide--47748728letting states go their own way, and lays out a constitutional pathway for
it to happen.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e0a6da49566840b8a25d2dfSun, 12 Jan 2020 21:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekFrank Buckley’s American Secession presents a convincing argument for letting states go their own way, and lays out a constitutional pathway for it to happen.letting states go their own way, and lays out a constitutional pathway for
it to happen.]]>3091falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rethinking-afghanistan-with-jonathan-bydlak--47748723numbers for the War in Afghanistan in the wake of the Afghanistan Papers.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e0f763fe667e33de2169740Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:46:51 +0000Bob ZadekJonathan Bydlak of the Institute for Spending Reform reviews the budget numbers for the War in Afghanistan in the wake of the Afghanistan Papers.numbers for the War in Afghanistan in the wake of the Afghanistan Papers.]]>3090falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rethinking-afghanistan-with-jonathan-bydlak--47909891George W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. And Trump promised to end it, but hasn’t.

Ready for some depressing numbers? Take a deep breath:

2.5 Trillion – the total cost of the War in Afghanistan (including indirect costs such as military benefits and medical expenses), as estimated by the Institute for Spending Reform

2,400 - The number of U.S. military casualties since the start of the war.

18 - the number of years we’ve been in Afghanistan (note that babies born after 9/11 are now eligible to serve in the “war on terror”)

21 - the number of veterans who commit suicide every day.

For those who were paying attention, the recently released “Afghanistan Papers” showed that all of this has been for virtually nothing. They also revealed the extent to which we’ve been lied to with each extension of our military presence in the region.

The one silver lining is that it’s not too late to get out of Afghanistan – or at least to draw down troops to a bare minimum. Jonathan Bydlak, President of the Institute for Spending Reform, released a report that puts the costs of the War in Afghanistan in perspective, and proposes potential savings of up to $400 billion over the next four years.

President Trump take note: Americans and military alike support an end to the War in Afghanistan. Drawing down just 5,400 troops would generate massive savings for the American taxpayer. What are you waiting for?

I discuss the new report, and the broader implications of the Afghanistan Papers (which went largely unnoticed by the media at large).
Learn why Ron Paul called the War in Afghanistan the “Crime of the Century.”]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47909891Thu, 02 Jan 2020 22:06:00 +0000Bob ZadekWe are now on our third President acting as commander-in-chief in the “Forever War.” George W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. And Trump promised to end it, but hasn’t. Ready for some depressing numbers? Take a deep breath: 2.5 Trillion – the...George W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. And Trump promised to end it, but hasn’t.

Ready for some depressing numbers? Take a deep breath:

2.5 Trillion – the total cost of the War in Afghanistan (including indirect costs such as military benefits and medical expenses), as estimated by the Institute for Spending Reform

2,400 - The number of U.S. military casualties since the start of the war.

18 - the number of years we’ve been in Afghanistan (note that babies born after 9/11 are now eligible to serve in the “war on terror”)

21 - the number of veterans who commit suicide every day.

For those who were paying attention, the recently released “Afghanistan Papers” showed that all of this has been for virtually nothing. They also revealed the extent to which we’ve been lied to with each extension of our military presence in the region.

The one silver lining is that it’s not too late to get out of Afghanistan – or at least to draw down troops to a bare minimum. Jonathan Bydlak, President of the Institute for Spending Reform, released a report that puts the costs of the War in Afghanistan in perspective, and proposes potential savings of up to $400 billion over the next four years.

President Trump take note: Americans and military alike support an end to the War in Afghanistan. Drawing down just 5,400 troops would generate massive savings for the American taxpayer. What are you waiting for?

I discuss the new report, and the broader implications of the Afghanistan Papers (which went largely unnoticed by the media at large).
Learn why Ron Paul called the War in Afghanistan the “Crime of the Century.”]]>3090falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/close-enough-to-socialism-amity-schlaes-on-the-great-society--47748715the Great Society demonstrates.]]>53615d24e4b0a4907f99ed24:53712d65e4b0bbcc0ca11cad:5e010e1c75039d1bb1bc8353Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:57:00 +0000Bob ZadekJust flirting with socialism is still dangerous, as the lasting damage of the Great Society demonstrates.the Great Society demonstrates.]]>3127falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/which-impeachment-movie-are-you-watching--47953667
Don’t miss it.

Scott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we’re watching two different movies on the same screen.

Impeachment is the prime example. I present two different movies:

Judge Napolitano told Nick Gillespie that “at least three or four articles” of impeachment could have been drafted.

Richard Epstein, on the other hand, called the original impeachment charge “ludicrous.”

The charge of obstruction of congress is even more complex. Who can I turn to in a situation like this?

I usually turn to my favorite scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Hoover, but in this case, the layers of disagreement, nuance, and partisan spin have made it nearly impossible to figure out who’s right.

Thankfully, Gene Healy – vice president at the Cato Institute – has a new cover story for Reason Magazine, appropriately titled, “Don’t Freak Out About Impeachment.”

So, did Trump actually commit an impeachable offense?
Perhaps, Healy suggests, we should set aside the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky for a moment:

"The third-rate shakedown attempt of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July…"
– Gene Healy,
As he pointed out in his 2018 report The Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power, impeachment is an underutilized process for reigning in the executive branch. Has Trump abused his power significantly in the past 3 years? A better question might be whether the “cult of the presidency” has grown so large and unwieldy that anyone who takes the job is implicitly agreeing to an “abuse of power”?

Maybe we should always demand that Congress impeach every president immediately after the election so that the legislature can get on with legislating. Of course, these days Congress prefers to even defer its job of lawmaking to the administrative agencies of the executive branch…

In a short video for the Cato Institute, Healy quotes founding father Elbridge Gerry, who said, “A good magistrate will not fear impeachments and a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”

With impeachment, Healy should have gotten his wish, but if it doesn’t hurt Trump politically, perhaps Congress should look less at partisan politics and more at the real abuses of power by the executive branch:

The military-industrial complex (including drone strikes on American citizens)

Usurpation of congress’s lawmaking authority

The corruption of science via technocratic administrative rule

Stealthy “midnight regulation”

Just to name a few that I cover in my new report on the administrative bureaucracy – a “shallow state” lurking in the swamps of DC that rivals the deep state in its unaccountable control over our lives.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953667Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekGene Healy and I broke down the articles of impeachment, and discussed the role of impeachment in restraining an unconstrained executive branch. Don’t miss it. Scott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we’re watching two different...
Don’t miss it.

Scott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we’re watching two different movies on the same screen.

Impeachment is the prime example. I present two different movies:

Judge Napolitano told Nick Gillespie that “at least three or four articles” of impeachment could have been drafted.

Richard Epstein, on the other hand, called the original impeachment charge “ludicrous.”

The charge of obstruction of congress is even more complex. Who can I turn to in a situation like this?

I usually turn to my favorite scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Hoover, but in this case, the layers of disagreement, nuance, and partisan spin have made it nearly impossible to figure out who’s right.

Thankfully, Gene Healy – vice president at the Cato Institute – has a new cover story for Reason Magazine, appropriately titled, “Don’t Freak Out About Impeachment.”

So, did Trump actually commit an impeachable offense?
Perhaps, Healy suggests, we should set aside the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky for a moment:

"The third-rate shakedown attempt of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July…"
– Gene Healy,
As he pointed out in his 2018 report The Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power, impeachment is an underutilized process for reigning in the executive branch. Has Trump abused his power significantly in the past 3 years? A better question might be whether the “cult of the presidency” has grown so large and unwieldy that anyone who takes the job is implicitly agreeing to an “abuse of power”?

Maybe we should always demand that Congress impeach every president immediately after the election so that the legislature can get on with legislating. Of course, these days Congress prefers to even defer its job of lawmaking to the administrative agencies of the executive branch…

In a short video for the Cato Institute, Healy quotes founding father Elbridge Gerry, who said, “A good magistrate will not fear impeachments and a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”

With impeachment, Healy should have gotten his wish, but if it doesn’t hurt Trump politically, perhaps Congress should look less at partisan politics and more at the real abuses of power by the executive branch:

The military-industrial complex (including drone strikes on American citizens)

Usurpation of congress’s lawmaking authority

The corruption of science via technocratic administrative rule

Stealthy “midnight regulation”

Just to name a few that I cover in my new report on the administrative bureaucracy – a “shallow state” lurking in the swamps of DC that rivals the deep state in its unaccountable control over our lives.]]>3129falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/brian-d-kelly-on-the-false-promise-of-policing-for-profit--47910148
Brian D. Kelly, PhD — associate professor of economics at Seattle University — recently authored a report titled, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue?”, which continues the outstanding work of the Institute for Justice in pushing back against governmental abuses of power. The report takes detailed data on civil asset forfeiture and looks at how effective it is at stopping crime. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions would have us believe that…

“[C]ivil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels.”

The data, however, suggests a different theory: civil asset forfeiture is not primarily a tool for fighting crime, but rather for raising revenue in cash-strapped localities.

I’ve covered this practice periodically since Sarah Stillman brought it to the attention of the readers of The New Yorker in 2013. The cases spotlighted by Stillman and the IJ have included the most egregious abuses of power — and rightly so. As the nation’s leading public interest law firm, the IJ has used its limited resources masterfully to set solid precedents for the future. Most recently, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, the IJ helped persuade the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of a man whose expensive vehicle was seized in connection with a low-level drug offense. The value of the vehicle was well in excess of the maximum fine laid out by the State of Indiana, leading the court to overturn a lower ruling based on the “excessive fines” clause of the 8th amendment.

Kelly, on the other hand, relies less on the anomalies to make his case, instead demonstrating how ineffective the practice is on the whole in achieving its stated aims.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47910148Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekIf you’re not outraged by civil asset forfeiture, you’re not paying attention. Many states have passed laws protecting their citizens from this “for-profit policing”, in which law enforcement seizes private property connected to alleged crimes before...
Brian D. Kelly, PhD — associate professor of economics at Seattle University — recently authored a report titled, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue?”, which continues the outstanding work of the Institute for Justice in pushing back against governmental abuses of power. The report takes detailed data on civil asset forfeiture and looks at how effective it is at stopping crime. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions would have us believe that…

“[C]ivil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels.”

The data, however, suggests a different theory: civil asset forfeiture is not primarily a tool for fighting crime, but rather for raising revenue in cash-strapped localities.

I’ve covered this practice periodically since Sarah Stillman brought it to the attention of the readers of The New Yorker in 2013. The cases spotlighted by Stillman and the IJ have included the most egregious abuses of power — and rightly so. As the nation’s leading public interest law firm, the IJ has used its limited resources masterfully to set solid precedents for the future. Most recently, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, the IJ helped persuade the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of a man whose expensive vehicle was seized in connection with a low-level drug offense. The value of the vehicle was well in excess of the maximum fine laid out by the State of Indiana, leading the court to overturn a lower ruling based on the “excessive fines” clause of the 8th amendment.

Kelly, on the other hand, relies less on the anomalies to make his case, instead demonstrating how ineffective the practice is on the whole in achieving its stated aims.]]>3103falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fergus-hodgson-on-the-fintech-revolution-competitive-governance--47916735
In a recent article for the Epoch Times (How the Fintech Revolution Could Liberate Us, March 22, 2019), Fergus Hodgson argues that decentralized government-service-providers are primed to outcompete clunky 20th-century states in the 21st century and beyond. He says that Bitcoin and the sharing economy are only the beginning of the ascent of digital governance.

This is a bold claim, and it’s not likely to be welcomed by the guardians of the established order. However, if history is our guide, a major change in governance cannot be stopped once structural and technological changes make it a necessity.

Once known as “the Stateless Man”, Fergus draws on his own experience as a digital nomad to make the case that all jurisdictions must think ahead to the inevitable changes coming.

He quotes fellow futurist-libertarian Max Borders, “Cryptocurrency and income tax cannot coexist,” and draws out the dire implications for raising revenue in the increasingly burdened welfare states of the western world. This is not to say that governments will not be able to fund any activity, but that they will need to think carefully – both about how they tax their citizens and, more importantly, the value they provide in return.

Does the U.S. run the risk of becoming a Venezuela if we do not adapt to the changing tides of technology?

I’m delighted to welcome Fergus back to the show of ideas this Sunday (12/8, 8-9am PACIFIC) to discuss his recent articles on everything from Airbnb and Ethereum, to competitive currencies, and the democratization of finance through crowdfunding.

We explore the analogy between governments as service providers and citizens as customers, and see what’s happening countries that are failing their “customers.” Finally, we will look at what makes countries like Liechtenstein and Switzerland potential models for “The State in the Third Millennium” (to borrow the title of a book by Prince Hans-Adams II – reigning monarch of Liechtenstein).

When the revolution arrives, you won’t want to be left behind. Subscribe to hear my full conversation with Fergus, and follow him on Twitter: @FergHodgson.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47916735Sun, 08 Dec 2019 12:47:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Fintech revolution is upon us. In a recent article for the Epoch Times (How the Fintech Revolution Could Liberate Us, March 22, 2019), Fergus Hodgson argues that decentralized government-service-providers are primed to outcompete clunky...
In a recent article for the Epoch Times (How the Fintech Revolution Could Liberate Us, March 22, 2019), Fergus Hodgson argues that decentralized government-service-providers are primed to outcompete clunky 20th-century states in the 21st century and beyond. He says that Bitcoin and the sharing economy are only the beginning of the ascent of digital governance.

This is a bold claim, and it’s not likely to be welcomed by the guardians of the established order. However, if history is our guide, a major change in governance cannot be stopped once structural and technological changes make it a necessity.

Once known as “the Stateless Man”, Fergus draws on his own experience as a digital nomad to make the case that all jurisdictions must think ahead to the inevitable changes coming.

He quotes fellow futurist-libertarian Max Borders, “Cryptocurrency and income tax cannot coexist,” and draws out the dire implications for raising revenue in the increasingly burdened welfare states of the western world. This is not to say that governments will not be able to fund any activity, but that they will need to think carefully – both about how they tax their citizens and, more importantly, the value they provide in return.

Does the U.S. run the risk of becoming a Venezuela if we do not adapt to the changing tides of technology?

I’m delighted to welcome Fergus back to the show of ideas this Sunday (12/8, 8-9am PACIFIC) to discuss his recent articles on everything from Airbnb and Ethereum, to competitive currencies, and the democratization of finance through crowdfunding.

We explore the analogy between governments as service providers and citizens as customers, and see what’s happening countries that are failing their “customers.” Finally, we will look at what makes countries like Liechtenstein and Switzerland potential models for “The State in the Third Millennium” (to borrow the title of a book by Prince Hans-Adams II – reigning monarch of Liechtenstein).

When the revolution arrives, you won’t want to be left behind. Subscribe to hear my full conversation with Fergus, and follow him on Twitter: @FergHodgson.]]>3126falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/c-bradley-thompson-on-america-s-revolutionary-mind--47910400
These words come from the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson’s monumental new book, America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.

To understand this important sentence, we must contrast this unholy union with the philosophical and moral idea both schools of thought sought to uproot. That opposing idea is best summed up by the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

What did the founders really mean when they penned the Declaration of Independence with words like “rights,” “liberty,” “equality,” and “the pursuit of happiness”?

While we don’t have direct access into the minds of the founders, Thompson’s book takes us as close as we can get. Using extensive quotations from letters, speeches, and essays from the founding period, he makes clear that the historical changes wrought by the American Revolution began in the hearts and minds of a small number of truly revolutionary statesmen.

Thompson, a political science professor and the Executive Director of Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC), is known for his studies of John Adams — the “colossus of liberty” who stood out even among his exceptional peers as the model revolutionary. What made these revolutionaries unique, Thompson writes, was their emphasis on moral philosophy in deducing sound principles for government.

As products and proponents of enlightenment era thought, the founders grounded their actions in the intellectual revolution brought about by figures like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. Armed with a new understanding of the physical and moral universe, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others were able to conceive of a new ideal of liberty. It was this spiritual victory that made the military victory against the British government possible (perhaps even inevitable).

Thompson goes on to ask, “What ever happened to the spirit of liberty in the United States?” Although the first century after the American founding continued the realization of this ideal — chiefly with the abolition of slavery — Thompson identifies a turning point in the early 20th century. The underlying philosophy of the defeated southern states did not disappear after the Civil War. Instead, it adopted fashionable historicist ideas coming out of Europe to cloak its opposition to the Declaration in so-called “progressive” thought.

The Revolutionary Wary was won more than 200 hundred years ago, but the battle continues to this day in new forms, as progressives seek to redefine liberty and equality, and downplay the unique genius of the framers of the Declaration of Independence.

Hear in the founders’ own words why the Declaration and Constitution furnish texts, “to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people.”

Lastly, learn what texts Thompson is using to educate the next generation of statesmen at Clemson — only on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47910400Mon, 02 Dec 2019 23:02:00 +0000Bob Zadek“We now live in a world wrought by the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought.” These words come from the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson’s monumental new book, America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the...
These words come from the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson’s monumental new book, America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.

To understand this important sentence, we must contrast this unholy union with the philosophical and moral idea both schools of thought sought to uproot. That opposing idea is best summed up by the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

What did the founders really mean when they penned the Declaration of Independence with words like “rights,” “liberty,” “equality,” and “the pursuit of happiness”?

While we don’t have direct access into the minds of the founders, Thompson’s book takes us as close as we can get. Using extensive quotations from letters, speeches, and essays from the founding period, he makes clear that the historical changes wrought by the American Revolution began in the hearts and minds of a small number of truly revolutionary statesmen.

Thompson, a political science professor and the Executive Director of Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC), is known for his studies of John Adams — the “colossus of liberty” who stood out even among his exceptional peers as the model revolutionary. What made these revolutionaries unique, Thompson writes, was their emphasis on moral philosophy in deducing sound principles for government.

As products and proponents of enlightenment era thought, the founders grounded their actions in the intellectual revolution brought about by figures like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. Armed with a new understanding of the physical and moral universe, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others were able to conceive of a new ideal of liberty. It was this spiritual victory that made the military victory against the British government possible (perhaps even inevitable).

Thompson goes on to ask, “What ever happened to the spirit of liberty in the United States?” Although the first century after the American founding continued the realization of this ideal — chiefly with the abolition of slavery — Thompson identifies a turning point in the early 20th century. The underlying philosophy of the defeated southern states did not disappear after the Civil War. Instead, it adopted fashionable historicist ideas coming out of Europe to cloak its opposition to the Declaration in so-called “progressive” thought.

The Revolutionary Wary was won more than 200 hundred years ago, but the battle continues to this day in new forms, as progressives seek to redefine liberty and equality, and downplay the unique genius of the framers of the Declaration of Independence.

Hear in the founders’ own words why the Declaration and Constitution furnish texts, “to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people.”

Lastly, learn what texts Thompson is using to educate the next generation of statesmen at Clemson — only on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3116falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/daniel-markovits-on-the-de-merits-of-meritocracy--47910318
In the past, the working class earned that designation by working much longer hours than the bankers, lawyers, and landlords. But today, the situation has reversed and the wealthiest Americans work longer hours under insane pressures to achieve.

Daniel Markovitz, Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School, is a brave man to advance elite exploitation as an argument against meritocracy . This is  just one of the contrarian claims that underlie The Meritocracy Trap, Markovitz’s challenge to “America’s foundational myth.”

The Founders directed their screeds at a royal aristocracy, which the American experiment intended to replace with a republic governed by the most virtuous and talented citizens (regardless of their bloodline).

However, Markovitz argues, dynastic succession is still the reality in America. Children of elite parents are under intense competitive pressures to excel— first educationally and later in their workplace achievements. This hyper-meritocracy is increasingly felt as a burden both to the parents and children, and many are starting to question whether the rat race is worth it.

When I first came across Markovitz’ argument on Vox, I was taken aback by the mere suggestion that there is a fundamental problem with meritocracy — as if being rewarded for hard work is a bad thing. But The Meritocracy Trap makes a more a subtle point about how social polarization ends up harming both the elites and working class.

In studying his arguments, I’ve come to see that the forces driving elites to accumulate more and more expertise and human capital are the same forces expanding the power of bureaucrats in the administrative state.

Clearly there’s more to this picture than meets the eye.

You won’t want to miss what is a lively discussion with my guest this past Sunday (11/24), Daniel Markovitz.

Follow Daniel on Twitter (@dsmarkovits), buy the book, and be sure to tune in to the show of ideas, not attitude:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47910318Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt’s not every day that you hear about the “exploitation of the elite.” Usually, it’s the rich and powerful who are allegedly exploiting the poor and disenfranchised. In the past, the working class earned that designation by working much longer hours...
In the past, the working class earned that designation by working much longer hours than the bankers, lawyers, and landlords. But today, the situation has reversed and the wealthiest Americans work longer hours under insane pressures to achieve.

Daniel Markovitz, Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School, is a brave man to advance elite exploitation as an argument against meritocracy . This is  just one of the contrarian claims that underlie The Meritocracy Trap, Markovitz’s challenge to “America’s foundational myth.”

The Founders directed their screeds at a royal aristocracy, which the American experiment intended to replace with a republic governed by the most virtuous and talented citizens (regardless of their bloodline).

However, Markovitz argues, dynastic succession is still the reality in America. Children of elite parents are under intense competitive pressures to excel— first educationally and later in their workplace achievements. This hyper-meritocracy is increasingly felt as a burden both to the parents and children, and many are starting to question whether the rat race is worth it.

When I first came across Markovitz’ argument on Vox, I was taken aback by the mere suggestion that there is a fundamental problem with meritocracy — as if being rewarded for hard work is a bad thing. But The Meritocracy Trap makes a more a subtle point about how social polarization ends up harming both the elites and working class.

In studying his arguments, I’ve come to see that the forces driving elites to accumulate more and more expertise and human capital are the same forces expanding the power of bureaucrats in the administrative state.

Clearly there’s more to this picture than meets the eye.

You won’t want to miss what is a lively discussion with my guest this past Sunday (11/24), Daniel Markovitz.

Follow Daniel on Twitter (@dsmarkovits), buy the book, and be sure to tune in to the show of ideas, not attitude:]]>3121falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-rothwell-on-market-egalitarianism--47910550
Two data points are informative.

Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes.

Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be unlikely to be held accountable any time soon.

Perhaps even more seriously, however, Jonathan Rothwell believes that inequality and the political forces underlying it are actually undermining the public’s faith in our government.

He says that the wave of populist nationalism that swept Trump into office is driven by a deeper discontentment and insecurity resulting from widening income inequality. [Paradoxically, Rothwell argues that many of the same nativist attitudes are also cementing the very policies that are exacerbating unjust inequality.]

Buy the book

Of course, it’s vitally important in this debate to distinguish between inequality that is the result of people’s subjective preferences for work vs. leisure, that which is based on supply and demand, and that which is based on pure political privilege.

In his new book A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society, Rothwell ushers an impressive body of data to show just how much of the current inequality is caused not by free markets, but by the political powers that be. In doing so, he upsets both the right and the left’s narratives around inequality.

We do not live in a perfectly free market based on mutually-beneficial exchange. From education to housing, the current political system further rewards those who have already made it with additional spoils.

As a “market egalitarian,” Rothwell claims that we do not need government to act to redistribute unjustly acquired wealth so much as we need government to set the rules of the game such that incomes more closely align with relatively evenly-distributed abilities in the population. There’s a lot to unpack there.

I spend the full hour this Sunday dissecting the poll numbers in Jonathan’s book to determine whether his thesis is correct.

A Republic of Equals envisions what would happen naturally to equality of outcome if we stopped giving those with political power special access to markets and public services.

We discuss what count as “basic liberties,” and what government must do to ensure equal access to markets and the right to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Provide universal education? Job training for unemployed workers? Or simply get out of the way?

Don’t miss this show. Listen Now!]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47910550Sat, 09 Nov 2019 23:21:00 +0000Bob ZadekHave Americans become jaded by unjust inequality? Two data points are informative. Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes. Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be...
Two data points are informative.

Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes.

Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be unlikely to be held accountable any time soon.

Perhaps even more seriously, however, Jonathan Rothwell believes that inequality and the political forces underlying it are actually undermining the public’s faith in our government.

He says that the wave of populist nationalism that swept Trump into office is driven by a deeper discontentment and insecurity resulting from widening income inequality. [Paradoxically, Rothwell argues that many of the same nativist attitudes are also cementing the very policies that are exacerbating unjust inequality.]

Buy the book

Of course, it’s vitally important in this debate to distinguish between inequality that is the result of people’s subjective preferences for work vs. leisure, that which is based on supply and demand, and that which is based on pure political privilege.

In his new book A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society, Rothwell ushers an impressive body of data to show just how much of the current inequality is caused not by free markets, but by the political powers that be. In doing so, he upsets both the right and the left’s narratives around inequality.

We do not live in a perfectly free market based on mutually-beneficial exchange. From education to housing, the current political system further rewards those who have already made it with additional spoils.

As a “market egalitarian,” Rothwell claims that we do not need government to act to redistribute unjustly acquired wealth so much as we need government to set the rules of the game such that incomes more closely align with relatively evenly-distributed abilities in the population. There’s a lot to unpack there.

I spend the full hour this Sunday dissecting the poll numbers in Jonathan’s book to determine whether his thesis is correct.

A Republic of Equals envisions what would happen naturally to equality of outcome if we stopped giving those with political power special access to markets and public services.

We discuss what count as “basic liberties,” and what government must do to ensure equal access to markets and the right to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Provide universal education? Job training for unemployed workers? Or simply get out of the way?

Don’t miss this show. Listen Now!]]>3117falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-munger-is-taking-public-choice-seriously--47916644
How seriously?

So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs into its ugly twin: cronyism.

While public choice is best known for its analysis of the rational, self-interested behavior of so-called “public servants”, Munger steps back and asks when the rational interest of CEOs and corporate boards might also betray free market principles. In other words, does competitive rent-seeking becomes the norm in a world where executives are expected to get the sweetest deal possible from the government?

Is Capitalism Sustainable? is a collection of essays published by the American Institute for Economic Research that will provoke central planners and free-marketeers alike to consider how real-world frictions, ethical norms, and those pesky transaction costs muddy the waters of pure economic theory.

Find out what violations of norms provoked not one, but two old German women, to publicly shame Munger while he was living abroad… and what this has to be with the study of economics and political science.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47916644Sun, 03 Nov 2019 12:26:00 +0000Bob ZadekMike Munger is taking Public Choice seriously. How seriously? So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs...
How seriously?

So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs into its ugly twin: cronyism.

While public choice is best known for its analysis of the rational, self-interested behavior of so-called “public servants”, Munger steps back and asks when the rational interest of CEOs and corporate boards might also betray free market principles. In other words, does competitive rent-seeking becomes the norm in a world where executives are expected to get the sweetest deal possible from the government?

Is Capitalism Sustainable? is a collection of essays published by the American Institute for Economic Research that will provoke central planners and free-marketeers alike to consider how real-world frictions, ethical norms, and those pesky transaction costs muddy the waters of pure economic theory.

Find out what violations of norms provoked not one, but two old German women, to publicly shame Munger while he was living abroad… and what this has to be with the study of economics and political science.]]>3118falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rachel-barkow-on-fixing-the-fundamentals-of-criminal-justice--47916900
Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard on the “bad guys.”

From a public choice perspective, acting tough on crime is the perfect ploy for a politician. Here’s why:

Prison sentences are expensive long term, but cost little up front.

The politicians gets a quick boost in the polls, and society pays the majority of the cost later, once the perpetrators are released.

In short: A good mob needs a good scapegoat.
Tough on crime was the strategy that George HW Bush used to hammer Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

It’s also why Bill Clinton took time off the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled man in 1992.

Lastly, it’s why Trump frequently mentions atrocities committed by illegal immigrants in his speeches to packed arenas.

Rachel Elise Barkow is a professor of regulatory law and policy at NYU and author of Prisoners of Politics [Buy it on Amazon] – a comprehensive look at how our criminal justice system has turned the United States into the leader in incarceration. Barkow has come to the conclusion that mass incarceration is a product of too much democracy and not enough data.

Barkow’s Q&A with the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily (formerly of the Institute for Justice) is a fascinating survey of the abuses of power by federal prosecutors, who have turned plea bargains and mandatory minimums into coercive tools to deny the accused their right to a jury trial.

The Framers are rolling their graves.
While there are some silver linings, such as a bi-partisan reform that passed the Senate last year, the bitter truth is that the overall trend is toward more prisoners, more plea bargains, and more politics as usual.

New statutes consistently make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. Prosecutors are captured by special interests in law enforcement, and judges and politicians are afraid to appear lenient in the event that they let the next Willie Horton off the hook.

While no one wants to bring back Dukakis’ “weekend furloughs” for murder convicts, there are a range of common-sense reforms working their way through state and federal legislatures. These include clemency for non-violent, non-serious offenders, as well more data-driven proposals to reduce recividism rates.

A Necessary Function of the Administrative State?
Barkow’s solution to the mass incarceration crisis involves a greater role for the administrative state — the bureaucratic arm of the executive branch, which I’ve covered extensively on my show.

While most of my coverage has been negative, Barkow sheds some light on the question of when rule-by-expert might be preferable to pure democracy or congressional lawmaking. Congress could write the laws, but members of both parties seem to prefer scoring cheap political points through scapegoating over fixing a broken system.

Would an administrative agencies tasked with reforming the criminal justice system be subject to the same lobbying and electoral pressures as Congress?

Can data-driven experts fix the criminal justice system – or do we perhaps need a mass lesson in jury nullification?

Is more democratic participation or less needed to keep our prisons from filling up due for non-violent offenses?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47916900Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:54:00 +0000Bob Zadek“Tough-on-crime” is possibly the most abused political slogan – almost as bad as proposing a balanced budget by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard...
Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard on the “bad guys.”

From a public choice perspective, acting tough on crime is the perfect ploy for a politician. Here’s why:

Prison sentences are expensive long term, but cost little up front.

The politicians gets a quick boost in the polls, and society pays the majority of the cost later, once the perpetrators are released.

In short: A good mob needs a good scapegoat.
Tough on crime was the strategy that George HW Bush used to hammer Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

It’s also why Bill Clinton took time off the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled man in 1992.

Lastly, it’s why Trump frequently mentions atrocities committed by illegal immigrants in his speeches to packed arenas.

Rachel Elise Barkow is a professor of regulatory law and policy at NYU and author of Prisoners of Politics [Buy it on Amazon] – a comprehensive look at how our criminal justice system has turned the United States into the leader in incarceration. Barkow has come to the conclusion that mass incarceration is a product of too much democracy and not enough data.

Barkow’s Q&A with the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily (formerly of the Institute for Justice) is a fascinating survey of the abuses of power by federal prosecutors, who have turned plea bargains and mandatory minimums into coercive tools to deny the accused their right to a jury trial.

The Framers are rolling their graves.
While there are some silver linings, such as a bi-partisan reform that passed the Senate last year, the bitter truth is that the overall trend is toward more prisoners, more plea bargains, and more politics as usual.

New statutes consistently make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. Prosecutors are captured by special interests in law enforcement, and judges and politicians are afraid to appear lenient in the event that they let the next Willie Horton off the hook.

While no one wants to bring back Dukakis’ “weekend furloughs” for murder convicts, there are a range of common-sense reforms working their way through state and federal legislatures. These include clemency for non-violent, non-serious offenders, as well more data-driven proposals to reduce recividism rates.

A Necessary Function of the Administrative State?
Barkow’s solution to the mass incarceration crisis involves a greater role for the administrative state — the bureaucratic arm of the executive branch, which I’ve covered extensively on my show.

While most of my coverage has been negative, Barkow sheds some light on the question of when rule-by-expert might be preferable to pure democracy or congressional lawmaking. Congress could write the laws, but members of both parties seem to prefer scoring cheap political points through scapegoating over fixing a broken system.

Would an administrative agencies tasked with reforming the criminal justice system be subject to the same lobbying and electoral pressures as Congress?

Can data-driven experts fix the criminal justice system – or do we perhaps need a mass lesson in jury nullification?

Is more democratic participation or less needed to keep our prisons from filling up due for non-violent offenses?]]>3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/randall-g-holcombe-on-liberty-in-peril--47917985
Far from it.

It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it.

Today, most Americans think of “democracy” as the principle underlying government. In 1776, most Americans would have said “liberty.” Democracy was an after-thought, meant to keep elite powers at bay.

Hans Herman-Hoppe has called democracy "the God that failed." In his recently revised book Liberty in Peril, Independent Institute research fellow Randall Holcombe elaborates on the history of how the false idol of democracy has undermined freedom in America – and it's not pretty.

We must be reminded that democracy is not always in harmony with liberty.
Our Founders worried that the Constitution might lead to too much democracy, and judging by the results, it's hard to argue they were wrong.

Holcombe provides the long view in his new book.

The transformation of the U.S. from a republic, founded on libertarian principles, to a system of majority rule threatening our liberties didn’t happen overnight.

Listen now to hear the full history from a leading scholar of liberty.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917985Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:34:00 +0000Bob ZadekBeing against democracy does not make you an elitist. Far from it. It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it. Today, most Americans think of...
Far from it.

It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it.

Today, most Americans think of “democracy” as the principle underlying government. In 1776, most Americans would have said “liberty.” Democracy was an after-thought, meant to keep elite powers at bay.

Hans Herman-Hoppe has called democracy "the God that failed." In his recently revised book Liberty in Peril, Independent Institute research fellow Randall Holcombe elaborates on the history of how the false idol of democracy has undermined freedom in America – and it's not pretty.

We must be reminded that democracy is not always in harmony with liberty.
Our Founders worried that the Constitution might lead to too much democracy, and judging by the results, it's hard to argue they were wrong.

Holcombe provides the long view in his new book.

The transformation of the U.S. from a republic, founded on libertarian principles, to a system of majority rule threatening our liberties didn’t happen overnight.

Listen now to hear the full history from a leading scholar of liberty.]]>3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/popping-the-filter-bubble--47917076
John Gable (also a tech entrepreneur) was a Republican operative — helping elect politicians like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.

Joan and John are the unlikely duo behind a viral TED talk on the problem of political polarization, and the founders of a technology-based solution.

AllSides.com is your one-stop shop for headlines from across the political spectrum. Like a bulldozer for bias, All Sides conveniently aggregates stories from around the web along with a rating — left, right, center, or left- or right-leaning.

Screenshot of AllSides.com. Try switching your morning news source from Drudge Report or Huffington Post to AllSides.com and see what it does to your blood pressure.

I’ll admit — it’s fun to get mad at the idiocy of the “other side” and the internet offers an endless supply of confirmation bias for whatever opinions you hold.

But the danger of such extreme political polarization is that our government may not function the way it’s supposed to.

In my book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again, I theorized that anger in politics is a result of too much power being given to Federal government.

John and Joan, however, see something else — namely, that the advent of digital communities allows us to select our news sources to fit our narrow beliefs (rather than forming our beliefs from the same set of facts).

John and Joan joined me to discuss the nature of these “filter bubbles” — our self-made echo chambers — and how their platform works to “pop” these bubbles of bias.

Be sure to catch the full conversation.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917076Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:16:00 +0000Bob ZadekJoan Blades was an entrepreneur co-founder of MoveOn.org. John Gable (also a tech entrepreneur) was a Republican operative — helping elect politicians like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell. Joan and John are the unlikely duo behind a viral TED talk on...
John Gable (also a tech entrepreneur) was a Republican operative — helping elect politicians like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.

Joan and John are the unlikely duo behind a viral TED talk on the problem of political polarization, and the founders of a technology-based solution.

AllSides.com is your one-stop shop for headlines from across the political spectrum. Like a bulldozer for bias, All Sides conveniently aggregates stories from around the web along with a rating — left, right, center, or left- or right-leaning.

Screenshot of AllSides.com. Try switching your morning news source from Drudge Report or Huffington Post to AllSides.com and see what it does to your blood pressure.

I’ll admit — it’s fun to get mad at the idiocy of the “other side” and the internet offers an endless supply of confirmation bias for whatever opinions you hold.

But the danger of such extreme political polarization is that our government may not function the way it’s supposed to.

In my book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again, I theorized that anger in politics is a result of too much power being given to Federal government.

John and Joan, however, see something else — namely, that the advent of digital communities allows us to select our news sources to fit our narrow beliefs (rather than forming our beliefs from the same set of facts).

John and Joan joined me to discuss the nature of these “filter bubbles” — our self-made echo chambers — and how their platform works to “pop” these bubbles of bias.

Be sure to catch the full conversation.]]>3176falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-s-war-on-trade--47917188
“Tariffs are Taxes that Americans Pay” reads the LP’s new bumper sticker slogan.

“Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans” say the NYT editorial board.

Put simply, a tariff is just a tax on imports. There’s no getting around the cost to Americans, leading free market economists to observe that imposing tariffs is like poking ourselves in the eye to punish our trading partners.

But it goes beyond this. Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary unintentionally made the point about the destructive nature of trade wars during an interview with Nick Gillespie for Reason TV:

It’s not an understatement when Don Boudreaux calls the trade war a “War on Trade.” O’Leary calls it a “brilliant” move by Trump to pressure Canada to arrest a powerful Chinese national’s daughter in Canada to poison relations between the two countries.

It was intended, O’Leary suspects, to prevent China from shifting its imports of raw materials from the U.S. to Canada, and it worked.

China did halt imports from Canada, but it also retaliated by threatening to KILL two Canadian prisoners.

Treachery breeds treachery. This won’t end well.

What’s Wrong with Trumponomics?
According to economists like Steve Moore, however, Trump’s tariffs could effectively pressure countries like China to stop manipulating their currency. The long-term devaluation of the Yuan has helped spur the domestic economy — especially manufacturing — in China, and some credit the policy with China’s overall growth and low unemployment (and simultaneous loss of manufacturing output in the U.S.).

Listening to Moore, one can easily get the impression that we are merely experiencing a bump in the road en route to globally free trade.

Not everyone is buying it, though.

Boudreaux — a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, GMU economics professor, and curator of the eminently readable Cafe Hayek—doesn’t accept the argument that Trump’s trade war will lead to “zero-zero” tariffs in the long run.

Why not? First, because Trump doesn’t indicate any understanding of free trade.

Trump exalts “jobs” above the broader metric of prosperity. Boudreaux maintains that exports are costs Americans pay to receive the benefits of imports. In his view, there is no net benefit to having more jobs or industries in areas in which the Chinese have developed a comparative advantage. As he explained to John Stossel, the result of China’s currency manipulation is an opportunity for Americans to specialize in more rewarding jobs in the service sector.

Don Boudreaux explains the harms of a War on Trade and the benefits to Americans of trade with China.

The ironclad Bob Zadek rule of Government intervention holds that whenever government declares “war” to solve a problem, the problem gets worse.

The President has somewhat backed off of his tweet “hereby ordering” U.S. companies to stop doing business in China, but he seems stuck in the zero-sum thinking of his economic advisor Peter Navarro, who insists that the U.S. must mirror the mercantilist approach China has chosen to our own destruction.

What John Bolton’s advice is to foreign policy, Peter Navarro’s advice is to trade — a misguided American exceptionalism that puts us a great risk of losing the traditions of peace and free markets that made us great.

We also discuss the wisdom (folly?) and (un)constitutionality of executive orders regulating trade under The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Lastly, I ask Don why conservatives are suddenly embracing a more powerful executive, and aligning themselves with Elizabeth Warren’s “economic patriotism.”

Do Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation measures redeem his economic nationalism?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917188Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:29:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn a rare point of agreement, both the New York Times Editorial Board and the Libertarian Party are criticizing Trump’s tariffs. “Tariffs are Taxes that Americans Pay” reads the LP’s new bumper sticker slogan. “Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on...
“Tariffs are Taxes that Americans Pay” reads the LP’s new bumper sticker slogan.

“Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans” say the NYT editorial board.

Put simply, a tariff is just a tax on imports. There’s no getting around the cost to Americans, leading free market economists to observe that imposing tariffs is like poking ourselves in the eye to punish our trading partners.

But it goes beyond this. Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary unintentionally made the point about the destructive nature of trade wars during an interview with Nick Gillespie for Reason TV:

It’s not an understatement when Don Boudreaux calls the trade war a “War on Trade.” O’Leary calls it a “brilliant” move by Trump to pressure Canada to arrest a powerful Chinese national’s daughter in Canada to poison relations between the two countries.

It was intended, O’Leary suspects, to prevent China from shifting its imports of raw materials from the U.S. to Canada, and it worked.

China did halt imports from Canada, but it also retaliated by threatening to KILL two Canadian prisoners.

Treachery breeds treachery. This won’t end well.

What’s Wrong with Trumponomics?
According to economists like Steve Moore, however, Trump’s tariffs could effectively pressure countries like China to stop manipulating their currency. The long-term devaluation of the Yuan has helped spur the domestic economy — especially manufacturing — in China, and some credit the policy with China’s overall growth and low unemployment (and simultaneous loss of manufacturing output in the U.S.).

Listening to Moore, one can easily get the impression that we are merely experiencing a bump in the road en route to globally free trade.

Not everyone is buying it, though.

Boudreaux — a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, GMU economics professor, and curator of the eminently readable Cafe Hayek—doesn’t accept the argument that Trump’s trade war will lead to “zero-zero” tariffs in the long run.

Why not? First, because Trump doesn’t indicate any understanding of free trade.

Trump exalts “jobs” above the broader metric of prosperity. Boudreaux maintains that exports are costs Americans pay to receive the benefits of imports. In his view, there is no net benefit to having more jobs or industries in areas in which the Chinese have developed a comparative advantage. As he explained to John Stossel, the result of China’s currency manipulation is an opportunity for Americans to specialize in more rewarding jobs in the service sector.

Don Boudreaux explains the harms of a War on Trade and the benefits to Americans of trade with China.

The ironclad Bob Zadek rule of Government intervention holds that whenever government declares “war” to solve a problem, the problem gets worse.

The President has somewhat backed off of his tweet “hereby ordering” U.S. companies to stop doing business in China, but he seems stuck in the zero-sum thinking of his economic advisor Peter Navarro, who insists that the U.S. must mirror the mercantilist approach China has chosen to our own destruction.

What John Bolton’s advice is to foreign policy, Peter Navarro’s advice is to trade — a misguided American exceptionalism that puts us a great risk of losing the traditions of peace and free markets that made us great.

We also discuss the wisdom (folly?) and (un)constitutionality of executive orders regulating trade under The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Lastly, I ask Don why conservatives are suddenly embracing a more powerful executive, and aligning themselves with Elizabeth Warren’s “economic patriotism.”

Do Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation measures redeem his...]]>3108falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ivan-eland-on-the-rogue-presidency--47917411
Historian, economist, and foreign policy expert Ivan Eland has written a new book linking the cancerous growth of the military and executive branch to Congress’s on-going abdication of responsibility.

War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure is Eland’s latest with the Independent Institute. Senator Rand Paul calls it a must-read for “for anyone seeking a safer, freer, and more peaceful world.”

I’ve covered the growth of the administrative state dozens of times on my show, but Eland has a fresh take on how the erosion of checks and balances has taken place — not all at once, but in a ratcheting of executive power during wartime.

He shows how most major economic interventions have their origin in war: whether its taxes (i.e., income tax, progressive taxation, double taxation, tax withholding, tax expenditures, the estate tax, gas taxes, etc.) or social programs (i.e., Social Security, expansion of Medicaid, public housing and rent control, grants-in-aid to state).

Even government regulation of marriage, as opposed to the common law tradition, arose out of a Civil War interest in monitoring the moral activity of widows receiving pensions from the government.

Eland walks readers through this surprising history — including Abraham Lincoln’s “inept autocratic” wartime presidency — and the attempts by Congress to push back against growing executive authority.

Eventually, he brings us to the present, in which Congress has pretty much stopped trying to check the President’s authority.

Eland makes an especially convincing case for conservatives to oppose the “rogue presidency.” He writes:

CONSERVATIVES SHOULD BE leerier of jumping into wars, not only because wars kill and destroy and because the American superpower might become overextended, especially in a time of high national debt and fiscal crisis, but also because war makes the government — that is, the executive branch — expand rapidly at home, even in areas unrelated to national security.

President Trump and the current Republican Congress are at an inflection point. After so many decades endless wars, we may be finally reaching agreements in Afghanistan and elsewhere to bring troops home. Yet Trump continues to face stiff pressures from advisors like John Bolton, who not only warn against troop drawdowns in the Middle East, but seem to be banging the drum for war in other distant regions like Iran.

Listen now to learn how Congress can resume its constitutional authority to declare war, and constrain the rogue elements of the executive branch in their thirst for power.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917411Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe last time Congress declared war was on December 8, 1941. In the years since then we have gone from a relatively limited executive branch — as spelled out in James Madison’s system of checks and balances — straight through the imperial presidency...
Historian, economist, and foreign policy expert Ivan Eland has written a new book linking the cancerous growth of the military and executive branch to Congress’s on-going abdication of responsibility.

War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure is Eland’s latest with the Independent Institute. Senator Rand Paul calls it a must-read for “for anyone seeking a safer, freer, and more peaceful world.”

I’ve covered the growth of the administrative state dozens of times on my show, but Eland has a fresh take on how the erosion of checks and balances has taken place — not all at once, but in a ratcheting of executive power during wartime.

He shows how most major economic interventions have their origin in war: whether its taxes (i.e., income tax, progressive taxation, double taxation, tax withholding, tax expenditures, the estate tax, gas taxes, etc.) or social programs (i.e., Social Security, expansion of Medicaid, public housing and rent control, grants-in-aid to state).

Even government regulation of marriage, as opposed to the common law tradition, arose out of a Civil War interest in monitoring the moral activity of widows receiving pensions from the government.

Eland walks readers through this surprising history — including Abraham Lincoln’s “inept autocratic” wartime presidency — and the attempts by Congress to push back against growing executive authority.

Eventually, he brings us to the present, in which Congress has pretty much stopped trying to check the President’s authority.

Eland makes an especially convincing case for conservatives to oppose the “rogue presidency.” He writes:

CONSERVATIVES SHOULD BE leerier of jumping into wars, not only because wars kill and destroy and because the American superpower might become overextended, especially in a time of high national debt and fiscal crisis, but also because war makes the government — that is, the executive branch — expand rapidly at home, even in areas unrelated to national security.

President Trump and the current Republican Congress are at an inflection point. After so many decades endless wars, we may be finally reaching agreements in Afghanistan and elsewhere to bring troops home. Yet Trump continues to face stiff pressures from advisors like John Bolton, who not only warn against troop drawdowns in the Middle East, but seem to be banging the drum for war in other distant regions like Iran.

Listen now to learn how Congress can resume its constitutional authority to declare war, and constrain the rogue elements of the executive branch in their thirst for power.]]>3142falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/antitrust-101-with-ryan-young--47917478
There’s no great threat to competition in the market for news and information – to the contrary, the internet has given us more options than we could have dreamed of.

Trump meanwhile is threatening to regulate his political enemies in tech like public utilities. Whether he realizes it or not, this puts him in league with some of the leading figures of the Progressive Era – like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Brandeis set the precedent that led to a “Big-is-Bad” mentality of antitrust enforcement, which persisted well into the 20th century, and is now rearing its ugly head once again.

Ryan Young, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is at the frontlines of the antitrust issue. He’s noted the worrisome confluence (dare I say collusion?) between Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Republicans like Trump when it comes to the issue of regulating free markets in the name of “competition.”

He observes that this Orwellian notion tends to find support during periods of rising populism – such as today – despite the FTC’s abysmal track record of policing anti-competitive practices for the so-called “public interest.” Instead, the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division and the FTC have colluded with one another to maximize their own budgets while stifling innovation and creating an entire cottage industry in Washington D.C. for Microsoft lobbyists.

Young has a new, must-read series of blog posts explaining the flaws of antitrust regulation, as well as a paper titled “The Case Against Antitrust” [view Full Document as PDF]. We’ll break the topic down to basics this Sunday on the show of ideas, including the paradox of antitrust – namely that no monopoly can survive for long without favorable treatment from the government (often in the form of previous antitrust provisions).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917478Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:01:00 +0000Bob ZadekAt this point it’s fairly clear that “Big Tech” companies like Google, Apple and Twitter are in the tank for the Democrats. However, you can easily stay informed by diversifying your news sources and listening to shows like this one. There’s no...
There’s no great threat to competition in the market for news and information – to the contrary, the internet has given us more options than we could have dreamed of.

Trump meanwhile is threatening to regulate his political enemies in tech like public utilities. Whether he realizes it or not, this puts him in league with some of the leading figures of the Progressive Era – like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Brandeis set the precedent that led to a “Big-is-Bad” mentality of antitrust enforcement, which persisted well into the 20th century, and is now rearing its ugly head once again.

Ryan Young, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is at the frontlines of the antitrust issue. He’s noted the worrisome confluence (dare I say collusion?) between Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Republicans like Trump when it comes to the issue of regulating free markets in the name of “competition.”

He observes that this Orwellian notion tends to find support during periods of rising populism – such as today – despite the FTC’s abysmal track record of policing anti-competitive practices for the so-called “public interest.” Instead, the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division and the FTC have colluded with one another to maximize their own budgets while stifling innovation and creating an entire cottage industry in Washington D.C. for Microsoft lobbyists.

Young has a new, must-read series of blog posts explaining the flaws of antitrust regulation, as well as a paper titled “The Case Against Antitrust” [view Full Document as PDF]. We’ll break the topic down to basics this Sunday on the show of ideas, including the paradox of antitrust – namely that no monopoly can survive for long without favorable treatment from the government (often in the form of previous antitrust provisions).]]>3141falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sally-pipes-on-the-high-cost-of-free-stuff--47917611
In several states, politicians seem to be guided as if by these elusive one-handed economists in drafting legislation for single-payer healthcare.

In 2017, California’s state senate managed to pass a bill (still pending) that would force all Californians into a single, state-run health care system, but the state senate’s Appropriations Committee estimated it would cost more than twice the total state budget.

We can’t entirely blame politicians, since a majority of Americans seem to think that single-payer or “Medicare for All” would save them money and ensure access to healthcare.

But as Michael Munger has noted, the middleman – whether the notorious price-gouger or more mundane insurance broker – performs a vital service in a competitive market. Unfortunately, the health care market becomes less competitive with each new government intervention, so it’s no surprise that Americans are tired of the current system.

It’s time for a reality check.

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of several books dissecting the magical thinking that makes unworkable “Medicare for All” proposals so popular.

The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care (2018) debunked the main claims made in favor of single payer. In January 2020, her latest book False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All will be released to coincide with what could be one of the most consequential elections in our history, as Democrats promise to remake a sector of the economy that constitutes 20% of total output.

Pipes joined me to review the unfounded claims made by demagogues like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, such as:

Single-payer increases quality – By most measures, the U.S. far outranks Canada and the UK in quality of care, including wait times and rates of recovery from serious illness. There’s a reason Canadians come to the U.S. for procedures.

Single payer saves money - “Between 2001 and 2016, spending by Canada’s provinces on health care shot up 116.4 percent. Costs are growing faster than the rest of the economy,” she writes.

In the book, we also learn that Medicare is the single biggest contributor to the national debt – around $400 billion per year.

As Cato’s Michael Cannon notes, “The Medicare program is a bonanza of centralized economic planning, special-interest lobbying, pricing errors, perverse incentives, low-quality care, improper payments, and fraud. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Medicare is so corrupt, it’s thrilling.”

This is the same program that Bernie Sanders wants to expand into the world’s largest and most generous health care system in the world.

Listen to my interview with Sally to learn the difference between Medicare for All and the “Public Option,” and why we must stay on guard against so-called moderate proposals that are designed to give way to fully socialized medicine.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917611Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekHarry Truman once remarked, “Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on the one hand...', then 'but on the other…’” In several states, politicians seem to be guided as if by these elusive one-handed economists in drafting legislation...
In several states, politicians seem to be guided as if by these elusive one-handed economists in drafting legislation for single-payer healthcare.

In 2017, California’s state senate managed to pass a bill (still pending) that would force all Californians into a single, state-run health care system, but the state senate’s Appropriations Committee estimated it would cost more than twice the total state budget.

We can’t entirely blame politicians, since a majority of Americans seem to think that single-payer or “Medicare for All” would save them money and ensure access to healthcare.

But as Michael Munger has noted, the middleman – whether the notorious price-gouger or more mundane insurance broker – performs a vital service in a competitive market. Unfortunately, the health care market becomes less competitive with each new government intervention, so it’s no surprise that Americans are tired of the current system.

It’s time for a reality check.

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of several books dissecting the magical thinking that makes unworkable “Medicare for All” proposals so popular.

The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care (2018) debunked the main claims made in favor of single payer. In January 2020, her latest book False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All will be released to coincide with what could be one of the most consequential elections in our history, as Democrats promise to remake a sector of the economy that constitutes 20% of total output.

Pipes joined me to review the unfounded claims made by demagogues like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, such as:

Single-payer increases quality – By most measures, the U.S. far outranks Canada and the UK in quality of care, including wait times and rates of recovery from serious illness. There’s a reason Canadians come to the U.S. for procedures.

Single payer saves money - “Between 2001 and 2016, spending by Canada’s provinces on health care shot up 116.4 percent. Costs are growing faster than the rest of the economy,” she writes.

In the book, we also learn that Medicare is the single biggest contributor to the national debt – around $400 billion per year.

As Cato’s Michael Cannon notes, “The Medicare program is a bonanza of centralized economic planning, special-interest lobbying, pricing errors, perverse incentives, low-quality care, improper payments, and fraud. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Medicare is so corrupt, it’s thrilling.”

This is the same program that Bernie Sanders wants to expand into the world’s largest and most generous health care system in the world.

Listen to my interview with Sally to learn the difference between Medicare for All and the “Public Option,” and why we must stay on guard against so-called moderate proposals that are designed to give way to fully socialized medicine.]]>3140falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/theodore-dalrymple-on-negligence-and-unaccountability--47917729
Should Washington D.C. treat mental disorders and addiction as “diseases,” like Parkinson’s, and subsidize treatment accordingly?

As healthcare spending approaches nearly 1/5 of the US economy, we might stop to ask whether the medical profession as a whole is able to think clearly about social and political questions like these.

Theodore Dalrymple is a retired British psychiatrist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who has taken upon himself the unenviable task of reading through every weekly issue of the 2018 New England Journal of Medicine. His new book, False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovers a persistent bias from the editors of one of the world’s most respected medical journals.

In it, the lay-person is treated to Dalrymple’s wryly humorous writing and impeccable handle on complex sociological issues and statistical analysis, which often confound the esteemed contributors to the Journal. His most remarkable discovery is perhaps the information the authors and researchers fail to mention in their prestigious studies and reviews of the relevant literature.

For example, in assessing the efficacy of a Cholera vaccine in Haiti, the authors diligently note the year the disease arrived, but fail to mention that it was a UN peacekeeping envoy from Nepal that introduced the deadly virus to the island in 2010. This oversight reveals the taboo among elites against criticizing helper organizations like the UN, despite mounting evidence of their incompetence.

Or, take the treatment of addiction — an increasingly important issue in the medical field given the opioid epidemic of the last few decades. The addict is often presented as a patient whose illness relieves him from the blame and cost of treatment. The Journal’s editorial voice never waivers from this politically-correct stance, even though a reasonably smart high schooler can understand that addicts still retain their agency (and culpability) while in the grips of the substance. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize and infantilize people, especially the lower class.

His innumerable books underline a consistent theme — that the upper classes (including doctors) are all too willing to give the lower classes a free pass for harmful behaviors, and aren’t doing them any favors by doing so.

Theodore joined me for the full hour to discuss the reasons for ever-increasing bureaucratization and socialization of medicine, and how these trends are encouraging unhealthy behaviors at increasing cost to the taxpayer.

Dalrymple — colloquially known as the “skeptical doctor” — is like a responsible adult administering a bitter pill of rationality to the less mature members of his profession, who think they can “make the world a better place” through merely wishing it were so.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47917729Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:19:00 +0000Bob ZadekDoes an overweight patient deserve more resources from the government on account of his condition? Should Washington D.C. treat mental disorders and addiction as “diseases,” like Parkinson’s, and subsidize treatment accordingly? As healthcare...
Should Washington D.C. treat mental disorders and addiction as “diseases,” like Parkinson’s, and subsidize treatment accordingly?

As healthcare spending approaches nearly 1/5 of the US economy, we might stop to ask whether the medical profession as a whole is able to think clearly about social and political questions like these.

Theodore Dalrymple is a retired British psychiatrist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who has taken upon himself the unenviable task of reading through every weekly issue of the 2018 New England Journal of Medicine. His new book, False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovers a persistent bias from the editors of one of the world’s most respected medical journals.

In it, the lay-person is treated to Dalrymple’s wryly humorous writing and impeccable handle on complex sociological issues and statistical analysis, which often confound the esteemed contributors to the Journal. His most remarkable discovery is perhaps the information the authors and researchers fail to mention in their prestigious studies and reviews of the relevant literature.

For example, in assessing the efficacy of a Cholera vaccine in Haiti, the authors diligently note the year the disease arrived, but fail to mention that it was a UN peacekeeping envoy from Nepal that introduced the deadly virus to the island in 2010. This oversight reveals the taboo among elites against criticizing helper organizations like the UN, despite mounting evidence of their incompetence.

Or, take the treatment of addiction — an increasingly important issue in the medical field given the opioid epidemic of the last few decades. The addict is often presented as a patient whose illness relieves him from the blame and cost of treatment. The Journal’s editorial voice never waivers from this politically-correct stance, even though a reasonably smart high schooler can understand that addicts still retain their agency (and culpability) while in the grips of the substance. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize and infantilize people, especially the lower class.

His innumerable books underline a consistent theme — that the upper classes (including doctors) are all too willing to give the lower classes a free pass for harmful behaviors, and aren’t doing them any favors by doing so.

Theodore joined me for the full hour to discuss the reasons for ever-increasing bureaucratization and socialization of medicine, and how these trends are encouraging unhealthy behaviors at increasing cost to the taxpayer.

Dalrymple — colloquially known as the “skeptical doctor” — is like a responsible adult administering a bitter pill of rationality to the less mature members of his profession, who think they can “make the world a better place” through merely wishing it were so.]]>3109falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/socialism-still-not-cool--47918096
First came the “communist party” shirts — a clever-enough cartoon depicting Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and Mao having a rowdy time.

Then those hideous fur hats came into vogue.

But perhaps most unsettling is Kristen Ghodsee’s new book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, which has the truly Orwellian subtitle, “And Other Arguments for Economic Independence.”

Let that sink in for a second…

Luckily, few are falling for the propaganda.

Ghodsee’s book sales are in the basement (#432,614 in Books and #776 in Communism & Socialism alone), while Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World is already ranked #1 among new releases in the “Beers” category; 38,000th (and climbing) overall — a full week before the release!

The book is a hilarious new broadside by the The Independent Institute’s Ben Powell and his co-author Robert Lawson.

“In Cuba… the central planners decided they only need two kinds [of beer]… Both taste like Budweiser that’s been left out in the sun.”

Powell and Lawson know that academic arguments did not cause the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rather, it was the superiority of goods and services available in West Berlin that forced the Soviet tyrants to let their people go… shopping. The book demonstrates this with flair—comparing the swill from former Soviet-bloc countries to the diverse and alluring brews of the free world.

What better way to dismantle the new wave of socialist propaganda than to launch Socialism Sucks to the top of the Amazon best-seller rankings before its launch?

Ben Powell returns to the show this Sunday to share his journey “drinking his way through the unfree world.”

Want to annoy a commie?

A good buzz may be the most effective form of persuasion out there.

Help set Ben and Bob’s book to #1 in the Communism in Socialism category. Listen to the show now.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47918096Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:40:00 +0000Bob ZadekThere is a disturbing trend of politicians and their enablers trying to make socialism cool again. Larry White gives it a fitting label — “Murder Chic.” First came the “communist party” shirts — a clever-enough cartoon depicting Stalin, Lenin, Marx,...
First came the “communist party” shirts — a clever-enough cartoon depicting Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and Mao having a rowdy time.

Then those hideous fur hats came into vogue.

But perhaps most unsettling is Kristen Ghodsee’s new book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, which has the truly Orwellian subtitle, “And Other Arguments for Economic Independence.”

Let that sink in for a second…

Luckily, few are falling for the propaganda.

Ghodsee’s book sales are in the basement (#432,614 in Books and #776 in Communism & Socialism alone), while Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World is already ranked #1 among new releases in the “Beers” category; 38,000th (and climbing) overall — a full week before the release!

The book is a hilarious new broadside by the The Independent Institute’s Ben Powell and his co-author Robert Lawson.

“In Cuba… the central planners decided they only need two kinds [of beer]… Both taste like Budweiser that’s been left out in the sun.”

Powell and Lawson know that academic arguments did not cause the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rather, it was the superiority of goods and services available in West Berlin that forced the Soviet tyrants to let their people go… shopping. The book demonstrates this with flair—comparing the swill from former Soviet-bloc countries to the diverse and alluring brews of the free world.

What better way to dismantle the new wave of socialist propaganda than to launch Socialism Sucks to the top of the Amazon best-seller rankings before its launch?

Ben Powell returns to the show this Sunday to share his journey “drinking his way through the unfree world.”

Want to annoy a commie?

A good buzz may be the most effective form of persuasion out there.

Help set Ben and Bob’s book to #1 in the Communism in Socialism category. Listen to the show now.]]>3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/john-marini-on-unmasking-the-administrative-state--47918207
Some likened him to a wrecking ball — others to an outsider, “draining the swamp.”

And in many ways, Trump has paradoxically used the power of his office to dismantle many of the executive agencies and authority that previous presidents have co-opted from the legislative branch.

At the same time, the imbalance of powers did not come about over night, and it will be impossible for any single politician to dismantle what many call “the Deep State.”

More precisely, what Trump is grappling with is an administrative state with deep roots going back to at least the Progressive Era, and likely much further as my next guest illustrates.

John Marini has written the definitive book on the historical and philosophical origins of the administrative state in his new book, “Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century.”

Marini finds the ethos behind increasingly centralized authority in the very idea of “Progress.” Philosophers like Friedrich Hegel envisioned progressing being ushered in by a sort of secular deity — a government possessing vast scientific knowledge of the various aspects of governance, capable of remedying the most intractable social woes.

Unfortunately for Hegel and his political descendants (i.e., Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.), the American Constitution enshrined a very different idea of the proper role of government.

The Founders’ Constitution expressly limited the power of government and demanded that laws be made by political representatives of the people — not faraway unaccountable bureaucrats.

When De Toqueville came to America, he observed a robust civil society that seemed to cut against the alleged need for an administrative authority to manage the affairs of the citizenry. But he also saw that a creeping “democratic despotism” could arise from centralized administration such as the current alphabet soup of executive agencies that now interfere in the most minute affairs of American life.

In this episode of the show of ideas, not attitude, we put the capstone on the world’s longest running radio series on the administrative state. Bob welcomes Marini to discuss his under-appreciated scholarship, and to provide a definitive guide to the “Deep State” for a media that seems to never quite know what it means when it uses the term.

Marini is a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University, and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School.

He began to study what we now call the administrative state over 40 years ago. In Unmasking the Administrative State, we learn how bureaucracy caters to special interests and obstructs any attempts by Congress or the President to bring it down to size. He takes on the notion that politics is only for the experts and argues that the only way to restore America is by imbuing it with a spirit of democratic participation.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47918207Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:49:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen Donald Trump arrived in Washington D.C., the establishment went nuts. Even more so than the left-wing enclaves of San Francisco and New York, our nation’s capitol was uniquely vulnerable to the disruption Trump represented to the status quo....
Some likened him to a wrecking ball — others to an outsider, “draining the swamp.”

And in many ways, Trump has paradoxically used the power of his office to dismantle many of the executive agencies and authority that previous presidents have co-opted from the legislative branch.

At the same time, the imbalance of powers did not come about over night, and it will be impossible for any single politician to dismantle what many call “the Deep State.”

More precisely, what Trump is grappling with is an administrative state with deep roots going back to at least the Progressive Era, and likely much further as my next guest illustrates.

John Marini has written the definitive book on the historical and philosophical origins of the administrative state in his new book, “Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century.”

Marini finds the ethos behind increasingly centralized authority in the very idea of “Progress.” Philosophers like Friedrich Hegel envisioned progressing being ushered in by a sort of secular deity — a government possessing vast scientific knowledge of the various aspects of governance, capable of remedying the most intractable social woes.

Unfortunately for Hegel and his political descendants (i.e., Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.), the American Constitution enshrined a very different idea of the proper role of government.

The Founders’ Constitution expressly limited the power of government and demanded that laws be made by political representatives of the people — not faraway unaccountable bureaucrats.

When De Toqueville came to America, he observed a robust civil society that seemed to cut against the alleged need for an administrative authority to manage the affairs of the citizenry. But he also saw that a creeping “democratic despotism” could arise from centralized administration such as the current alphabet soup of executive agencies that now interfere in the most minute affairs of American life.

In this episode of the show of ideas, not attitude, we put the capstone on the world’s longest running radio series on the administrative state. Bob welcomes Marini to discuss his under-appreciated scholarship, and to provide a definitive guide to the “Deep State” for a media that seems to never quite know what it means when it uses the term.

Marini is a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University, and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School.

He began to study what we now call the administrative state over 40 years ago. In Unmasking the Administrative State, we learn how bureaucracy caters to special interests and obstructs any attempts by Congress or the President to bring it down to size. He takes on the notion that politics is only for the experts and argues that the only way to restore America is by imbuing it with a spirit of democratic participation.]]>3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-doctor-for-liberty-on-opioid-abuse-harm-reduction-and-obamacare--47918362People will always use drugs, and many will harm themselves and others in the process.

The government’s response to this fact of life has been a multi-billion dollar failed War on Drugs.

The best evidence suggests that not only has this war failed to achieve its intended aim, it has actually made the problems of drug abuse and overdose worse.

The “Doctor for Liberty” returned to the show to update me on the latest research into so-called “harm reduction” strategies that have proved much more successful than the War on Drugs in limiting addiction and fatalities from heroine overdose.

We also discussed the latest challenge to ObamaCare, which is working its way through to courts and appears likely to reach the Supreme Court before 2020. If you’ve worried about the Supreme Court becoming too political, you haven’t seen anything yet.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47918362Sun, 14 Jul 2019 15:04:00 +0000Bob ZadekDr. Jeffrey Singer, an Arizona surgeon and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has a message that some Americans will consider a bitter pill to swallow: People will always use drugs, and many will harm themselves and others in the process. The...People will always use drugs, and many will harm themselves and others in the process.

The government’s response to this fact of life has been a multi-billion dollar failed War on Drugs.

The best evidence suggests that not only has this war failed to achieve its intended aim, it has actually made the problems of drug abuse and overdose worse.

The “Doctor for Liberty” returned to the show to update me on the latest research into so-called “harm reduction” strategies that have proved much more successful than the War on Drugs in limiting addiction and fatalities from heroine overdose.

We also discussed the latest challenge to ObamaCare, which is working its way through to courts and appears likely to reach the Supreme Court before 2020. If you’ve worried about the Supreme Court becoming too political, you haven’t seen anything yet.]]>3076falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/redefining-the-deep-state--47918481The Book - The Vanishing Congress: Reflections on Politics in Washington [Amazon]

The Topic - Former FBI Director James Comey recently denied the existence of a “deep state.” Rather, he says there is a “deep culture” of so-called meritocratic technocracy. That sounds like deep euphemism to me, but it’s worth asking what this vague and sinister term actually means before asking whether it exists.

Jeffrey Bergner, author of The Vanishing Congress, is a long-time Washington insider who has found the roots of something like a deep state in the legislative branch’s abdication of its one job: to make the laws. This might sound like a dream come true for libertarians, but since nature abhors a vacuum, this vital function ends up getting usurped by unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable district judges.

The Guest - Jeffrey Bergner served as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs from 2005 until July 2008. He is the President and Managing Financial Partner of Bergner Bockorny, Inc., as well as an adjunct professor at the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.

The Problem - Bergner says that Congress has ceded too much of its authority to the executive branch — with its mutant bureaucratic army — and broken down the checks and balances that the Founders designed to ensure that government represents the people and not its own entrenched interests. When the executive branch is given such broad leverage to implement laws without express authorization of Congress, presidents and executive agencies are encouraged to legislate by fiat. Then come the executive orders…

The Solution - For starters, Bergner suggests that Congress would be 20% more efficient with 20% fewer staff. I’m conflicted, since I like the idea of shrinking government, but I’m not so sure about increasing congressional “efficiency.” Is getting more stuff done always a good thing?

I’ll question Bergner on this idea, as well as his proposal to reduce debate on cabinet nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, and how direct election of senators forever changed the political landscape in America.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47918481Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:12:00 +0000Bob Zadek5 things to know about The Vanishing Congress: The Book - The Vanishing Congress: Reflections on Politics in Washington [Amazon] The Topic - Former FBI Director James Comey recently denied the existence of a “deep state.” Rather, he says there is a...The Book - The Vanishing Congress: Reflections on Politics in Washington [Amazon]

The Topic - Former FBI Director James Comey recently denied the existence of a “deep state.” Rather, he says there is a “deep culture” of so-called meritocratic technocracy. That sounds like deep euphemism to me, but it’s worth asking what this vague and sinister term actually means before asking whether it exists.

Jeffrey Bergner, author of The Vanishing Congress, is a long-time Washington insider who has found the roots of something like a deep state in the legislative branch’s abdication of its one job: to make the laws. This might sound like a dream come true for libertarians, but since nature abhors a vacuum, this vital function ends up getting usurped by unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable district judges.

The Guest - Jeffrey Bergner served as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs from 2005 until July 2008. He is the President and Managing Financial Partner of Bergner Bockorny, Inc., as well as an adjunct professor at the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.

The Problem - Bergner says that Congress has ceded too much of its authority to the executive branch — with its mutant bureaucratic army — and broken down the checks and balances that the Founders designed to ensure that government represents the people and not its own entrenched interests. When the executive branch is given such broad leverage to implement laws without express authorization of Congress, presidents and executive agencies are encouraged to legislate by fiat. Then come the executive orders…

The Solution - For starters, Bergner suggests that Congress would be 20% more efficient with 20% fewer staff. I’m conflicted, since I like the idea of shrinking government, but I’m not so sure about increasing congressional “efficiency.” Is getting more stuff done always a good thing?

I’ll question Bergner on this idea, as well as his proposal to reduce debate on cabinet nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, and how direct election of senators forever changed the political landscape in America.]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-will-censure-the-censors--47918564The Powder Keg – YouTube recently “demonetized” hundreds of controversial channels, after an on-going spat between conservative comedian Steven Crowder and liberal Vox writer Carlos Maza. The host of Louder with Crowder repeatedly mocked Maza’s flambuoyant personae (aka the “gay wonk”) and ethnicity, and Maza roused a Twitter mob to get YouTube to remove him altogether. YouTube’s kept the videos up, but took Crowder’s ad dollars — pleasing virtually nobody, as Reason’s Robby Soave pointed out.

The Legal Issue - Some kinds of speech, such as incitements to violence, are clearly not protected by the 1st amendment, while “hate speech,” or offensive speech, is not clearly defined. Under Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act (1996), online platforms like YouTube can set their own guidelines for acceptable speech but are continuing to come under scrutiny for alleged bias against conservatives.

The Proposed Remedy – Trump is talking about antitrust to break up Big Tech monopolies, but most scholars think this is impractical. Republican Senator Josh Hawley just introduced a law to essentially revive the “Fairness Doctrine,” and stop biased censorship of conservatives. This Sunday, I’ll speak to Frank Buckley about his middle-ground idea for a governmental check on “woke” social media censorship.

The Unintended Consequences – Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out that Hawley’s bill would likely make censorship against conservatives worse. The bill would require companies to reapply with the Federal Trade Commission every two years to prove that they are operating in a politically neutral manner. Ultimately, this would mean censoring vastly more political content, Brown notes.

A Quote to Ponder :

“There’s always someone we’re laughing at, and that person is going to take offense. If it’s a conservative laughing at a liberal, even a liberal who seems to be asking for it, even someone who dishes it out but can’t take it, like the butt of Crowder’s laughter, that’s when the progressive social media censors step in.” - Frank Buckley, How to stop the 'woke' social media censors, NY Post, June 10, 2019]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47918564Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:19:00 +0000Bob Zadek5 Things to Know About Regulating Internet Speech The Powder Keg – YouTube recently “demonetized” hundreds of controversial channels, after an on-going spat between conservative comedian Steven Crowder and liberal Vox writer Carlos Maza. The host of...The Powder Keg – YouTube recently “demonetized” hundreds of controversial channels, after an on-going spat between conservative comedian Steven Crowder and liberal Vox writer Carlos Maza. The host of Louder with Crowder repeatedly mocked Maza’s flambuoyant personae (aka the “gay wonk”) and ethnicity, and Maza roused a Twitter mob to get YouTube to remove him altogether. YouTube’s kept the videos up, but took Crowder’s ad dollars — pleasing virtually nobody, as Reason’s Robby Soave pointed out.

The Legal Issue - Some kinds of speech, such as incitements to violence, are clearly not protected by the 1st amendment, while “hate speech,” or offensive speech, is not clearly defined. Under Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act (1996), online platforms like YouTube can set their own guidelines for acceptable speech but are continuing to come under scrutiny for alleged bias against conservatives.

The Proposed Remedy – Trump is talking about antitrust to break up Big Tech monopolies, but most scholars think this is impractical. Republican Senator Josh Hawley just introduced a law to essentially revive the “Fairness Doctrine,” and stop biased censorship of conservatives. This Sunday, I’ll speak to Frank Buckley about his middle-ground idea for a governmental check on “woke” social media censorship.

The Unintended Consequences – Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out that Hawley’s bill would likely make censorship against conservatives worse. The bill would require companies to reapply with the Federal Trade Commission every two years to prove that they are operating in a politically neutral manner. Ultimately, this would mean censoring vastly more political content, Brown notes.

A Quote to Ponder :

“There’s always someone we’re laughing at, and that person is going to take offense. If it’s a conservative laughing at a liberal, even a liberal who seems to be asking for it, even someone who dishes it out but can’t take it, like the butt of Crowder’s laughter, that’s when the progressive social media censors step in.” - Frank Buckley, How to stop the 'woke' social media censors, NY Post, June 10, 2019]]>3050falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/veronique-de-rugy-on-the-gender-pay-gap--47919752The Politics: Kamala Harris is making a plan for “Holding Corporations Accountable for Pay Inequality in America” a plank of her presidential campaign. She says it’s about #EqualPayforEqualWork, but by calling for pay for the women’s soccer players - who clearly do not perform the same job as men’s soccer players - casts her sincerity into question.

The Data: Even Vox.com admits that the gender pay gap is primarily a “working mother” pay gap. In Vox’s Netflix original series, “Explained,” Veronique explains that the $0.79 number you always hear about tells you almost nothing, and disputes the characterization of the gap as a “penalty” for women who chose to have children rather than working the hours men tend to work.

The Theory: In 1957, Chicago-school economist Gary Becker explained how the market punishes arbitrary discrimination through competition in The Economics of Discrimination.

The Unintended Consequences: Anti-discrimination legislation often has unintended consequences, such as discouraging employers from hiring people around the age when they are likely to have children.

A Quote to ponder:

“In a free market, the owner has the legal right to hire whomever he wants. After all, it’s his restaurant, and the wages he pays are (initially) his property. But if he allows nepotism to influence his hiring decision, he suffers an implicit fine of $1.50 per hour. He makes less money if he makes employment decisions based on factors, such as family relationships, that have nothing to do with the job.”

— The Economics of Discrimination]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47919752Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:02:00 +0000Bob Zadek5 Things You Need to Know about Rent Control. The Politics: Kamala Harris is making a plan for “Holding Corporations Accountable for Pay Inequality in America” a plank of her presidential campaign. She says it’s about #EqualPayforEqualWork, but by...The Politics: Kamala Harris is making a plan for “Holding Corporations Accountable for Pay Inequality in America” a plank of her presidential campaign. She says it’s about #EqualPayforEqualWork, but by calling for pay for the women’s soccer players - who clearly do not perform the same job as men’s soccer players - casts her sincerity into question.

The Data: Even Vox.com admits that the gender pay gap is primarily a “working mother” pay gap. In Vox’s Netflix original series, “Explained,” Veronique explains that the $0.79 number you always hear about tells you almost nothing, and disputes the characterization of the gap as a “penalty” for women who chose to have children rather than working the hours men tend to work.

The Theory: In 1957, Chicago-school economist Gary Becker explained how the market punishes arbitrary discrimination through competition in The Economics of Discrimination.

The Unintended Consequences: Anti-discrimination legislation often has unintended consequences, such as discouraging employers from hiring people around the age when they are likely to have children.

A Quote to ponder:

“In a free market, the owner has the legal right to hire whomever he wants. After all, it’s his restaurant, and the wages he pays are (initially) his property. But if he allows nepotism to influence his hiring decision, he suffers an implicit fine of $1.50 per hour. He makes less money if he makes employment decisions based on factors, such as family relationships, that have nothing to do with the job.”

— The Economics of Discrimination]]>3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-rent-control-bomb--47920098
San Francisco will celebrate the 40th anniversary of rent control policies next week, and is increasingly looking like a bomb went off in some areas of the city.

Homelessness and housing shortages have reached crisis levels.

While some may look at the housing crisis as evidence for the need for more sweeping protections for tenants, those who study the subject say that such policies are in fact responsible for the current crisis.

SF rent control turns 40 | 48 hills

Not Your Grandaddy’s Federalism…
Christian Britschgi covers the rent control beat for Reason Magazine, and has been documenting the slow-motion disaster caused by California’s housing policies. Show producer Charlie Deist joins the show to discuss Christian’s coverage, including various proposals to implement state-wide rent control in places like Oregon, California, and New York.

For now, California appears to be moving towards a 7% per year cap on rent increases, mimicking a recent Oregon law that has been praised by Kamala Harris.

This epitomizes the unfortunate pattern of “bizarro-Federalism,” whereby cities like San Francisco incubate failed policies, which get copied and magnify policy failures at the state level before spreading their devastation to other states across the country. As if Oregon’s 7% cap on rent increases wasn’t bad enough, New York is now considering a state-wide ban on “unconscionable” rent increases of more than 1.5% the rate of inflation.

Yet California still takes the cake for exacerbating its housing shortage with misguided policy. Here’s the LA Times:

Nine of the 15 metropolitan areas with the highest median home values in the country are in California, with those in Silicon Valley topping the list at $1.2 million, according to real estate website Zillow.

Of course, rent control isn’t the only reason for this. The failure to build new housing is the primary culprit.

Tech companies are taking the blame for attracting high-earning outsiders, who then push up rents in poor and working class neighborhoods. Noah Smith, a liberal writer for Bloomberg, notes that there is some truth to this. However, he says that the answer is to build more market-rate housing in the center of SF to accommodate the influx of tech workers, so that they aren’t competing for a scarce supply in neighborhoods where people are most likely to complain about gentrification.

[Rent control] epitomizes the unfortunate pattern of “bizarro-Federalism,” whereby cities like San Francisco incubate failed policies, which get copied and magnify policy failures at the state level before spreading their devastation to other states across the country.

Britschgi concurs, saying that the best way to solve the housing crisis is through de-regulation of zoning laws in urban areas. In other words, we need a free market for housing.

The Public Choice of Rent Control
Why do politicians continue to push policies that have failed so miserably when a ready solution exists? One reason might be that it’s harder to take credit for deregulating the housing market, which only produces benefits several years down the road — after new housing projects have been completed, and the market achieves equilibrium.

Rent control, is economists point out, does create some upfront benefits for existing renters — until landlords begin to neglect their properties (unable to recoup the costs of maintenance) or convert apartments into condominiums and further restrict housing supply.

It’s Episode #5,247 of “The Seen and immediate versus the unseen, long-run consequences.” This show always ends the same way: demagoguery and disappointment, followed by more calls for regulation to solve the problem created by regulation in the first place.

There is also the persistent myth in American politics that landlords are always rich and powerful while renters are always poor and disenfranchised. The reality is that rent control abrogates property rights and coerces landlords into becoming serfs for their tenants.

The Bob Zadek Affordable Housing Program:
Here’s my take: let developers build non-rent-controlled market-rate housing to satisfy demand. It’s really that simple.

We shouldn’t be celebrating 40 years of rent control in San Francisco — we should be lamenting it and saying “good riddance.” There’s no rent control in Tokyo, and prices haven’t gone up for two decades thanks to limited restrictions on height and density.

It’s not too late to fight the NIMBYs and the opportunists. Stop demagogues like Kamala Harris by spreading the word:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47920098Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekSocialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck once noted that, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing it.” San Francisco will celebrate the 40th anniversary of rent...
San Francisco will celebrate the 40th anniversary of rent control policies next week, and is increasingly looking like a bomb went off in some areas of the city.

Homelessness and housing shortages have reached crisis levels.

While some may look at the housing crisis as evidence for the need for more sweeping protections for tenants, those who study the subject say that such policies are in fact responsible for the current crisis.

SF rent control turns 40 | 48 hills

Not Your Grandaddy’s Federalism…
Christian Britschgi covers the rent control beat for Reason Magazine, and has been documenting the slow-motion disaster caused by California’s housing policies. Show producer Charlie Deist joins the show to discuss Christian’s coverage, including various proposals to implement state-wide rent control in places like Oregon, California, and New York.

For now, California appears to be moving towards a 7% per year cap on rent increases, mimicking a recent Oregon law that has been praised by Kamala Harris.

This epitomizes the unfortunate pattern of “bizarro-Federalism,” whereby cities like San Francisco incubate failed policies, which get copied and magnify policy failures at the state level before spreading their devastation to other states across the country. As if Oregon’s 7% cap on rent increases wasn’t bad enough, New York is now considering a state-wide ban on “unconscionable” rent increases of more than 1.5% the rate of inflation.

Yet California still takes the cake for exacerbating its housing shortage with misguided policy. Here’s the LA Times:

Nine of the 15 metropolitan areas with the highest median home values in the country are in California, with those in Silicon Valley topping the list at $1.2 million, according to real estate website Zillow.

Of course, rent control isn’t the only reason for this. The failure to build new housing is the primary culprit.

Tech companies are taking the blame for attracting high-earning outsiders, who then push up rents in poor and working class neighborhoods. Noah Smith, a liberal writer for Bloomberg, notes that there is some truth to this. However, he says that the answer is to build more market-rate housing in the center of SF to accommodate the influx of tech workers, so that they aren’t competing for a scarce supply in neighborhoods where people are most likely to complain about gentrification.

[Rent control] epitomizes the unfortunate pattern of “bizarro-Federalism,” whereby cities like San Francisco incubate failed policies, which get copied and magnify policy failures at the state level before spreading their devastation to other states across the country.

Britschgi concurs, saying that the best way to solve the housing crisis is through de-regulation of zoning laws in urban areas. In other words, we need a free market for housing.

The Public Choice of Rent Control
Why do politicians continue to push policies that have failed so miserably when a ready solution exists? One reason might be that it’s harder to take credit for deregulating the housing market, which only produces benefits several years down the road — after new housing projects have been completed, and the market achieves equilibrium.

Rent control, is economists point out, does create some upfront benefits for existing renters — until landlords begin to neglect their properties (unable to recoup the costs of maintenance) or convert apartments into condominiums and further restrict housing supply.

It’s Episode #5,247 of “The Seen and immediate versus the unseen, long-run consequences.” This show always ends the same way: demagoguery and...]]>3102falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/on-foreign-policy-will-trump-heed-the-restraining-constituency-or-john-bolton--47921605
Due to the growing unpopularity of drawn-out wars in the Middle East, and Trump’s focus on reelection in 2020, he probably does not want to start another endless war with Iran. However, much of his rhetoric has been hawkish — perhaps influenced by his national security advisor, arch-hawk neocon John Bolton.

The latest news is that he is growing disenchanted with Bolton, who helped design the Iraq War and has even called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

It was reported that Trump teased Bolton last year — shortly after his appointment — asking, “You’re not going to bring me into a war, are you?” But we can detect a seriousness beneath Trump’s remarks, signaling an insecurity about his ability to resist outside pressures to exercise America’s immense military might.

Bolton is Trump’s fourth national security advisor, and some worry that his reluctance to fire yet another cabinet member could lead him into the same kind of trap that led George W. Bush into Iraq in 2003. Sketchy intelligence, an idle standing army, and a convenient enemy in an oil-rich region… this story sounds familiar.

The difference this time around is that the public adamantly does not want war. As Cato’s Trevor Thrall documented back in 2016, a growing number of Americans — and especially young people — are part of a “restraining constituency” that does not want the U.S. to serve as the world’s policeman.

Sign Up for the Cato Foreign Policy Newsletter

The tensions between the U.S. and Iran have a complex history, but the latest escalation stems from intelligence linking the Iranian regime to an attack earlier this month on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s tough talk has included calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist group,” to which they responded in kind by labelling our own military in the Middle East as terrorists as well.

It’s easy to imagine this tit-for-tat spiraling out of control, unless calmer minds in the military and cabinet can influence the President to step back from the brink. Many retired admirals, generals, ambassadors, and senior government executives comprising the American College of National Security Leaders have attempted to do just that — writing an open letter to the Presidentwarning against escalation in the Persian Gulf.

Tweet to the President showing your support for ending America’s endless wars.

As George Washington noted over two hundred years ago, the protected geography of the U.S. ought to insulate us from foreign intervention. He thought we should go to war only when absolutely necessary for national defense, and even then, engage only in short, strategic actions.

So why have we so found ourselves in so many endless wars?
Chris Preble was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy, and is now vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He recently released a video that explains the incentives behind America’s infamous military industrial complex — the hybrid beast of a bloated weapons industry and military establishment that perpetuates itself at the expense of the taxpayer and global peace.

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Chris’s new book Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S. Foreign Policyshows how the emergence of this complex cuts against the non-interventionist intentions of the Founders, and why the United States gains strength from the limits on war-making imposed by the Constitution.

Let’s hope that Trump will make good on his promise in the State of the Union. It’s a modest expectation when compared to George Washington’s skepticism of standing armies altogether.

Chris joined me to explain why war with Iran is still a risk despite the unpopularity. It’s everything you need to know about 21st century foreign policy, but were too afraid to ask. Don’t miss it.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47921605Thu, 30 May 2019 19:22:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn his State of the Union address in February, President Trump sounded like a non-interventionist when he said, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Since then, he has begun to draw down America’s military presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and...
Due to the growing unpopularity of drawn-out wars in the Middle East, and Trump’s focus on reelection in 2020, he probably does not want to start another endless war with Iran. However, much of his rhetoric has been hawkish — perhaps influenced by his national security advisor, arch-hawk neocon John Bolton.

The latest news is that he is growing disenchanted with Bolton, who helped design the Iraq War and has even called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

It was reported that Trump teased Bolton last year — shortly after his appointment — asking, “You’re not going to bring me into a war, are you?” But we can detect a seriousness beneath Trump’s remarks, signaling an insecurity about his ability to resist outside pressures to exercise America’s immense military might.

Bolton is Trump’s fourth national security advisor, and some worry that his reluctance to fire yet another cabinet member could lead him into the same kind of trap that led George W. Bush into Iraq in 2003. Sketchy intelligence, an idle standing army, and a convenient enemy in an oil-rich region… this story sounds familiar.

The difference this time around is that the public adamantly does not want war. As Cato’s Trevor Thrall documented back in 2016, a growing number of Americans — and especially young people — are part of a “restraining constituency” that does not want the U.S. to serve as the world’s policeman.

Sign Up for the Cato Foreign Policy Newsletter

The tensions between the U.S. and Iran have a complex history, but the latest escalation stems from intelligence linking the Iranian regime to an attack earlier this month on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s tough talk has included calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist group,” to which they responded in kind by labelling our own military in the Middle East as terrorists as well.

It’s easy to imagine this tit-for-tat spiraling out of control, unless calmer minds in the military and cabinet can influence the President to step back from the brink. Many retired admirals, generals, ambassadors, and senior government executives comprising the American College of National Security Leaders have attempted to do just that — writing an open letter to the Presidentwarning against escalation in the Persian Gulf.

Tweet to the President showing your support for ending America’s endless wars.

As George Washington noted over two hundred years ago, the protected geography of the U.S. ought to insulate us from foreign intervention. He thought we should go to war only when absolutely necessary for national defense, and even then, engage only in short, strategic actions.

So why have we so found ourselves in so many endless wars?
Chris Preble was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy, and is now vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He recently released a video that explains the incentives behind America’s infamous military industrial complex — the hybrid beast of a bloated weapons industry and military establishment that perpetuates itself at the expense of the taxpayer and global peace.

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Chris’s new book Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S. Foreign Policyshows how the emergence of this complex cuts against the non-interventionist intentions of the Founders, and why the United States gains strength from the limits on war-making imposed by the Constitution.

Let’s hope that Trump will make good on his promise in the State of the Union. It’s a modest expectation...]]>3116falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-part-of-illegal-immigration-are-you-against-alex-nowrasteh-returns--47921748
This is highly misleading. In most cases, the crime in question is the illegal immigration itself, which says little about immigrants rates of other kinds of crime. In fact, if there is a link between immigration and crime, it seems to be inverse — i.e., immigrants are on average less likely to commit crimes.

Articles like the one linked above perfectly illustrate a point I often make with the Socratic method in the immigration debate. I ask opponents of illegal immigration which part they oppose — the “illegal” part, or the “immigrant.”

After watching their bizarre contortions for a minute or so, I usually declare victory.

… But what about terrorists?
1 in 3.8 million.

That is the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack committed by an illegal immigrant to the United States based on numbers compiled by Alex Nowrasteh from 1975 through 2017.

Alex has been on my show many times to debunk the many myths around immigration, including the argument that “this time it’s different” — that this wave of immigrants will not assimilate, or that these immigrants are only here for welfare benefits or are suppressing the wages of native workers.

Alex joins me this Sunday to review these myths, but more importantly, to go on the offensive against the biggest myth of all: that being pro-America requires a person to be anti-immigrant.

The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but they continue to confuse their facts, as both parties deny immigrants a legal status that would promote voluntary exchange and the rule of law.

As it stands, we set up cruel incentives for immigrants to live and work here illegally — in the shadow of the law — making them criminals in name only. People scapegoat them as lawless parasites, when something closer to the opposite is true.

… But what about disease?
There have been justified concerns from both sides about the uptick in deaths at detention centers, where thousands of immigrants have been quarantined for mumps and influenza. Children dying in custody at ICE centers is a humanitarian crisis, but it shouldn’t distract from the greater travesty that is preventing immigrants from pursuing a better life in the U.S.

That’s what America was supposed to be all about. We naturalized just as many immigrants as today in absolute numbers in 1910 as we do today:

“About one million legal immigrants come annually, the same number as in 1910, when the United States had about 71 percent fewer people. Adjusting for the size of the U.S. population, annual immigrant flows today are only about one-fourth the per capita annual flow in 1910.”

— Myths and Facts of Immigration Policy, January/February 2019 Cato Institute Policy Report

The great scandal should not be that so many people are coming across the border, but that the Federal Government has abdicated its responsibility to naturalize them.

The result is a deeply immoral system, as Victor Davis Hanson notes, which wreaks havoc on the rule of law by creating an unenforceable set of laws and turning masses of innocent people into criminals. The fact that we allow people who show up at the border to come through illegally and remain “illegals” is a travesty, but the answer is not to send them back to where they came from.

We need to break out of the stale debate over immigration and return to the great American tradition of open immigration. Wall or no wall, we should welcome more immigrants.

Tune into the show of ideas, not attitude, and call in at any time to join my conversation with Alex:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47921748Thu, 23 May 2019 19:33:00 +0000Bob ZadekConservative blogs are fond of spreading statistics like, “Most Federal Crimes Involve Immigration, Drugs and are Executed by Hispanics” [Judicial Watch]. This is highly misleading. In most cases, the crime in question is the illegal immigration...
This is highly misleading. In most cases, the crime in question is the illegal immigration itself, which says little about immigrants rates of other kinds of crime. In fact, if there is a link between immigration and crime, it seems to be inverse — i.e., immigrants are on average less likely to commit crimes.

Articles like the one linked above perfectly illustrate a point I often make with the Socratic method in the immigration debate. I ask opponents of illegal immigration which part they oppose — the “illegal” part, or the “immigrant.”

After watching their bizarre contortions for a minute or so, I usually declare victory.

… But what about terrorists?
1 in 3.8 million.

That is the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack committed by an illegal immigrant to the United States based on numbers compiled by Alex Nowrasteh from 1975 through 2017.

Alex has been on my show many times to debunk the many myths around immigration, including the argument that “this time it’s different” — that this wave of immigrants will not assimilate, or that these immigrants are only here for welfare benefits or are suppressing the wages of native workers.

Alex joins me this Sunday to review these myths, but more importantly, to go on the offensive against the biggest myth of all: that being pro-America requires a person to be anti-immigrant.

The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but they continue to confuse their facts, as both parties deny immigrants a legal status that would promote voluntary exchange and the rule of law.

As it stands, we set up cruel incentives for immigrants to live and work here illegally — in the shadow of the law — making them criminals in name only. People scapegoat them as lawless parasites, when something closer to the opposite is true.

… But what about disease?
There have been justified concerns from both sides about the uptick in deaths at detention centers, where thousands of immigrants have been quarantined for mumps and influenza. Children dying in custody at ICE centers is a humanitarian crisis, but it shouldn’t distract from the greater travesty that is preventing immigrants from pursuing a better life in the U.S.

That’s what America was supposed to be all about. We naturalized just as many immigrants as today in absolute numbers in 1910 as we do today:

“About one million legal immigrants come annually, the same number as in 1910, when the United States had about 71 percent fewer people. Adjusting for the size of the U.S. population, annual immigrant flows today are only about one-fourth the per capita annual flow in 1910.”

— Myths and Facts of Immigration Policy, January/February 2019 Cato Institute Policy Report

The great scandal should not be that so many people are coming across the border, but that the Federal Government has abdicated its responsibility to naturalize them.

The result is a deeply immoral system, as Victor Davis Hanson notes, which wreaks havoc on the rule of law by creating an unenforceable set of laws and turning masses of innocent people into criminals. The fact that we allow people who show up at the border to come through illegally and remain “illegals” is a travesty, but the answer is not to send them back to where they came from.

We need to break out of the stale debate over immigration and return to the great American tradition of open immigration. Wall or no wall, we should welcome more immigrants.

Tune into the show of ideas, not attitude, and call in at any time to join my conversation with Alex:]]>3065falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/american-default--47921873
In studying the 16-year long saga of Argentina’s default (which began in 2001), UCLA economics professor Sebastian Edwards frequently heard this view expressed, only to discover that it was not true.

His new book, American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold (Princeton University Press, 2018) documents a forgotten episode in which the U.S. technically defaulted on its debts in the form of President Roosevelt’s 1934 devaluation of the dollar.

Most economists agree that the Great Depression was worsened by the collapse in prices — especially commodity prices — which made it impossible for farmers and others to earn a reasonable living or pay back their loans. The sudden rush by the public to hoard gold depleted the financial system of the backing for money, leading to a rapid deflation that crushed borrowers beneath burdensome debts.

One solution, widely acknowledged since Milton Friedman and Anna Schwarz’s Monetary History of the United States, is to create inflation by printing money and devaluing the dollar. However, lending contracts in the 1930s period frequently contained a clause that required debts to be paid back in gold or gold-equivalent. This meant that any devaluation attempt would correspond to even higher dollar payments, sinking debtors even further into debt.

FDR improvised, and on the urging of a heterodox economist named George Warren doubled the price of an ounce of gold with the stroke of a pen, while simultaneously abrogating the gold-backing clauses that would have otherwise thwarted his plan.

Buy the book: American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold. Princeton University Press, 2018, Sebastian Edwards

Oddly, Friedman and Schwarz largely neglected this vital chapter of the Great Depression. The first book-length study of the dollar devaluation, American Default splits its focus between the economics and the legal challenges of FDR’s devaluation. 68 pages are dedicated the Supreme Court decision — frequently read in law schools — that upheld FDR’s move as constitutional, since the U.S. still technically paid back its creditors (albeit in devalued dollars).

If this doesn’t debunk the notion that default could never happen here, we might take a look at the U.S. government’s debt as a percentage of GDP. Edwards notes that his colleagues Carmen Reinhardt and Kenneth Rogoff’s research shows that 90% debt-to-GDP ratios have been the historical tipping point triggering default in places like Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Russia and Chile.

We’ve been watching Venezuela’s slow-motion meltdown at the hands of populist macroeconomics. Could such a fate await the United States if we continue down the path of unsustainable entitlement spending?

Sebastian Edwards joined me for the full hour to discuss his research on the politics and economics of FDR's devaluation, and the parallels to the populist macroeconomics of today.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47921873Tue, 07 May 2019 19:41:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe United States Treasury Bill — an IOU issued by the federal government — has long been considered a risk-free investment. It may not offer a high return these days but at least you’re sure to get your money back, they say. After all, the U.S. has...
In studying the 16-year long saga of Argentina’s default (which began in 2001), UCLA economics professor Sebastian Edwards frequently heard this view expressed, only to discover that it was not true.

His new book, American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold (Princeton University Press, 2018) documents a forgotten episode in which the U.S. technically defaulted on its debts in the form of President Roosevelt’s 1934 devaluation of the dollar.

Most economists agree that the Great Depression was worsened by the collapse in prices — especially commodity prices — which made it impossible for farmers and others to earn a reasonable living or pay back their loans. The sudden rush by the public to hoard gold depleted the financial system of the backing for money, leading to a rapid deflation that crushed borrowers beneath burdensome debts.

One solution, widely acknowledged since Milton Friedman and Anna Schwarz’s Monetary History of the United States, is to create inflation by printing money and devaluing the dollar. However, lending contracts in the 1930s period frequently contained a clause that required debts to be paid back in gold or gold-equivalent. This meant that any devaluation attempt would correspond to even higher dollar payments, sinking debtors even further into debt.

FDR improvised, and on the urging of a heterodox economist named George Warren doubled the price of an ounce of gold with the stroke of a pen, while simultaneously abrogating the gold-backing clauses that would have otherwise thwarted his plan.

Buy the book: American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold. Princeton University Press, 2018, Sebastian Edwards

Oddly, Friedman and Schwarz largely neglected this vital chapter of the Great Depression. The first book-length study of the dollar devaluation, American Default splits its focus between the economics and the legal challenges of FDR’s devaluation. 68 pages are dedicated the Supreme Court decision — frequently read in law schools — that upheld FDR’s move as constitutional, since the U.S. still technically paid back its creditors (albeit in devalued dollars).

If this doesn’t debunk the notion that default could never happen here, we might take a look at the U.S. government’s debt as a percentage of GDP. Edwards notes that his colleagues Carmen Reinhardt and Kenneth Rogoff’s research shows that 90% debt-to-GDP ratios have been the historical tipping point triggering default in places like Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Russia and Chile.

We’ve been watching Venezuela’s slow-motion meltdown at the hands of populist macroeconomics. Could such a fate await the United States if we continue down the path of unsustainable entitlement spending?

Sebastian Edwards joined me for the full hour to discuss his research on the politics and economics of FDR's devaluation, and the parallels to the populist macroeconomics of today.]]>3012falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hugo-chavez-failed-messiah--47921936
Clif, a poet, film director, and former Bolivarian revolutionary, lost many of his former “comrades” when he conclusively rejected socialist ideology once it became impossible for him to ignore its failure in Venezuela. His memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia: A Journey through American Revolutions, documents this conversion and was the subject of Bob’s discussion with him back in January. However, that conversation left little time to dig into the current situation in Venezuela, which is deteriorating more and more each day.

Since January, Clif published a lengthy mea culpa of sorts in Quillette, documenting how he “had drifted — at first gradually, but then definitively — into the camp of my former ‘enemies,’ persuaded by their narrative and by the evidence before my own eyes.”

The article was publicized by Jordan Peterson and others whose praise further eroded whatever remaining sympathies the hard-left may have had for Clif. Despite the adulation from conservatives and libertarians, Clif remains an independent thinker who won’t be pigeonholed into any ideological camp.

Neither left nor right, Clif’s worldview is rooted in more nuanced theological and philosophical ideas. He subscribes to Thomas Sowell’s view, laid out in The Vision of the Anointed, which pits the unconstrained, or utopian worldview against the constrained, or tragic worldview. The latter assumes that people behave in their self interest, and that governments should not be too ambitious in trying to change human nature.

Clif returns to the show this Sunday with producer and guest host Charlie Deist to pick up where he left off, discussing the similarities between Bolivarian socialism and other versions of “Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM)” seen throughout history.

When the tragedy in Venezuela is viewed through the lens of mankind’s religious yearnings, Hugo Chavez emerges as a kind of false messiah — one anointed by himself and his followers to usher in heaven on Earth (paging Dr. Muravchik). When the ailing Chavez failed to bring about the promised socialist utopia, he hand-picked Nicolas Maduro as his replacement in an alternative form of apostolic succession. The remaining true believers are scrambling to resuscitate the failing revolution, accusing the opposition leader John Guiado of being a puppet of U.S. imperialists, and calling the popular protests an illegimate coup.

Charlie and Clif discuss the “synoptic delusion” of socialist dictators, which leads them to believe they can steer markets and society through centralized control.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47921936Sun, 05 May 2019 19:49:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen we last heard from Clif Ross, Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship seemed to be on the brink of collapse. Months later, Nicolás Maduro has managed to cling to power throughout the blackouts and riots that have darkened a country with so much...
Clif, a poet, film director, and former Bolivarian revolutionary, lost many of his former “comrades” when he conclusively rejected socialist ideology once it became impossible for him to ignore its failure in Venezuela. His memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia: A Journey through American Revolutions, documents this conversion and was the subject of Bob’s discussion with him back in January. However, that conversation left little time to dig into the current situation in Venezuela, which is deteriorating more and more each day.

Since January, Clif published a lengthy mea culpa of sorts in Quillette, documenting how he “had drifted — at first gradually, but then definitively — into the camp of my former ‘enemies,’ persuaded by their narrative and by the evidence before my own eyes.”

The article was publicized by Jordan Peterson and others whose praise further eroded whatever remaining sympathies the hard-left may have had for Clif. Despite the adulation from conservatives and libertarians, Clif remains an independent thinker who won’t be pigeonholed into any ideological camp.

Neither left nor right, Clif’s worldview is rooted in more nuanced theological and philosophical ideas. He subscribes to Thomas Sowell’s view, laid out in The Vision of the Anointed, which pits the unconstrained, or utopian worldview against the constrained, or tragic worldview. The latter assumes that people behave in their self interest, and that governments should not be too ambitious in trying to change human nature.

Clif returns to the show this Sunday with producer and guest host Charlie Deist to pick up where he left off, discussing the similarities between Bolivarian socialism and other versions of “Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM)” seen throughout history.

When the tragedy in Venezuela is viewed through the lens of mankind’s religious yearnings, Hugo Chavez emerges as a kind of false messiah — one anointed by himself and his followers to usher in heaven on Earth (paging Dr. Muravchik). When the ailing Chavez failed to bring about the promised socialist utopia, he hand-picked Nicolas Maduro as his replacement in an alternative form of apostolic succession. The remaining true believers are scrambling to resuscitate the failing revolution, accusing the opposition leader John Guiado of being a puppet of U.S. imperialists, and calling the popular protests an illegimate coup.

Charlie and Clif discuss the “synoptic delusion” of socialist dictators, which leads them to believe they can steer markets and society through centralized control.]]>3034falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/social-media-censorship--47922002
Perhaps Trump’s ego is interfering with his ability to see clearly on this issue, but social media censorship is still a vital topic of concern for all Americans who value free speech.

When tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter dominate so much of the online landscape, their speech codes, suspensions, and “deplatforming” campaigns can make or break a person’s business or reputation. Prominent libertarians and conservatives, including Scott Horton of AntiWar.com, have already been flagged or removed from social media for so-called hate speech. Who’s next?

If you believe, as I do, that neither the government nor powerful tech companies should be the arbiters of what counts as unacceptable speech, you should consider moving to Minds.com. Minds is the social network for free exchange— where sunshine is the only remedy for bad ideas, and censorship is the only viewpoint that isn’t tolerated.

Minds CEO and co-founder Bill Ottman joined me last year to talk about the need to diversify away from Big Tech’s monopoly on free speech.

Since then, I published an entire book on the dangers of free speech bubbles — particularly on college campuses — that insulate people from allegedly offensive ideas. Both universities and social networks share a superficially private quality, but are the equivalent of today’s public square. If the First Amendment doesn’t defend free speech here, it’s useless.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1946 [Marsh v. Alabama] that a company town couldn’t prevent one of its residents from distributing religious literature, since the company management was essentially acting as if it were the government. The majority argued that “[w]hile the town is owned by a private company, it is open for use by the public and thus becomes limited by the constitutional rights of the people there, who are entitled to the freedoms of speech and religion.”

I chafe against the idea of any social media network acting as a quasi-government agency, so I think libertarians are better off moving to freer platforms like Minds.com. Until they kick me off, however, I will continue to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and the like to spread the word about what’s happening.

Also, catch “The After Show” with me, Bill, and my producer on YouTube, where we continued to discuss the slippery problem of free speech in the digital era.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922002Wed, 24 Apr 2019 19:59:00 +0000Bob ZadekEarlier this week, President Trump sat down in the Oval Office with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to talk about, among other things, Twitter’s censorship policies, and his own follower count. Trump asked if Twitter had discriminated against him — his 45...
Perhaps Trump’s ego is interfering with his ability to see clearly on this issue, but social media censorship is still a vital topic of concern for all Americans who value free speech.

When tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter dominate so much of the online landscape, their speech codes, suspensions, and “deplatforming” campaigns can make or break a person’s business or reputation. Prominent libertarians and conservatives, including Scott Horton of AntiWar.com, have already been flagged or removed from social media for so-called hate speech. Who’s next?

If you believe, as I do, that neither the government nor powerful tech companies should be the arbiters of what counts as unacceptable speech, you should consider moving to Minds.com. Minds is the social network for free exchange— where sunshine is the only remedy for bad ideas, and censorship is the only viewpoint that isn’t tolerated.

Minds CEO and co-founder Bill Ottman joined me last year to talk about the need to diversify away from Big Tech’s monopoly on free speech.

Since then, I published an entire book on the dangers of free speech bubbles — particularly on college campuses — that insulate people from allegedly offensive ideas. Both universities and social networks share a superficially private quality, but are the equivalent of today’s public square. If the First Amendment doesn’t defend free speech here, it’s useless.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1946 [Marsh v. Alabama] that a company town couldn’t prevent one of its residents from distributing religious literature, since the company management was essentially acting as if it were the government. The majority argued that “[w]hile the town is owned by a private company, it is open for use by the public and thus becomes limited by the constitutional rights of the people there, who are entitled to the freedoms of speech and religion.”

I chafe against the idea of any social media network acting as a quasi-government agency, so I think libertarians are better off moving to freer platforms like Minds.com. Until they kick me off, however, I will continue to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and the like to spread the word about what’s happening.

Also, catch “The After Show” with me, Bill, and my producer on YouTube, where we continued to discuss the slippery problem of free speech in the digital era.]]>3060falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-create-a-legitimacy-crisis--47922152
— @PackSCOTUS Twitter account

Two weeks ago, David A. Kaplan warned that the judicial branch had become far too powerful. I agreed.

We’ve felt the effects in the form of bitter partisanship over judicial nominations. When Mitch McConnell gambled on denying Merrick Garland a hearing until after the 2016 election, Democrats saw it as their responsibility to respond in kind by turning Kavanaugh’s nomination into a circus. Since that failed to stop his nomination, some have escalated their rhetoric even further — going as far as reviving FDR’s failed court packing scheme.

Ilya Somin says this is a terrible idea. The Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law and blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy (now hosted at Reason.com) has written several articles explaining why.

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing

The same logic that ultimately put the idea to rest back in 1937 holds today. Somin quotes a Democratic senator who put it concisely back then:

“Create now a political court to echo the ideas of the Executive and you have created a weapon. A weapon which, in the hands of another President in times of war or other hysteria, could well be an instrument of destruction. A weapon that can cut down those guaranties of liberty written into your great document by the blood of your forefathers and that can extinguish your right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion. A weapon whose use is only dictated by the conscience of the wielder.” — Sen. Burton Wheeler (D)

But the political heat of the moment has apparently made some Democrats forget that the power to turn 9 into 13, 19 or more, could backfire in the hands of the “wrong” president. And without judicial independence, “right” and “wrong” are all a matter of perspective.

Even liberal scholars and politicians, he notes, have opposed the idea — from Noah Feldman and Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, to Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey. They say that court packing is not a proportional response to the failure to give Garland a hearing, and note that it would only worsen the legitimacy crisis that the court’s detractors claim as the reason for packing it.

Somin’s take on the legitimacy crisis is more subtle. He thinks it’s overblown, but with so many mainstream Democratic candidates talking about court packing, it’s not as unthinkable as it once was.

The primary race has barely just begun, but this already seems to be an area in which Democrats have started a race to the bottom.

Ilya returned to the show to talk about the the history of court packing, and why it’s just as bad an idea today as it was 80 years ago.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922152Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:09:00 +0000Bob Zadek“If you want to build a democracy that works for everyone, you must have an honest judiciary. If you want an honest judiciary, you #PackTheCourts” — @PackSCOTUS Twitter account Two weeks ago, David A. Kaplan warned that the judicial branch had...
— @PackSCOTUS Twitter account

Two weeks ago, David A. Kaplan warned that the judicial branch had become far too powerful. I agreed.

We’ve felt the effects in the form of bitter partisanship over judicial nominations. When Mitch McConnell gambled on denying Merrick Garland a hearing until after the 2016 election, Democrats saw it as their responsibility to respond in kind by turning Kavanaugh’s nomination into a circus. Since that failed to stop his nomination, some have escalated their rhetoric even further — going as far as reviving FDR’s failed court packing scheme.

Ilya Somin says this is a terrible idea. The Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law and blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy (now hosted at Reason.com) has written several articles explaining why.

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing

The same logic that ultimately put the idea to rest back in 1937 holds today. Somin quotes a Democratic senator who put it concisely back then:

“Create now a political court to echo the ideas of the Executive and you have created a weapon. A weapon which, in the hands of another President in times of war or other hysteria, could well be an instrument of destruction. A weapon that can cut down those guaranties of liberty written into your great document by the blood of your forefathers and that can extinguish your right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion. A weapon whose use is only dictated by the conscience of the wielder.” — Sen. Burton Wheeler (D)

But the political heat of the moment has apparently made some Democrats forget that the power to turn 9 into 13, 19 or more, could backfire in the hands of the “wrong” president. And without judicial independence, “right” and “wrong” are all a matter of perspective.

Even liberal scholars and politicians, he notes, have opposed the idea — from Noah Feldman and Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, to Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey. They say that court packing is not a proportional response to the failure to give Garland a hearing, and note that it would only worsen the legitimacy crisis that the court’s detractors claim as the reason for packing it.

Somin’s take on the legitimacy crisis is more subtle. He thinks it’s overblown, but with so many mainstream Democratic candidates talking about court packing, it’s not as unthinkable as it once was.

The primary race has barely just begun, but this already seems to be an area in which Democrats have started a race to the bottom.

Ilya returned to the show to talk about the the history of court packing, and why it’s just as bad an idea today as it was 80 years ago.]]>3033falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/socialism-reincarnated--47922451
While libertarians picture the deprivations of actual socialism in places like the Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, idealists prefer to cherry-pick Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway.

Talking with a socialist can be like playing whack-a-mole. You point to a failure and they tell you, “But that wasn’t REAL socialism.”

In his 2003 book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, World Affairs Institute fellow Joshua Muravchik documents the many faces of socialism throughout history, and none of them are pretty. In a piece for the Wall Street Journal this week, Muravchik notes that even the best case scenarios for socialism have been disasters (or else morphed into something that was no longer socialism). Now he’s publishing a new edition that includes “the Afterlife,” on the recent reincarnation of the bad idea that just won’t stay dead.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a Democratic candidate is just one worrisome sign that socialism is regaining influence. Humanity might be forgiven for initially falling for socialism and its utopian promises of a “New Socialist Man.” Two centuries later, however, ignorance is no excuse. Marxism was supposed to be scientific, but Karl Marx’s intellectual legacy has brought about more human misery than virtually any ideas in history.

Muravchik charts this tragic history of the world’s worst idea with clarity and fascinating detail. His book includes the story of a relatively obscure Welsh social reformer named Robert Owen, whose efforts to help industrial workers led him to found several experiments in communal living — both in the UK and the US. In almost every case, these experiments were dystopian and short-lived.

But before Owen and his followers coined the term socialism, the French Revolution had given birth to the spirit of Egalité by any means necessary. The Reign of Terror and elimination of the hierarchy would soon morph into a totalizing economic doctrine that swept away traditions of property rights. Much like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the 1900s, the French Revolution used fear and violence to replace religious ideals, customs, and institutions with allegedly more “rational” ones that would usher in heaven on earth.

Socialism, Muravchik demonstrates convincingly, was always a substitute religion — and an extremely popular one at that.

He himself was brought up under this religion, and joined the Young People’s Socialist League in 1962, the same year as Bernie Sanders. However, his anti-communism and growing awareness of the failure of socialist experiments around the world turned him into a neo-conservative.

[Watch this 2002 video of Muravchik in discussion with Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer at the American Enterprise Institute]

Resurrecting the Corpse
So what should we make of the rapid ascent of politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib? Considering that the Democratic Socialists of America, of which they are members, stand in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, we probably ought to be worried.

In an article for the Weekly Standard, [Up from the Grave, Nov. 8, 2018], Muravchik explains that the seeming compromise of “democratic” socialism is merely a cover for a coercive socialist agenda. Democratic countries never adopt socialism, and real socialism requires taking away people’s democratic rights. Therefore democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms.

But What About Sweden?
Neither are “social democracies” in countries like Norway and Sweden the shining beacons of socialism their proponents claim them to be. After a few decades of lukewarm socialism, most Nordic countries embraced free markets in most areas — using the explosive growth allowed by capitalism to generate revenues for a more expansive welfare state.

Muravchik notes that the kibbutzim in Israel are not the a demonstration that socialism works on a small scale, since these have gradually replaced the shared purse with private ownership. Thankfully, the participants in Israel’s kibbutzim seem to have acknowledged the failures of socialism rather than taking them as evidence for a need to simply expand the scope.

It remains to be seen whether Sanders, AOC, and the vanguard of the unemployed college graduates will organize into a force to be reckoned with, or if we can put socialism back to rest in peace — permanently.

President Trump went on the record at the United Nations recently to say that the United States will never be a socialist country, adding that “America was founded on liberty and independence, not coercion, domination and control.”

Let’s hope he’s right.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922451Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:30:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe word “socialism” — like capitalism, liberalism, and fascism — means different things to different people. While libertarians picture the deprivations of actual socialism in places like the Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, idealists...
While libertarians picture the deprivations of actual socialism in places like the Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, idealists prefer to cherry-pick Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway.

Talking with a socialist can be like playing whack-a-mole. You point to a failure and they tell you, “But that wasn’t REAL socialism.”

In his 2003 book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, World Affairs Institute fellow Joshua Muravchik documents the many faces of socialism throughout history, and none of them are pretty. In a piece for the Wall Street Journal this week, Muravchik notes that even the best case scenarios for socialism have been disasters (or else morphed into something that was no longer socialism). Now he’s publishing a new edition that includes “the Afterlife,” on the recent reincarnation of the bad idea that just won’t stay dead.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a Democratic candidate is just one worrisome sign that socialism is regaining influence. Humanity might be forgiven for initially falling for socialism and its utopian promises of a “New Socialist Man.” Two centuries later, however, ignorance is no excuse. Marxism was supposed to be scientific, but Karl Marx’s intellectual legacy has brought about more human misery than virtually any ideas in history.

Muravchik charts this tragic history of the world’s worst idea with clarity and fascinating detail. His book includes the story of a relatively obscure Welsh social reformer named Robert Owen, whose efforts to help industrial workers led him to found several experiments in communal living — both in the UK and the US. In almost every case, these experiments were dystopian and short-lived.

But before Owen and his followers coined the term socialism, the French Revolution had given birth to the spirit of Egalité by any means necessary. The Reign of Terror and elimination of the hierarchy would soon morph into a totalizing economic doctrine that swept away traditions of property rights. Much like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the 1900s, the French Revolution used fear and violence to replace religious ideals, customs, and institutions with allegedly more “rational” ones that would usher in heaven on earth.

Socialism, Muravchik demonstrates convincingly, was always a substitute religion — and an extremely popular one at that.

He himself was brought up under this religion, and joined the Young People’s Socialist League in 1962, the same year as Bernie Sanders. However, his anti-communism and growing awareness of the failure of socialist experiments around the world turned him into a neo-conservative.

[Watch this 2002 video of Muravchik in discussion with Irving Kristol and Charles Krauthammer at the American Enterprise Institute]

Resurrecting the Corpse
So what should we make of the rapid ascent of politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib? Considering that the Democratic Socialists of America, of which they are members, stand in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, we probably ought to be worried.

In an article for the Weekly Standard, [Up from the Grave, Nov. 8, 2018], Muravchik explains that the seeming compromise of “democratic” socialism is merely a cover for a coercive socialist agenda. Democratic countries never adopt socialism, and real socialism requires taking away people’s democratic rights. Therefore democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms.

But What About Sweden?
Neither are “social democracies” in countries like Norway and Sweden the shining beacons of socialism their proponents claim them to be. After a few decades of lukewarm socialism, most Nordic countries embraced free markets in most areas — using the explosive growth allowed by...]]>3138falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/demystifying-the-supreme-court--47922722
During the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journalists mused whether the circus around his nomination hearings might be leading to a crisis of legitimacy on the Supreme Court.

Notably, these musings mostly came from the left and those who opposed Kavanaugh ideologically. Their very utterance was an instance of further politicizing and de-legitimizing of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court was intended by the founders to remain “above the fray.” But the political tit-for-tat around increasingly divisive confirmation hearings is just the tip of the iceberg of a legitimacy crisis that has been brewing for much longer.

David Kaplan’s new book, The Most Dangerous Branch, is a deep dive into the history and personalities that have turned the Supreme Court into the hyper-politicized and self-aggrandizing institution it is today. He takes readers into the heart of the “Marble Palace,” where the nine black-robed justices have sat enthroned since 1935, deciding some of the most controversial issues in American life.

How did we get to a place where nine individuals hold so much power — where Supreme Court Justices are viewed as demigods?

Against the narrative of “Supreme Court as Jedi High Council” comes Kaplan’s revealing and occasionally unflattering portrait of the Trump Court.

The Supreme Court is not and ought not be our only hope, he says.

The book provides a fascinating glimpse into the personalities and egos of judges — both those who have ultimately been confirmed and those whose enthusiasm and jockeying for a nomination ended up disqualifying them. It’s a sobering reminder that the justices on the Supreme Court are not deities, but merely lawyers — and humans at that.

Judicial Restraint for Thee, but Not For Me
I’ve argued that the more that power is concentrated in a few hands, the more vicious politics battles become, since the public feels powerless.

Congress was supposed to make the laws, and the courts were supposed to interpret them. The difference is subtle, and the idea of “judicial restraint versus judicial activism” has come to characterize the debate. An activist judiciary overrides Congress’s will in interpreting laws so as to nullify or contradict them. A restrained judiciary leaves laws on the books unless they egregiously violate the Constitution.

Justice Gorsuch made a case for judicial restraint back in 2005 in a National Review article titled “Liberals’N’Lawsuits,” which pointed out the danger of letting the courts decide key social issues.

But Kaplan thinks Gorsuch is a hypocrite:

“[W]hy did Gorsuch see this as a liberal phenomenon? His piece mentioned “liberals” eight times and “conservatives” not once. Weren’t conservatives likewise “addicted to the courtroom,” “relying on judges and lawyers” to try to overturn legislative “compromises” that had been reached by “elected leaders” on such tempestuous matters as voting rights and gun control?”

On the other side, Reason Magazine’s Damon Root and others in the “libertarian legal movement” have actually made the case for an activist judiciary that overrules government overreach into the lives of individuals.

Perhaps there is an underlying principle behind the application of one standard over another, but based on the increasing number of 5–4 decisions along partisan lines, it appears that the standard often flips to suit the political proclivities of the majority on the bench.

Kaplan says this has a corrosive effect on the Republic. It enfeebles Congress and emboldens the Supreme Court to the point of arrogance. The judiciary can be added to the list that includes the administrative agencies of those who enable Congressional laziness.

Sleeping Giant
Alexander Hamilton expected the judiciary to be the “least dangerous branch,” possessing neither the power of the sword (like the executive) nor the purse (like Congress), but merely judgment. That judgment, however, has turned out to be a powerful force.

Kaplan finds the roots of an overinflated judicial branch in one of the earliest Supreme Court judgments — Marbury v. Madison — enshrining judicial review, i.e., the ability of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional. He reminds us that this power appears nowhere in the Constitution before tracing its expanding scope through the 1800s and the Lochner era — in which the Court upheld economic liberties over-and-against regulations passed by state legislatures — to the formal discovery of the right of substantive due process.

Kaplan notes that we have to distinguish between our personal views on an issue and the rightfulness of the court deciding to overrule a majority in the legislature.

In declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” under the Constitution, for example, the Supreme Court solidified its usurpation of the legislative function and short-circuited the public debate playing out in legislatures.

Later, the right would get its “revenge” in a series of cases beginning with Bush v. Gore — decided along strictly partisan lines. In that case, it was liberals advocating judicial restraint and conservatives “trampling the independence of states.”

Kaplan believes that one’s opinion of a Supreme Court decision should be based on more than whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the case. He has done us all a service by documenting the arbitrary nature of many decisions the court makes, and the danger it poses to a balance of powers.

Soon, the Supreme Court will be issuing a decision in a case about partisan gerrymandering. The question before them is whether unfair district lines infringe a fundamental, by making many votes count less than they otherwise would.

Kaplan joined me for the full hour to discuss this an other upcoming Supreme Court cases through the lens of his book and the humans (all too human) who make up the “Trump Court.”

Is judicial activism really just whatever the other guy does? Find out, on the show of ideas, not attitude:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922722Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:41:00 +0000Bob Zadek“If you have five votes here, you can do anything,” — Justice William J. Brennan Jr. During the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journalists mused whether the circus around his nomination hearings might be leading to a crisis of legitimacy on the...
During the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journalists mused whether the circus around his nomination hearings might be leading to a crisis of legitimacy on the Supreme Court.

Notably, these musings mostly came from the left and those who opposed Kavanaugh ideologically. Their very utterance was an instance of further politicizing and de-legitimizing of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court was intended by the founders to remain “above the fray.” But the political tit-for-tat around increasingly divisive confirmation hearings is just the tip of the iceberg of a legitimacy crisis that has been brewing for much longer.

David Kaplan’s new book, The Most Dangerous Branch, is a deep dive into the history and personalities that have turned the Supreme Court into the hyper-politicized and self-aggrandizing institution it is today. He takes readers into the heart of the “Marble Palace,” where the nine black-robed justices have sat enthroned since 1935, deciding some of the most controversial issues in American life.

How did we get to a place where nine individuals hold so much power — where Supreme Court Justices are viewed as demigods?

Against the narrative of “Supreme Court as Jedi High Council” comes Kaplan’s revealing and occasionally unflattering portrait of the Trump Court.

The Supreme Court is not and ought not be our only hope, he says.

The book provides a fascinating glimpse into the personalities and egos of judges — both those who have ultimately been confirmed and those whose enthusiasm and jockeying for a nomination ended up disqualifying them. It’s a sobering reminder that the justices on the Supreme Court are not deities, but merely lawyers — and humans at that.

Judicial Restraint for Thee, but Not For Me
I’ve argued that the more that power is concentrated in a few hands, the more vicious politics battles become, since the public feels powerless.

Congress was supposed to make the laws, and the courts were supposed to interpret them. The difference is subtle, and the idea of “judicial restraint versus judicial activism” has come to characterize the debate. An activist judiciary overrides Congress’s will in interpreting laws so as to nullify or contradict them. A restrained judiciary leaves laws on the books unless they egregiously violate the Constitution.

Justice Gorsuch made a case for judicial restraint back in 2005 in a National Review article titled “Liberals’N’Lawsuits,” which pointed out the danger of letting the courts decide key social issues.

But Kaplan thinks Gorsuch is a hypocrite:

“[W]hy did Gorsuch see this as a liberal phenomenon? His piece mentioned “liberals” eight times and “conservatives” not once. Weren’t conservatives likewise “addicted to the courtroom,” “relying on judges and lawyers” to try to overturn legislative “compromises” that had been reached by “elected leaders” on such tempestuous matters as voting rights and gun control?”

On the other side, Reason Magazine’s Damon Root and others in the “libertarian legal movement” have actually made the case for an activist judiciary that overrules government overreach into the lives of individuals.

Perhaps there is an underlying principle behind the application of one standard over another, but based on the increasing number of 5–4 decisions along partisan lines, it appears that the standard often flips to suit the political proclivities of the majority on the bench.

Kaplan says this has a corrosive effect on the Republic. It enfeebles Congress and emboldens the Supreme Court to the point of arrogance. The judiciary can be added to the list that includes the administrative agencies of those who enable Congressional laziness.

Sleeping Giant
Alexander Hamilton expected the judiciary...]]>3099falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/david-henderson-on-trumponomics-deficits-and-immigration--47922896
Trump he has consulted Moore on a number of his key economic policies — including, thankfully, free trade. Moore has pushed Trump to remove tariffs, and for the time being we seem to be angling in that direction. Now, President Trump has nominated Moore to the Federal Reserve Board, which many take as a sign that of the on-going politicization of the central bank. Moore wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal which called the Fed a “threat to growth,” and by some measures it does look like the recent tightening is going beyond what’s necessary to keep inflation in line.

Professor Emeritus David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California joined the show’s producer, Charlie Deist, to give an update on how “Trumponomics” is playing out in the economy, and to analyze whether the growth we have seen under Trump’s presidency is sustainable. They also discuss whether Moore is a suitable candidate for the Federal Reserve Board, or whether his pro-growth, free-market optimism would be better utilized in a different position.

Lastly, David and Charlie talk about the unusual proposition of a “strategic default,” by the U.S. Federal Government, which would let taxpayers off the hook and leave bondholders holding the bag for the risk they took in trusting such an undisciplined spender.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922896Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:49:00 +0000Bob ZadekBack in October, Bob spent an hour with Stephen Moore – former president of the Club for Growth, and author of *Trumponomics.* Moore is a supply-side economist, meaning he thinks that many tax cuts pay for themselves in the long run. He and Bob talked...
Trump he has consulted Moore on a number of his key economic policies — including, thankfully, free trade. Moore has pushed Trump to remove tariffs, and for the time being we seem to be angling in that direction. Now, President Trump has nominated Moore to the Federal Reserve Board, which many take as a sign that of the on-going politicization of the central bank. Moore wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal which called the Fed a “threat to growth,” and by some measures it does look like the recent tightening is going beyond what’s necessary to keep inflation in line.

Professor Emeritus David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California joined the show’s producer, Charlie Deist, to give an update on how “Trumponomics” is playing out in the economy, and to analyze whether the growth we have seen under Trump’s presidency is sustainable. They also discuss whether Moore is a suitable candidate for the Federal Reserve Board, or whether his pro-growth, free-market optimism would be better utilized in a different position.

Lastly, David and Charlie talk about the unusual proposition of a “strategic default,” by the U.S. Federal Government, which would let taxpayers off the hook and leave bondholders holding the bag for the risk they took in trusting such an undisciplined spender.]]>3126falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/libertarian-anti-poverty-policy--47922970
The War on Poverty has been no exception. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson sought prevent and even cure poverty, much like Nixon unsuccessfully sought to cure cancer. Some 60 years later, the poor are still with us and bad policies alleviate poverty effectively trap them there.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has written the definitive book on a libertarian anti-poverty policy. The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor is both readable yet scholarly. It plots the history of welfare from the Middle Ages to the present, and shows how the current system arose from two conflicting outlooks about why poverty exists. Both liberals and conservatives have missed the mark in their diagnosis and, more importantly, their cure for poverty.

Free markets and exponential growth have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, but government continues to create artificial barriers that keep people stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. We can start by pointing out the harmful effects of minimum wages, occupational licensing and the like, but it goes much beyond this.

A Short Lesson in Marginal Tax Rates
Rule #1 for thinking clearly about welfare is that incentives matter. Rule #2 is that we have to think at the margin. In other words, we have to ask what the incentives are for a person at the poverty line to earn or save an additional dollar? Since many benefits are conditional on low income or a scarcity of savings, the poor are faced with the devil’s dilemma of either bettering themselves and losing their free benefits, or remaining economically secure wards of the state.

The marginal tax rate for people just above the poverty rate is 34%, meaning 1/3 of every additional dollar earned goes to the government. That puts them in a higher bracket than those earning more than $250,000 a year.

Stopping the Blame Game
Tanner notes that while conservatives are likely to blame the poor for a lack of personal responsibility — citing a “culture of poverty” as the reason for their poverty — liberals tend to focus too much on structural issues. While both cultural and structural causes are real, they are also hard to disentangle. Debating which factor predominates is usually done to assign blame to some group to score political points. Both sides share a paternalistic attitude that uses poverty as an excuse to limit freedom of choice, and neither side acknowledges what actually works to alleviate poverty.

Like a good doctor, Tanner’s approach is to “first do no harm.” From poverty traps, to dismal public schools, to incarceration for victimless crimes, the government already does a great deal to guarantee the existence of an entrenched lower class.

Tanner’s book points to five specific areas where we can help the poor by enhancing freedom and helping people become captains of their own fate. Hear what these areas are, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47922970Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:59:00 +0000Bob ZadekA few weeks ago, Elizabeth Nolan Brown explained how the War on Sex Workers is making the problems usually associated with prostitution worse. I noted that it seems like a rule that whenever government declares war on something, bad things happen....
The War on Poverty has been no exception. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson sought prevent and even cure poverty, much like Nixon unsuccessfully sought to cure cancer. Some 60 years later, the poor are still with us and bad policies alleviate poverty effectively trap them there.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has written the definitive book on a libertarian anti-poverty policy. The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor is both readable yet scholarly. It plots the history of welfare from the Middle Ages to the present, and shows how the current system arose from two conflicting outlooks about why poverty exists. Both liberals and conservatives have missed the mark in their diagnosis and, more importantly, their cure for poverty.

Free markets and exponential growth have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, but government continues to create artificial barriers that keep people stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. We can start by pointing out the harmful effects of minimum wages, occupational licensing and the like, but it goes much beyond this.

A Short Lesson in Marginal Tax Rates
Rule #1 for thinking clearly about welfare is that incentives matter. Rule #2 is that we have to think at the margin. In other words, we have to ask what the incentives are for a person at the poverty line to earn or save an additional dollar? Since many benefits are conditional on low income or a scarcity of savings, the poor are faced with the devil’s dilemma of either bettering themselves and losing their free benefits, or remaining economically secure wards of the state.

The marginal tax rate for people just above the poverty rate is 34%, meaning 1/3 of every additional dollar earned goes to the government. That puts them in a higher bracket than those earning more than $250,000 a year.

Stopping the Blame Game
Tanner notes that while conservatives are likely to blame the poor for a lack of personal responsibility — citing a “culture of poverty” as the reason for their poverty — liberals tend to focus too much on structural issues. While both cultural and structural causes are real, they are also hard to disentangle. Debating which factor predominates is usually done to assign blame to some group to score political points. Both sides share a paternalistic attitude that uses poverty as an excuse to limit freedom of choice, and neither side acknowledges what actually works to alleviate poverty.

Like a good doctor, Tanner’s approach is to “first do no harm.” From poverty traps, to dismal public schools, to incarceration for victimless crimes, the government already does a great deal to guarantee the existence of an entrenched lower class.

Tanner’s book points to five specific areas where we can help the poor by enhancing freedom and helping people become captains of their own fate. Hear what these areas are, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3032falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/elizabeth-nolan-brown-on-the-war-on-sex-workers--47924125
Before clutching your pearls, put on your Bastiat-hat for a moment and consider the unseen effects of criminalizing prostitution. Where it is illegal, women who would otherwise voluntarily become sex workers face the possibility of being abused by their clients with no recourse to law enforcement. Meanwhile, those who are being trafficked will continue to meet an inevitable black market demand.

Bastiat says, “Train yourself to look not just at the seen, but the unseen.”

If Bastiat isn’t your cup of tea, perhaps you’ll listen to moral theologians from Augustine to Aquinas who have supported legalized prostitution. Many countries operate regulated brothels to protect workers, but in our Puritan-founded country, we often fail to distinguish between the clear crime of sex trafficking and the victimless crime of voluntary prostitution. Historically, U.S. law enforcement has conflated the two in order scare the public into supporting a ban on prostitution.

Perspective | Why laws to fight sex trafficking often backfire

Nolan Brown believes the latest hysteria spawned from Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft — if it results in tougher crackdowns on prostitutes — will harm innocent women and create an unnecessary bogeyman. She also has a message for an easily-excited media audience: Stop Letting People Lie to You About Hate Crime and Human Trafficking Spikes. The increase in reported sex trafficking cases (like hate crimes), comes from flawed data and reporting. There is no epidemic, and the hysteria is bringing more and more non-trafficked sex workers into the legal system’s dragnet.

Less hysterically, The Federalist’s David Marcus argues that “keeping government out of the bedroom” shouldn’t apply to commercial transactions. Marcus says that legalization would remove the social stigma, which in turn would make the industry more profitable, widespread, and entrenched.

But does legalized prostitution increase human traffickings? Here, a question of principle turns into an empirical puzzle over which there is some disagreement. Certainly, stark differences between jurisdictions create islands of legalization and incentives for traffickers to transport women across borders like commodities, but statistics on sex trafficking are notoriously unreliable. Advocacy groups often inflate figures to attract more money from the government, and law enforcement is rewarded for each “perp” they bring to justice. Brown has documented cases in which aggressive policing and media sensationalism have portrayed what turn out to be small, voluntary prostitution rings as major organized human-trafficking schemes.

My take: Everyone wants to pose as the Knight in Shining Armor who rescues women from being trafficked, including President Trump — who is using the issue as a talking point for his Wall. There are no perfect solutions in an unjust world, but a rational society might start by acknowledging that not all sex workers are victims. Even if you oppose prostitution, government crackdowns are no substitute for cultural change. David Marcus may have his heart in the right place, but he fails to consider how the market might regulate liaisons between consenting adults, while keeping questions of morals in the cultural arena and only questions of coercion in the hands of law enforcement.

Tune in to my conversation with Liz and let me know what you think.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924125Tue, 05 Mar 2019 23:06:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt seems like an ironclad law that whenever government declares war on an illicit activity, the problem gets worse. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an award-winning journalist and Reason editor who writes about how hysteria around human trafficking has...
Before clutching your pearls, put on your Bastiat-hat for a moment and consider the unseen effects of criminalizing prostitution. Where it is illegal, women who would otherwise voluntarily become sex workers face the possibility of being abused by their clients with no recourse to law enforcement. Meanwhile, those who are being trafficked will continue to meet an inevitable black market demand.

Bastiat says, “Train yourself to look not just at the seen, but the unseen.”

If Bastiat isn’t your cup of tea, perhaps you’ll listen to moral theologians from Augustine to Aquinas who have supported legalized prostitution. Many countries operate regulated brothels to protect workers, but in our Puritan-founded country, we often fail to distinguish between the clear crime of sex trafficking and the victimless crime of voluntary prostitution. Historically, U.S. law enforcement has conflated the two in order scare the public into supporting a ban on prostitution.

Perspective | Why laws to fight sex trafficking often backfire

Nolan Brown believes the latest hysteria spawned from Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft — if it results in tougher crackdowns on prostitutes — will harm innocent women and create an unnecessary bogeyman. She also has a message for an easily-excited media audience: Stop Letting People Lie to You About Hate Crime and Human Trafficking Spikes. The increase in reported sex trafficking cases (like hate crimes), comes from flawed data and reporting. There is no epidemic, and the hysteria is bringing more and more non-trafficked sex workers into the legal system’s dragnet.

Less hysterically, The Federalist’s David Marcus argues that “keeping government out of the bedroom” shouldn’t apply to commercial transactions. Marcus says that legalization would remove the social stigma, which in turn would make the industry more profitable, widespread, and entrenched.

But does legalized prostitution increase human traffickings? Here, a question of principle turns into an empirical puzzle over which there is some disagreement. Certainly, stark differences between jurisdictions create islands of legalization and incentives for traffickers to transport women across borders like commodities, but statistics on sex trafficking are notoriously unreliable. Advocacy groups often inflate figures to attract more money from the government, and law enforcement is rewarded for each “perp” they bring to justice. Brown has documented cases in which aggressive policing and media sensationalism have portrayed what turn out to be small, voluntary prostitution rings as major organized human-trafficking schemes.

My take: Everyone wants to pose as the Knight in Shining Armor who rescues women from being trafficked, including President Trump — who is using the issue as a talking point for his Wall. There are no perfect solutions in an unjust world, but a rational society might start by acknowledging that not all sex workers are victims. Even if you oppose prostitution, government crackdowns are no substitute for cultural change. David Marcus may have his heart in the right place, but he fails to consider how the market might regulate liaisons between consenting adults, while keeping questions of morals in the cultural arena and only questions of coercion in the hands of law enforcement.

Tune in to my...]]>3126falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/here-comes-the-storm--47924211
However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.

He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to “protect” Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.

Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls “the Cult of the Presidency,” and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.

McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President’s recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude:]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924211Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekI was careful not to be too dour in my “Progress Report for Liberty: 2018,” noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should...
However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.

He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to “protect” Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.

Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls “the Cult of the Presidency,” and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.

McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President’s recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude:]]>3071falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/not-enough-bricks--47924272
In areas from the environment to immigration, [California has tried its unique left-coast spin on Federalism](https://medium.com/@rzadek/california-discovers-federalism-d299f11d623) — bucking national standards in favor of its own progressive exemptions. Our vehicle emission standards have shaped the national debate, and the ambitious high speed rail bill is emblematic of California’s can-do spirit when it comes to tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

Governor Gavin Newsom says there’s “no way” he’s running for President in 2020—he has a job to do for at least 4 years—but the agenda he laid out in his recent State of the State address reflects the likely priorities of the pool of Democratic contenders. It was boldly progressive, pitting “California Values” against the President’s vision of America. Yet compared to the extremism of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” Newsom’s environmental agenda looks conservative.

[Marc Joffe, a senior policy analyst for the Reason Foundation,](https://reason.org/author/marc-joffe/) did the rest of us a favor by tuning in to the Governor’s address last week, and recently [wrote a piece](https://reason.org/commentary/new-governor-scales-back-california-high-speed-rail/) dealing with a surprisingly pragmatic plank of Newsom’s agenda. Whereas former Governor Brown hoped the bullet train from LA to SF would be his legacy and didn’t budge in the face of harsh economic realities, Newsom is confronting the possibility of a lack of funds to complete the project. He used his speech to signal his plans to limit costs by truncating the proposed line south of Bakersfield and west of Merced:

> “Let’s level about high-speed rail. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long.” — Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address
>

It looks like the classic parable* of the builder who failed to take stock of his inventory before beginning a project, and finds himself short before it’s finished. In this case, California may still be able to cut its losses before incurring the most expensive sections of the rail, although the sunk costs include the construction of the now-overkill “Transbay Terminal” that was supposed to serve as the terminus in San Francisco. Joffe notes that the $2.2 billion station will now amount to little more than an enormous bus stop.

This cautionary tale can come in handy whenever progressives begin lecturing on sustainability. It is even more relevant to the conversation around the Green New Deal, which promises nation-wide high speed rail as a substitute for vehicles and airplanes. **[Marc will join the show’s producer Charlie Deist this Sunday to debunk “AOC’s” daringly bad legislative proposal before it picks up steam in the popular imagination.](http://bobzadek.com/listen-live)**

Moderates in the Democratic Party would be wise to read up on the cold, hard experience of HSR in California, which demonstrates why centrally-planned mega-projects are a bad way to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Marc summarized the main reasons in a recent article:

> In a 2010 UC Berkeley study, Professors Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath estimated that the entire California high-speed rail project would generate 9.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide during construction.
>

> Chester and Horvath estimated that it would take high-speed rail 71 years of operation at medium occupancy to offset its own construction-related greenhouse-gas emissions. Given the project’s delays and carbon reductions being achieved by new technology, like electric vehicles, it is possible that, if built, the rail system will never pay back the carbon investment required to build it.
>

**[Opinion: California overstates bullet train climate benefits***While delays, cost overruns and an adverse state audit have fueled opposition to California's high-speed rail project…*www.eastbaytimes.com](https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion-california-overstates-bullet-train-climate-benefits/)

Such figures raise the specter that a Green New Deal, which invests massively in the present to offset future carbon emissions, will merely accelerate the warming effects of industrial capitalism (if you buy into that premise).

Marc and Charlie explore the “Net Present Value” calculations necessary for a full accounting of costs and benefits of various green technologies.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924272Thu, 14 Feb 2019 23:25:00 +0000Bob Zadek2020 election forecasters would do well to look to California as an early indicator of how the Democratic Party might position itself to compete with President Trump’s popular style. As the saying goes, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” In...
In areas from the environment to immigration, [California has tried its unique left-coast spin on Federalism](https://medium.com/@rzadek/california-discovers-federalism-d299f11d623) — bucking national standards in favor of its own progressive exemptions. Our vehicle emission standards have shaped the national debate, and the ambitious high speed rail bill is emblematic of California’s can-do spirit when it comes to tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

Governor Gavin Newsom says there’s “no way” he’s running for President in 2020—he has a job to do for at least 4 years—but the agenda he laid out in his recent State of the State address reflects the likely priorities of the pool of Democratic contenders. It was boldly progressive, pitting “California Values” against the President’s vision of America. Yet compared to the extremism of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” Newsom’s environmental agenda looks conservative.

[Marc Joffe, a senior policy analyst for the Reason Foundation,](https://reason.org/author/marc-joffe/) did the rest of us a favor by tuning in to the Governor’s address last week, and recently [wrote a piece](https://reason.org/commentary/new-governor-scales-back-california-high-speed-rail/) dealing with a surprisingly pragmatic plank of Newsom’s agenda. Whereas former Governor Brown hoped the bullet train from LA to SF would be his legacy and didn’t budge in the face of harsh economic realities, Newsom is confronting the possibility of a lack of funds to complete the project. He used his speech to signal his plans to limit costs by truncating the proposed line south of Bakersfield and west of Merced:

> “Let’s level about high-speed rail. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long.” — Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address
>

It looks like the classic parable* of the builder who failed to take stock of his inventory before beginning a project, and finds himself short before it’s finished. In this case, California may still be able to cut its losses before incurring the most expensive sections of the rail, although the sunk costs include the construction of the now-overkill “Transbay Terminal” that was supposed to serve as the terminus in San Francisco. Joffe notes that the $2.2 billion station will now amount to little more than an enormous bus stop.

This cautionary tale can come in handy whenever progressives begin lecturing on sustainability. It is even more relevant to the conversation around the Green New Deal, which promises nation-wide high speed rail as a substitute for vehicles and airplanes. **[Marc will join the show’s producer Charlie Deist this Sunday to debunk “AOC’s” daringly bad legislative proposal before it picks up steam in the popular imagination.](http://bobzadek.com/listen-live)**

Moderates in the Democratic Party would be wise to read up on the cold, hard experience of HSR in California, which demonstrates why centrally-planned mega-projects are a bad way to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Marc summarized the main reasons in a recent article:

> In a 2010 UC Berkeley study, Professors Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath estimated that the entire California high-speed rail project would generate 9.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide during construction.
>

> Chester and Horvath estimated...]]>3093falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/founding-healer--47924313
Today, when Rush’s named is mentioned, it is often in reference to his mistaken belief in the efficacy of bloodletting as a treatment for everything from Yellow Fever to mental illness. Suffering from cramps? Try letting out a few ounces of blood. For persistent headaches, maybe drain a couple of pints. In the most extreme cases, such as the mysterious and deadly virus that devastated many colonial cities in the decades following the American Revolution, Dr. Rush prescribed repeated and prolonged bloodletting of up to 75% of his patients’ blood.

While his treatments of the Yellow Fever epidemic may have failed (and in some cases made his patients worse), Rush also intuited one of the root causes in the damp, filthy streets of the time. He thought the illness resulted from a toxic miasma emanating from the moisture, when in fact it was spread by mosquitos breeding in the stagnant water pools. In any event, his tireless campaigning for improved sanitation and hygiene were a major part of the solution.

Like all of the Founding Fathers, Rush was a product of his time. He studied under the best and brightest, and tended to thousands of sick with his burgeoning knowledge of medicine. It’s easy to focus on his blunders, borne of the universal ignorance of doctors of his time, and look past his many accomplishments. Harlow Unger, the prolific historian who has authored 10 biographies of founding fathers, has released the antidote to this one-sided treatment of a fascinating but little-known figure of American history in his new biography.

Unger records Rush’s close relationships with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, how he healed a divided nation at many critical junctures, and how his pioneering social work laid a foundation for the fulfillment of the Constitution’s promise of equal liberty for all.

Unger thoroughly dispels the notion that history is all dates and names. He casts the story of Rush’s life and times in such vivid detail that the reader feels as if he was amid the horrible outbreak of Yellow Fever, which simultaneously devastated city populations along the Eastern Seaboard yet may have saved the fledgling union from a rebellion brewing in New York at the hands of French envoy to the U.S., Edmund-Charles Genet.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924313Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekYou probably have never heard of Dr. Benjamin Rush — the only medical doctor to sign the Declaration of Independence—and although his star has faded over time, his influence over the better-known founders was second to none. Today, when Rush’s named...
Today, when Rush’s named is mentioned, it is often in reference to his mistaken belief in the efficacy of bloodletting as a treatment for everything from Yellow Fever to mental illness. Suffering from cramps? Try letting out a few ounces of blood. For persistent headaches, maybe drain a couple of pints. In the most extreme cases, such as the mysterious and deadly virus that devastated many colonial cities in the decades following the American Revolution, Dr. Rush prescribed repeated and prolonged bloodletting of up to 75% of his patients’ blood.

While his treatments of the Yellow Fever epidemic may have failed (and in some cases made his patients worse), Rush also intuited one of the root causes in the damp, filthy streets of the time. He thought the illness resulted from a toxic miasma emanating from the moisture, when in fact it was spread by mosquitos breeding in the stagnant water pools. In any event, his tireless campaigning for improved sanitation and hygiene were a major part of the solution.

Like all of the Founding Fathers, Rush was a product of his time. He studied under the best and brightest, and tended to thousands of sick with his burgeoning knowledge of medicine. It’s easy to focus on his blunders, borne of the universal ignorance of doctors of his time, and look past his many accomplishments. Harlow Unger, the prolific historian who has authored 10 biographies of founding fathers, has released the antidote to this one-sided treatment of a fascinating but little-known figure of American history in his new biography.

Unger records Rush’s close relationships with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, how he healed a divided nation at many critical junctures, and how his pioneering social work laid a foundation for the fulfillment of the Constitution’s promise of equal liberty for all.

Unger thoroughly dispels the notion that history is all dates and names. He casts the story of Rush’s life and times in such vivid detail that the reader feels as if he was amid the horrible outbreak of Yellow Fever, which simultaneously devastated city populations along the Eastern Seaboard yet may have saved the fledgling union from a rebellion brewing in New York at the hands of French envoy to the U.S., Edmund-Charles Genet.]]>3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/utopia-unmasked--47924382
The horrors of life in Venezuela are well-documented, and have been presented on this show in the past by guests like Fergus Hodgson (aka “the Stateless Man”), who shared his first-hand experience of South American dysfunction. This Sunday, we will hear from someone who has been positioned even closer to the center of Venezuelan politics, first as a supporter, then as an arch-critic.

Clifton Ross is a Berkeley-based writer, film journalist and poet who describes his conversion from Bolivarian co-revolutionary to skeptic and eventual enemy of socialism in his memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia. He had been reporting on Latin American revolutionary and social movements since 1982, when he produced the 2016 documentary titled “In the Shadow of the Revolution.”

This project earned him the disdain of his former comrades—including many arm-chair revolutionaries from the U.S., who never witnessed the devastation of the Chavista regime firsthand. For decades, he was a true believer in the Bolivarian project, and at one time was even put up in the Caracas Hilton by the government during the Second World Poetry Festival of Venezuela. Despite completely rejecting socialism now, Ross remains in solidarity with many of the social movements that have taken root in opposition to Chavez/Maduro.

The latest opposition coalition includes elements from center-right to left. Guiadó, the rightly elected president of the National Assembly (akin to America’s Congress) has gained support of the international community by leading the charge to restore fair elections, representative democracy, and all of the civic institutions that make dictators shudder. Unlike in the past, when such regime change was spearheaded by U.S. intelligence agencies, this time it seems like a natural result of Maduro’s unpopularity combined with the incompetence of his patrons in the military, state-owned industry, and media. (Contrary to what you may have heard, the opposition is succeeding in spite of not because ofsupport from President Trump’s support.)

A Conversion of Sorts
Ross’s views shifted most dramatically in 2013, after seeing how enforcing socialism in Venezuela required the use of totalitarian tactics. In a recent interview, he was quoted saying:

“I no longer think socialism has anything of value to offer the world, even if I think it was a useful movement in the twentieth century to raise important issues of solidarity, social justice, class conflict and so on. But the very fact that it required a totalitarian state to destroy a market economy and centralize all power so as to guarantee the establishment and continuation of its utopian project entailed the elimination of real solidarity and real social justice. How can you have solidarity when you’re afraid the worker standing next to you might be undercover police who could arrest you for saying the wrong thing?”

His memoir makes the same point, nothing that all political ideologies are rooted in a mythological idea of the Revolution (capital R) along with some messianic ideal of perfection. In socialism this is embodied by the Workers. In the neoliberal ideology it is the Self-Regulating Market. True revolutions, he says, are a restoration or conservation of original principles—not the creation of Utopia. Many of Ross’s ideas will be familiar to classical liberals, but he also embraces less talked about “first principles,” such as those promoted by the indigenous social movements of South America. Native peoples are especially concerned with the extractive practices of Venezuela’s oil industry, which could end up endangering the planet in the name of loftier ideals of “progress” and “the people.” Filling the void left by the old Leninist vanguard in Venezuela will require a democratic patchwork of smaller social movements. These can only be sustained, Ross argues, by liberal democracy with checks and balances on power.

Clif joined Bob for the full hour to explain how he came to see the truth about himself and the “Revolution,” in all its complex shades of light. They dissect Clif’s journey from his conservative Christian upbringing on Air Force Bases, through liberation theology in Berkeley and the Zapatistas in Mexico, to his career as a skeptical independent writer/filmmaker. Lastly, they discuss what fundamentalist religions share in common with radical socialism, and how in the long run left-wing and right authoritarianism converge on a vision of Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924382Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:38:00 +0000Bob ZadekJust days ago, the European Union joined the U.S. and dozens of other countries in recognizing Juan Guiadó as the new interim President of Venezuela. While the ousting of Hugo Chavez’s strongman successor Nicolas Maduro is not a done deal, those who...
The horrors of life in Venezuela are well-documented, and have been presented on this show in the past by guests like Fergus Hodgson (aka “the Stateless Man”), who shared his first-hand experience of South American dysfunction. This Sunday, we will hear from someone who has been positioned even closer to the center of Venezuelan politics, first as a supporter, then as an arch-critic.

Clifton Ross is a Berkeley-based writer, film journalist and poet who describes his conversion from Bolivarian co-revolutionary to skeptic and eventual enemy of socialism in his memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia. He had been reporting on Latin American revolutionary and social movements since 1982, when he produced the 2016 documentary titled “In the Shadow of the Revolution.”

This project earned him the disdain of his former comrades—including many arm-chair revolutionaries from the U.S., who never witnessed the devastation of the Chavista regime firsthand. For decades, he was a true believer in the Bolivarian project, and at one time was even put up in the Caracas Hilton by the government during the Second World Poetry Festival of Venezuela. Despite completely rejecting socialism now, Ross remains in solidarity with many of the social movements that have taken root in opposition to Chavez/Maduro.

The latest opposition coalition includes elements from center-right to left. Guiadó, the rightly elected president of the National Assembly (akin to America’s Congress) has gained support of the international community by leading the charge to restore fair elections, representative democracy, and all of the civic institutions that make dictators shudder. Unlike in the past, when such regime change was spearheaded by U.S. intelligence agencies, this time it seems like a natural result of Maduro’s unpopularity combined with the incompetence of his patrons in the military, state-owned industry, and media. (Contrary to what you may have heard, the opposition is succeeding in spite of not because ofsupport from President Trump’s support.)

A Conversion of Sorts
Ross’s views shifted most dramatically in 2013, after seeing how enforcing socialism in Venezuela required the use of totalitarian tactics. In a recent interview, he was quoted saying:

“I no longer think socialism has anything of value to offer the world, even if I think it was a useful movement in the twentieth century to raise important issues of solidarity, social justice, class conflict and so on. But the very fact that it required a totalitarian state to destroy a market economy and centralize all power so as to guarantee the establishment and continuation of its utopian project entailed the elimination of real solidarity and real social justice. How can you have solidarity when you’re afraid the worker standing next to you might be undercover police who could arrest you for saying the wrong thing?”

His memoir makes the same point, nothing that all political ideologies are rooted in a mythological idea of the Revolution (capital R) along with some messianic ideal of perfection. In socialism this is embodied by the Workers. In the neoliberal ideology it is the Self-Regulating Market. True revolutions, he says, are a restoration or conservation of original principles—not the creation of Utopia. Many of Ross’s ideas will be familiar to classical liberals, but he also embraces less talked about “first principles,” such as those promoted by the indigenous...]]>3135falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/on-crowds-and-tribalism--47924438
Libertarians are and ought to be naturally skeptical of crowds. Passionate groups may be necessary for some kinds of progress, but it is a recipe for trouble whenever one faction holds too much power.

The brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids seems to stem from the crowd dynamics and powerful visuals displayed at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend. On one side was a group of rowdy prep school boys—some wearing MAGA hats—fired up by professional antagonists on the other. It’s really no wonder many recoiled at the image of a lone native American elder surrounded by jeering faces of “white privilege,” even though later video revealed a much more nuanced picture.

Soon the response to the incident turned into a mob of its own and one individual from the crowd of rambunctious boys became the target of an unprecedented drive-by media shooting. This was a separate event from the boys’ tribalistic display, which itself was an off-shoot of another group’s aggressive tribalism (a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites hurled vile insults for nearly an hour before the boys began their school chants). But by the time the full video footage came to light, vindicating the boys and implicating those who rushed to judgment, the damage to the Republic had already been done.

A Twitter mob descended on the boys. Threats poured into their Kentucky high school and false accusations were directed at innocent bystanders. Confirmation bias and selection of preferred facts was the genre du jour on social media, and rumors and innuendo ruled the day. It was a textbook case of the “Truth Decay” I recently explored with RAND corporation’s Jennifer Kavanagh.

Eventually, Robby Soave (an editor of Reason Magazine) decided to actually watch the footage in its entirety to see what really happened. Soave has a keen eye for media hoaxes on politically charged issues—he was one of the first to express skepticism when Rolling Stone released the now-debunked UVA rape story. However, his critical eye toward sloppy journalism does not make him a knee-jerk contrarian. He has also pointed out that while we should not automatically believe everyone who claims victimhood, neither should we dismiss such claims lightly.

Soave’s careful article was widely read and provoked apologies from many on the left and the right. Calmer heads may not have prevailed, but the article slowed down the spiral of madness.

The point of this is emphatically not to take sides with one tribe or another, nor is it to neglect to assign guilt to those who acted foolishly or perpetuated false narratives, but simply to recognize that our politics have devolved into an ugly form tribal warfare. In rushing to find, tar, and feather the ideal political scapegoat, every tribe in the culture war ends up obscuring the real victims and creating new ones in the process.

I have pointed out that this is inevitable when so much power is vested in the Federal Government. “We the People” feel powerless, and so we lash out in fear and anger.

There are two remedies as I see it:
1) Fact-based journalism — we need to value media that takes time to digest the facts before reaching a conclusion. Soave has done an exemplary job on this front, and I look forward to hosting him on my show to discuss the topic with the care that it deserves.

2) Decentralization of power — Whether or not people realize it, much of the rancor and polarization of our politics stems from its increasing centralization. When power solidifies in Washington D.C., there is a demonstrative erosion of freedom. When people feel freedom disappearing, they feel powerless. This brings out the worst in them.

One more thing we can do to combat the dangers of rapid-response social media is foster in-depth conversations where the truth can be analyzed from all angles. Tune in to the show this Sunday(8–9am Pacific Time) to my conversation with Robby about what happened, and what it means for our democracy.

I encourage you to listen. Maybe we can all give Twitter a break.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924438Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:46:00 +0000Bob Zadek“The crowd is untruth.” — Søren Kierkegaard Libertarians are and ought to be naturally skeptical of crowds. Passionate groups may be necessary for some kinds of progress, but it is a recipe for trouble whenever one faction holds too much power. The...
Libertarians are and ought to be naturally skeptical of crowds. Passionate groups may be necessary for some kinds of progress, but it is a recipe for trouble whenever one faction holds too much power.

The brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids seems to stem from the crowd dynamics and powerful visuals displayed at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend. On one side was a group of rowdy prep school boys—some wearing MAGA hats—fired up by professional antagonists on the other. It’s really no wonder many recoiled at the image of a lone native American elder surrounded by jeering faces of “white privilege,” even though later video revealed a much more nuanced picture.

Soon the response to the incident turned into a mob of its own and one individual from the crowd of rambunctious boys became the target of an unprecedented drive-by media shooting. This was a separate event from the boys’ tribalistic display, which itself was an off-shoot of another group’s aggressive tribalism (a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites hurled vile insults for nearly an hour before the boys began their school chants). But by the time the full video footage came to light, vindicating the boys and implicating those who rushed to judgment, the damage to the Republic had already been done.

A Twitter mob descended on the boys. Threats poured into their Kentucky high school and false accusations were directed at innocent bystanders. Confirmation bias and selection of preferred facts was the genre du jour on social media, and rumors and innuendo ruled the day. It was a textbook case of the “Truth Decay” I recently explored with RAND corporation’s Jennifer Kavanagh.

Eventually, Robby Soave (an editor of Reason Magazine) decided to actually watch the footage in its entirety to see what really happened. Soave has a keen eye for media hoaxes on politically charged issues—he was one of the first to express skepticism when Rolling Stone released the now-debunked UVA rape story. However, his critical eye toward sloppy journalism does not make him a knee-jerk contrarian. He has also pointed out that while we should not automatically believe everyone who claims victimhood, neither should we dismiss such claims lightly.

Soave’s careful article was widely read and provoked apologies from many on the left and the right. Calmer heads may not have prevailed, but the article slowed down the spiral of madness.

The point of this is emphatically not to take sides with one tribe or another, nor is it to neglect to assign guilt to those who acted foolishly or perpetuated false narratives, but simply to recognize that our politics have devolved into an ugly form tribal warfare. In rushing to find, tar, and feather the ideal political scapegoat, every tribe in the culture war ends up obscuring the real victims and creating new ones in the process.

I have pointed out that this is inevitable when so much power is vested in the Federal Government. “We the People” feel powerless, and so we lash out in fear and anger.

There are two remedies as I see it:
1) Fact-based journalism — we need to value media that takes time to digest the facts before reaching a conclusion. Soave has done an exemplary job on this front, and I look forward to hosting him on my show to discuss the topic with the care that it deserves.

2) Decentralization of power — Whether or not people realize it, much of the rancor and polarization of our politics stems from its increasing centralization. When power solidifies in Washington D.C., there is a demonstrative erosion of freedom. When people feel freedom disappearing, they feel powerless. This brings out the worst in them.

One more thing we can do to combat the dangers of rapid-response social media is foster in-depth conversations where the truth can be analyzed from all angles. Tune in...]]>3132falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/low-tweets-and-misdemeanors-the-impeachment-debate-through-the-lens-of-history-and-the-constitution--47924580
Calls for impeachment are growing louder by the day. Billionaire Tom Steyer has garnered nearly 7 million signatures through the “Need to Impeach” campaign, and with Democrats about to retake a majority in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters is saying that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues’ excesses. She recently commented that “when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.” Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump’s hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.

However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called “the indispensable remedy” against Trump’s abuses of the executive office. Pelosi’s comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of “conduct unbecoming” to the Presidency.

Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy’s latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the “incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief’s tweets are a prime example.

Healy is a leading critic of the “Cult of the Presidency,” which believes the office of the executive to be sacrosanct. The Founders would have abhorred the idea of the President being beyond reproach or — in the extreme case — removal from office. He joined me to discuss the Framers’ intention with respect to impeachment.

While most analyses are clouded with political bias and tribalism, Healy recognizes the danger in raising or lowering the bar for impeachment to suit the latest political winds. “What you think of Congress’ impeachment power shouldn’t depend on what you think of President Trump,” he writes, “Donald Trump isn’t going to be the last president we have, so it’s important to get this right.”

We did our best to get it right. You be the judge.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924580Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:04:00 +0000Bob Zadek“Few, if any, of the Framers viewed the prospect of presidential impeachment with the unbridled horror common among intellectual leaders today. CEOs can be cashiered for “moral turpitude,” “unprofessional conduct,” and the like. Yet we’ve somehow...
Calls for impeachment are growing louder by the day. Billionaire Tom Steyer has garnered nearly 7 million signatures through the “Need to Impeach” campaign, and with Democrats about to retake a majority in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters is saying that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues’ excesses. She recently commented that “when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.” Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump’s hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.

However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called “the indispensable remedy” against Trump’s abuses of the executive office. Pelosi’s comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of “conduct unbecoming” to the Presidency.

Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy’s latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the “incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief’s tweets are a prime example.

Healy is a leading critic of the “Cult of the Presidency,” which believes the office of the executive to be sacrosanct. The Founders would have abhorred the idea of the President being beyond reproach or — in the extreme case — removal from office. He joined me to discuss the Framers’ intention with respect to impeachment.

While most analyses are clouded with political bias and tribalism, Healy recognizes the danger in raising or lowering the bar for impeachment to suit the latest political winds. “What you think of Congress’ impeachment power shouldn’t depend on what you think of President Trump,” he writes, “Donald Trump isn’t going to be the last president we have, so it’s important to get this right.”

We did our best to get it right. You be the judge.]]>3105falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/liberalism-vs-nationalism--47924627
What should a libertarian make of trends like Brexit in the UK, and the election of a self-identified nationalist like Donald Trump to the American presidency? Are the philosophies of libertarianism compatible with the principles of an international order made up of a multitude of nationalist countries?

On the one hand, nation states have a centuries-long history of waging war against one another, colonizing and oppressing foreign lands and peoples, and violating the natural rights of their own citizens.

On the other hand, international governing bodies like the European Union and United Nations also pose a threat to the self-determination of the American people and, by extension, our liberty as individuals. Perhaps a realignment is needed.

In his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony makes an intellectually rigorous case for nationalism in general and for the specific case of his own country, Israel. Hazony, President of the Zionist Herzl Institute, argues that nationalism is the only stable alternative to a creeping “liberal internationalism,” which he says is merely a modern version of the age-old concept of empire. Sometimes referred to as “globalism” or “transnationalism,” this rules-based order seeks to secure global peace and grow the scope of its power by limiting the ability of nations to chart their own course.

Against the twin extremes of anarchy and internationalist empire, Hazony affirms the nation-state as the ideal political unit for securing individual liberties — supporting them within a context of a particular shared culture, mutual loyalty, and physical borders.

I chafe at some of the ideas in his book, like closed borders, but he makes too many important points not to engage them.

I discussed the Virtue of Nationalism with Yoram for the full hour. It was hardly enough time to dive into the full thesis of his book but we did our best.

The Virtues of Internationalism
At its core, the book is a critique of liberalism — not just progressive liberalism, but also the liberalism of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

It may come as a surprise to libertarians that these giants of classical liberalism thought we needed to move toward a global marketplace, in which borders wouldn’t interfere with free trade, and where peace would be enforced by an over-arching world state or international federation.

In his masterwork, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, Mises writes:

“The greatest ideological question that mankind has ever faced… is… whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind… [of] nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions, if the prerequisites of peace are to be created and the causes of war eliminated.”

He elsewhere advocates for “a world super-state really deserving of the name… that would be capable of assuring the nations the peace they require.”

Neither Mises nor Hayek elaborated greatly on how this super-state would operate, or what kinds of checks and balances it would have, leaving the classical liberal in an uncomfortable position of speculating as to what this might look like and how it would prevent the usual problems of big government.

As listeners to my shows (and readers of my new book) know, I believe that federalism — i.e., delegating powers to states and localities — offers a solution to the most bitter political debates within the United States, and could be applied to any other country with a large diverse population. Hayek insisted that individualism was compatible with the mutual loyalties among citizens that Hazony thinks are essential to a body politic. Whether that body is a nation, a state, a county or a neighborhood seems less important than that it is voluntarily chosen by the members through free movement.

However, while an international federation could theoretically guarantee economic and civil liberties to members of nation states while leaving them autonomous in most other areas, Hazony says that such a system will always tend to oppose local, particular interests in favor of the universal interests of the empire. One argument for federalism is the ability of states to experiment with different policies to see what works best. Hazony notes that this same logic can be applied to nation states, and has been used by proponents of the competitive governance movement as a reason to “let 1,000 nations bloom.”

Liberal internationalism clamps down on such experiments, forcing a “one-size-fits-all” solution on countries that may not desire democratic governance or free markets. Can a classical liberal say with certainty that the economic system we support should be foisted on the rest of the world? Hazony says we should question this idea.

The Vices of Nationalism
Of course, the elephant in the room is the reputation nationalism has for inciting ethnic divisions and, in the extremes, racial hatred. Nazi Germany is the most obvious example of national pride and self-determination run amok. Hazony answers this with evidence that Hitler’s plans were in fact rooted in an imperial ambition that can be traced back to Immanuel Kant’s dream of a perpetual peace upheld by a “world state.” Before this, European monarchs joined hands with the Catholic church to extend the universal (temporal and spiritual) authority of a Holy Roman Empire.

Just like the Roman Emperors of an earlier age, Hitler sought to enforce a peace throughout Europe and the rest of the world through an imposed international order buttressed by German hegemony. The “Pax Germana” was prevented by the strong independent nations of the United States and United Kingdom. Since the war, however, mainstream thought among governing elites has tended to view these independent nations as a greater threat to peace than a new international order that limits national independence.

Hazony notes a strange a paradox since World War II, in which the extermination of Jews and Slavs has been used by one side — namely liberal internationalists — as the primary argument against nationalism, while a large faction of Jewish people have seen it as the decisive reason for the existence of an independent state of Israel.

You’ll have to read his entire book to get the full nuance of his perspective, and I encourage you to do so. Whether or not you plan to read the book, you won’t want to miss Hazony’s erudite perspective, combining history, political philosophy, and theology to make the case that liberty is best preserved within distinct and sovereign nations.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47924627Sat, 22 Dec 2018 00:11:00 +0000Bob ZadekNow that the government appears on the verge of shutdown over the issue of “the Wall,” it’s become impossible to ignore the resurgence of nationalist sentiment both in America and abroad. What should a libertarian make of trends like Brexit in the...
What should a libertarian make of trends like Brexit in the UK, and the election of a self-identified nationalist like Donald Trump to the American presidency? Are the philosophies of libertarianism compatible with the principles of an international order made up of a multitude of nationalist countries?

On the one hand, nation states have a centuries-long history of waging war against one another, colonizing and oppressing foreign lands and peoples, and violating the natural rights of their own citizens.

On the other hand, international governing bodies like the European Union and United Nations also pose a threat to the self-determination of the American people and, by extension, our liberty as individuals. Perhaps a realignment is needed.

In his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony makes an intellectually rigorous case for nationalism in general and for the specific case of his own country, Israel. Hazony, President of the Zionist Herzl Institute, argues that nationalism is the only stable alternative to a creeping “liberal internationalism,” which he says is merely a modern version of the age-old concept of empire. Sometimes referred to as “globalism” or “transnationalism,” this rules-based order seeks to secure global peace and grow the scope of its power by limiting the ability of nations to chart their own course.

Against the twin extremes of anarchy and internationalist empire, Hazony affirms the nation-state as the ideal political unit for securing individual liberties — supporting them within a context of a particular shared culture, mutual loyalty, and physical borders.

I chafe at some of the ideas in his book, like closed borders, but he makes too many important points not to engage them.

I discussed the Virtue of Nationalism with Yoram for the full hour. It was hardly enough time to dive into the full thesis of his book but we did our best.

The Virtues of Internationalism
At its core, the book is a critique of liberalism — not just progressive liberalism, but also the liberalism of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

It may come as a surprise to libertarians that these giants of classical liberalism thought we needed to move toward a global marketplace, in which borders wouldn’t interfere with free trade, and where peace would be enforced by an over-arching world state or international federation.

In his masterwork, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, Mises writes:

“The greatest ideological question that mankind has ever faced… is… whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind… [of] nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions, if the prerequisites of peace are to be created and the causes of war eliminated.”

He elsewhere advocates for “a world super-state really deserving of the name… that would be capable of assuring the nations the peace they require.”

Neither Mises nor Hayek elaborated greatly on how this super-state would operate, or what kinds of checks and balances it would have, leaving the classical liberal in an uncomfortable position of speculating as to what this might look like and how it would prevent the usual problems of big government.

As listeners to my shows (and readers of my new book) know, I believe that federalism — i.e., delegating powers to states and localities — offers a solution to the most bitter political debates within the United States, and could be applied to any other country with a large diverse population. Hayek insisted that individualism was compatible with the...]]>3078falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/revenge-of-the-pen-and-the-phone--47953717
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment fulfilled the Founders’ original promise of freedom for all, and enshrined the bedrock principle of equality before the law.

This first section was implemented to reverse the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which infamously denied citizenship to African Americans — even to freed slaves. Today, it is also widely understood to guarantee “birth right” citizenship to the children of immigrants — undocumented or otherwise. This right was first defended by the Republicans of Lincoln’s era and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898 when a case arose questioning the citizenship of a child of Chinese immigrants.

However, President Trump has turned an open-and-shut question of constitutionality into a political football — declaring that he will end birth right citizenship with the stroke of a pen. Executive orders, though not mentioned as a power granted in the Constitution, have increasingly been seen as a way for the President to do an end-run around a gridlocked Congress.

Nowhere has the debate over executive orders been more contentious than on the topic of immigration. In 2014, Barack Obama took the lack of bipartisan immigration reform as his cue to offer temporary legal status and an indefinite reprieve from deportation to the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. at the time. He did so via executive order. Libertarians warned of the dangerous precedent this would allow for future presidents. With Trump’s threat of an executive order to end birth right citizenship, we are seeing this fear confirmed.

Sheldon Gilbert, VP for Content and Development and a Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the National Constitution Center, joins the show to discuss whether Trump’s plan is constitutional (hint: it’s not).

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, Gilbert accurately summarized the case against birth right citizenship for the Daily Mail: If you do not owe allegiance to the United States, some argue, you do not have citizenship. Justice Antonin Scalia was sympathetic to this argument — saying that those here illegally are not bound by this allegiance, even though they are still compelled to follow the laws of the U.S. However, many scholars from both sides of the aisle have pointed out the mental acrobatics required for this interpretation to hold up. Many slaves were brought here “illegally” before the Civil War, yet these were exactly the people that Section I of the 14th Amendment sought to naturalize.

Here’s a preview of my take:
I often ask people who oppose illegal immigration what part they object to — the “illegal” part, or the “immigrant.” If it is the illegal part, there is a simple solution: the U.S. should naturalize any and all undocumented immigrants who are willing to pledge their allegiance to the flag. If it is the “immigrant” part, then I have little more to say to the person, since the U.S. is a country built and constantly renewed by immigrants.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953717Sat, 15 Dec 2018 23:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekFew sections of the U.S. Constitution are richer or more uplifting than the “Citizenship Clause.” My eyes tear up a bit just reading the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are...
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment fulfilled the Founders’ original promise of freedom for all, and enshrined the bedrock principle of equality before the law.

This first section was implemented to reverse the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which infamously denied citizenship to African Americans — even to freed slaves. Today, it is also widely understood to guarantee “birth right” citizenship to the children of immigrants — undocumented or otherwise. This right was first defended by the Republicans of Lincoln’s era and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898 when a case arose questioning the citizenship of a child of Chinese immigrants.

However, President Trump has turned an open-and-shut question of constitutionality into a political football — declaring that he will end birth right citizenship with the stroke of a pen. Executive orders, though not mentioned as a power granted in the Constitution, have increasingly been seen as a way for the President to do an end-run around a gridlocked Congress.

Nowhere has the debate over executive orders been more contentious than on the topic of immigration. In 2014, Barack Obama took the lack of bipartisan immigration reform as his cue to offer temporary legal status and an indefinite reprieve from deportation to the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. at the time. He did so via executive order. Libertarians warned of the dangerous precedent this would allow for future presidents. With Trump’s threat of an executive order to end birth right citizenship, we are seeing this fear confirmed.

Sheldon Gilbert, VP for Content and Development and a Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the National Constitution Center, joins the show to discuss whether Trump’s plan is constitutional (hint: it’s not).

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, Gilbert accurately summarized the case against birth right citizenship for the Daily Mail: If you do not owe allegiance to the United States, some argue, you do not have citizenship. Justice Antonin Scalia was sympathetic to this argument — saying that those here illegally are not bound by this allegiance, even though they are still compelled to follow the laws of the U.S. However, many scholars from both sides of the aisle have pointed out the mental acrobatics required for this interpretation to hold up. Many slaves were brought here “illegally” before the Civil War, yet these were exactly the people that Section I of the 14th Amendment sought to naturalize.

Here’s a preview of my take:
I often ask people who oppose illegal immigration what part they object to — the “illegal” part, or the “immigrant.” If it is the illegal part, there is a simple solution: the U.S. should naturalize any and all undocumented immigrants who are willing to pledge their allegiance to the flag. If it is the “immigrant” part, then I have little more to say to the person, since the U.S. is a country built and constantly renewed by immigrants.]]>3110falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/awaiting-the-verdict-in-timbs-v-indiana--47953778
Were they successful?

This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.

The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.

The case of Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover v. State of Indiana was argued last week, and we can expect a verdict by June. Tyson Timbs was convicted of dealing small amounts of heroin to fund a painkiller addiction he had developed after he began taking pain medications for a sore foot.

The police apprehended him in his vehicle — a $42,000 Land Rover, which he had purchased with the proceeds of his recently deceased father’s life insurance policy. Police seized the car, finding it guilty “in rem” (latin for “the thing itself”) and therefore subject to the practice known as civil asset forfeiture.

Even after Timbs paid his debt to society through a mixture of house arrest, mandatory rehab, and other fines (and even though the maximum fine for his crime is specified at $10,000) the state refused to return the vehicle.

“The right to be free from excessive fines remains fundamental today.”

This line from the Institute for Justice’s opening brief in Timbs’ defense encapsulates the decision before the Supreme Court. The power to fine, Timbs’ lawyers at the Institute for Justice note, is uniquely prone to abuse. Does the court affirm a tradition dating back to the Magna Carta that puts a check on the government’s ability to “police for profit”?

In this episode, Samuel Gedge, a lead attorney in the case, joins me to delve into the long history of excessive fines and explain why excessive fines are prohibited alongside “cruel and unusual punishment” in the 8th Amendment.

Civil asset forfeiture has a long and nasty history, and in recent times has been an instrument of religious and racist bigotry. The Court has long held that such punishments are not allowed at the federal level, but the State of Indiana argues that it is exempt as a state and is justified in the seizure of Timbs’ vehicle because of the in rem jurisdiction.

As we await the outcome in Timbs v. Indiana, we have reason to be optimistic. Justices on both sides of the political spectrum seemed skeptical of the State of Indiana’s line of reasoning — noting that most rights in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the states since the passage of the 14th Amendment.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953778Sat, 08 Dec 2018 23:25:00 +0000Bob ZadekIf we can say one thing definitively about government, we can say that it will not limit itself. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were the Founders’ response to the possibility that the new Republic they were creating would end up just as...
Were they successful?

This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.

The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.

The case of Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover v. State of Indiana was argued last week, and we can expect a verdict by June. Tyson Timbs was convicted of dealing small amounts of heroin to fund a painkiller addiction he had developed after he began taking pain medications for a sore foot.

The police apprehended him in his vehicle — a $42,000 Land Rover, which he had purchased with the proceeds of his recently deceased father’s life insurance policy. Police seized the car, finding it guilty “in rem” (latin for “the thing itself”) and therefore subject to the practice known as civil asset forfeiture.

Even after Timbs paid his debt to society through a mixture of house arrest, mandatory rehab, and other fines (and even though the maximum fine for his crime is specified at $10,000) the state refused to return the vehicle.

“The right to be free from excessive fines remains fundamental today.”

This line from the Institute for Justice’s opening brief in Timbs’ defense encapsulates the decision before the Supreme Court. The power to fine, Timbs’ lawyers at the Institute for Justice note, is uniquely prone to abuse. Does the court affirm a tradition dating back to the Magna Carta that puts a check on the government’s ability to “police for profit”?

In this episode, Samuel Gedge, a lead attorney in the case, joins me to delve into the long history of excessive fines and explain why excessive fines are prohibited alongside “cruel and unusual punishment” in the 8th Amendment.

Civil asset forfeiture has a long and nasty history, and in recent times has been an instrument of religious and racist bigotry. The Court has long held that such punishments are not allowed at the federal level, but the State of Indiana argues that it is exempt as a state and is justified in the seizure of Timbs’ vehicle because of the in rem jurisdiction.

As we await the outcome in Timbs v. Indiana, we have reason to be optimistic. Justices on both sides of the political spectrum seemed skeptical of the State of Indiana’s line of reasoning — noting that most rights in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the states since the passage of the 14th Amendment.]]>3061falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/title-ix-s-transformation-r-shep-melnick-on-the-new-civil-rights-debate--47953890
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX’s financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.

Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.

As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX’s equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law’s evolution.

Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”

How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?

R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX [@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joined the show to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.

Dear Colleague: Due Process is Done
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has the authority to issue new rules governing non-discrimination. The Administrative Procedure Act specifies that prior to a rule change, there must be a period for “notice-and-comment” by relevant parties in the educational institutions. The modern controversy hinges around a few legally questionable actions taken by the OCR in its administration of Title IX.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued new “guidelines” on sexual harassment to federally-funded universities that bypassed the standard notice-and-comment requirements for such changes. The administration claimed its guidelines constituted mere “clarifications” of earlier policies. In contrast, statements from the administration suggested that it was a sweeping overhaul of the entire campus culture as it relates to sexual harassment complaints. The infamous “Dear Colleague Letter” — directed from the OCR to all universities receiving federal funds — specified that a single sexual harassment complaint could trigger a lengthy investigation of the institution — turning actual victims and the accused into pawns in the larger culture war.

Worse, the letter required schools to use the lowest possible standard of evidence (a mere “preponderance”) in deciding the fate of the accused. While not an official criminal proceeding, these campus tribunals often determined whether a student would be marked for life as a sexual predator — effectively denying him his rights to “life, liberty and property” without due process.

As K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor, authors of The Campus Rape Frenzy wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog last year:

The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed.

— The path to Obama’s Dear Colleague Letter, Jan. 31, 2017

Perhaps most frighteningly, government publications began to lecture schools on what constitutes a healthy, mutually respectful sexual relationship. Bureaucrats this by redefining sexual harassment as a form of discrimination, but only when the act targets a member of a particular sex. Strangely, a bisexual who is an “equal opportunity” offender — targeting both men and women — does not fall under the purview of Title IX complaints.

Melnick notes that the OCR’s mandated “sea change,” coupled with the threat of losing federal funding, has given rise to a new bureaucracy of Title IX coordinators at every major university.

The Transgender Transformation and Rule by Letter
The second questionable form of Obama-era administrative rule-making seems to have turned the intent of Title IX on its head. New guidelines redefined the word “sex” as it appears in the act to correspond to the gender identity of a student whose rights are being called into question. This legal maneuvering is particularly suspect since the term “gender identity” entered the lexicon as a way to distinguish one’s identity from their biological sex.

Morever, many Obama-era mandates (e.g., requiring colleges to allow biological males to use women’s locker rooms), not only opened the door for novel claims of harassment and discrimination, but took administrative lawmaking to new heights (or depths) of absurdity.

The Office of Civil Rights cannot reasonably resolve every discrimination and harassment issue in a sane and apolitical manner from its perch in Washington. President Trump has repealed the Obama guidelines, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has called for an end of “rule by letter.” Melnick sees this as a rare instance of sound policy and transparency from the Trump administration, but there is always a risk that it will merely flip the script and use the transgender issue to fire up the Republican base’s own culture warriors.

Here’s a preview of my take:

If Trump decides to take a page from Obama’s playbook, he might further polarize some of the most important civil rights concerns of the day. While some on the left have allowed the persecution of innocent men with dubious claims of a campus “rape culture,” others on the right have sometimes found a convenient scapegoat among individuals who don’t map neatly onto either biological sex.

No one is arguing that transgender individuals should be denied equal access to educational facilities, and there are valid civil rights concerns that must to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

Whenever strings are attached to federal grants, there is erosion of the American system of federalism and policy experimentation at the state and local level. In this way, Title IX has been abused to impose a one-size-fits-all solution across the nation’s universities.

The federal government should leave room for different approaches to be tested, and OCR should focus on the basic of civil rights and clear cut cases of discrimination. The courts remain open to remedy situations where schools fail to render a fair decision.

For a full and nuanced perspective on the most important civil rights issues of the day, look no further than my show this Sunday with Shep Melnick.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47953890Sat, 01 Dec 2018 23:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekThere’s no better emblem of the complicated evolution of civil rights in America than the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Originally passed to ensure equal access to educational resources, Title IX reads as follows:...
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX’s financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.

Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.

As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX’s equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law’s evolution.

Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”

How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?

R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX [@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joined the show to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.

Dear Colleague: Due Process is Done
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has the authority to issue new rules governing non-discrimination. The Administrative Procedure Act specifies that prior to a rule change, there must be a period for “notice-and-comment” by relevant parties in the educational institutions. The modern controversy hinges around a few legally questionable actions taken by the OCR in its administration of Title IX.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued new “guidelines” on sexual harassment to federally-funded universities that bypassed the standard notice-and-comment requirements for such changes. The administration claimed its guidelines constituted mere “clarifications” of earlier policies. In contrast, statements from the administration suggested that it was a sweeping overhaul of the entire campus culture as it relates to sexual harassment complaints. The infamous “Dear Colleague Letter” — directed from the OCR to all universities receiving federal funds — specified that a single sexual harassment complaint could trigger a lengthy investigation of the institution — turning actual victims and the accused into pawns in the larger culture war.

Worse, the letter required schools to use the lowest possible standard of evidence (a mere “preponderance”) in deciding the fate of the...]]>3066falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/entrepreneurs-outlaws-and-the-right-to-bear-arms-david-harsanyi-on-first-freedom--47954027
David Harsanyi relays these counter-intuitively findings in his new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun — a must read for anyone who wants to understand the heated debate around guns in America, and why the Founders considered the individual right to bear arms so important that they put it right after freedom of speech, religion, etc. in the Bill of Rights. In short, we need the Second Amendment to defend the First. The liberties in the First Amendment could not have been guaranteed were it not for American assertion of their right to gun ownership during and after the American Revolution.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a columnist at National Review, and author of four books. He joins me this Sunday to talk about the on-going importance of standing up for our Second Amendment rights, and how critics of gun rights most commonly miss the mark.

"Illegal guns are the problem. Not legal guns." -- Kanye. https://t.co/bhg6soive6 pic.twitter.com/O3SoHQZq0L

— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) October 11, 2018
What is America’s Gun Culture All About?

For the record, I have never owned a gun couldn’t tell you the difference between the butt and the blunderbuss. I get my libertarian bona fides as a card-carrying supporter of the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation — not the National Rifle Association. However, it warms my heart that many of my compatriots, both now and throughout history, have kept government tyranny at bay through their constant vigilance to keep original meaning of the 2nd Amendment intact.

Harsanyi argues that those who oppose an originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (securing an individual right to own guns) have a formidable challenge. First, they must fundamentally revise history, editing out the reliance of the colonists, pioneers, revolutionaries, on guns. Second, they must prove that the “well-regulated militia” clause is actually intended to enshrine a collective right to bear arms in unique cases that have long since become archaic.

Against this line of reasoning, Harsanyi provides ample evidence from the writings of the founders. Before penning the immortal words of the Second Amendment, James Madison wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

This was not license to rebel — save against a government that no longer defends the rights of the people, and thus the nation. He shows how guns were used to end the institution of slavery, defend the world from totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia, and enable minorities to defend themselves against violent mobs.

Today, Progressives are the main enemies of the rights of self -defense— seeking less to ban guns than to “control” them through stringent background checks and other methods that could easily be politicized and used against innocent people placed on faulty “watchlists.” How long will it be before democrats push to place anyone with conservative opinions on their lists of “mental defectives”?

Listen now as we discuss the roots of the current gun control debate, and how it relates to the creeping threat of mob rule leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954027Thu, 11 Oct 2018 23:45:00 +0000Bob ZadekAs the old adage adage goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” That may be literally true in places like Nazi Germany or communist regimes that have completely banned individuals from owning firearms, but in the U.S., most attempts to...
David Harsanyi relays these counter-intuitively findings in his new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun — a must read for anyone who wants to understand the heated debate around guns in America, and why the Founders considered the individual right to bear arms so important that they put it right after freedom of speech, religion, etc. in the Bill of Rights. In short, we need the Second Amendment to defend the First. The liberties in the First Amendment could not have been guaranteed were it not for American assertion of their right to gun ownership during and after the American Revolution.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a columnist at National Review, and author of four books. He joins me this Sunday to talk about the on-going importance of standing up for our Second Amendment rights, and how critics of gun rights most commonly miss the mark.

"Illegal guns are the problem. Not legal guns." -- Kanye. https://t.co/bhg6soive6 pic.twitter.com/O3SoHQZq0L

— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) October 11, 2018
What is America’s Gun Culture All About?

For the record, I have never owned a gun couldn’t tell you the difference between the butt and the blunderbuss. I get my libertarian bona fides as a card-carrying supporter of the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation — not the National Rifle Association. However, it warms my heart that many of my compatriots, both now and throughout history, have kept government tyranny at bay through their constant vigilance to keep original meaning of the 2nd Amendment intact.

Harsanyi argues that those who oppose an originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (securing an individual right to own guns) have a formidable challenge. First, they must fundamentally revise history, editing out the reliance of the colonists, pioneers, revolutionaries, on guns. Second, they must prove that the “well-regulated militia” clause is actually intended to enshrine a collective right to bear arms in unique cases that have long since become archaic.

Against this line of reasoning, Harsanyi provides ample evidence from the writings of the founders. Before penning the immortal words of the Second Amendment, James Madison wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

This was not license to rebel — save against a government that no longer defends the rights of the people, and thus the nation. He shows how guns were used to end the institution of slavery, defend the world from totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia, and enable minorities to defend themselves against violent mobs.

Today, Progressives are the main enemies of the rights of self -defense— seeking less to ban guns than to “control” them through stringent background checks and other methods...]]>3109falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephen-moore-on-trumponomics--47954068
The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck.

Stephen Moore, a former President of the Club for Growth and an economic advisor to President Trump, thinks we are seeing a repeat of the Reagan trade doctrine. While Trump may be threatening countries with draconian tariffs on their exports, Moore says that he is angling for “zero tariffs” behind the scenes. The tough talk is merely a bargaining tactic designed to get other countries, namely China, to reform their own protectionist economies in line with the free world.

We can hope that this is the case, but this and other questions remain about Trump’s actual commitment to free market policies. Also troubling is the seeming one-sided focus on tax cuts without any significant reductions in government spending. As Milton Friedman observed, “to spend is to tax” — if not now, then in the future. Basic economics dictates that expectations of future tax increases will eventually either depress consumer confidence, or translate into higher inflation.

Moore, whose free enterprise bonafides are second to none, has an answer to this as well. While there may not be such a thing as a “free lunch,” economically speaking, there have been situations in which reductions in tax rates have led to increases in overall revenue.

Arthur Laffer is credited with the idea of the “Laffer Curve,” showing the optimal rate of taxation that maximizes revenues — past a certain point, the disincentive from higher taxes starts to shrink the overall economic pie, and the government’s larger percentage ends up being a smaller total amount. Moore and Laffer have co-authored a new book titled Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy (available Oct. 30, 2018), which makes the case for “growing the pie” as the primary objective of economic policy.

While most economists said that 4% growth would be impossible after so many years of 0–2% growth under Obama, the recent data is proving otherwise. Moore co-founded the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity in 2015 with Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Forbes. They aimed to “persuade the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes.” Did the plan work? Perhaps, but it remains to be seen whether economic growth will be enough to pull the US out of debt (now standing at $21,606,948,383,546.28).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954068Sat, 06 Oct 2018 23:52:00 +0000Bob ZadekEarly on in the Trump administration, the President tweeted, “I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.” The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers...
The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck.

Stephen Moore, a former President of the Club for Growth and an economic advisor to President Trump, thinks we are seeing a repeat of the Reagan trade doctrine. While Trump may be threatening countries with draconian tariffs on their exports, Moore says that he is angling for “zero tariffs” behind the scenes. The tough talk is merely a bargaining tactic designed to get other countries, namely China, to reform their own protectionist economies in line with the free world.

We can hope that this is the case, but this and other questions remain about Trump’s actual commitment to free market policies. Also troubling is the seeming one-sided focus on tax cuts without any significant reductions in government spending. As Milton Friedman observed, “to spend is to tax” — if not now, then in the future. Basic economics dictates that expectations of future tax increases will eventually either depress consumer confidence, or translate into higher inflation.

Moore, whose free enterprise bonafides are second to none, has an answer to this as well. While there may not be such a thing as a “free lunch,” economically speaking, there have been situations in which reductions in tax rates have led to increases in overall revenue.

Arthur Laffer is credited with the idea of the “Laffer Curve,” showing the optimal rate of taxation that maximizes revenues — past a certain point, the disincentive from higher taxes starts to shrink the overall economic pie, and the government’s larger percentage ends up being a smaller total amount. Moore and Laffer have co-authored a new book titled Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy (available Oct. 30, 2018), which makes the case for “growing the pie” as the primary objective of economic policy.

While most economists said that 4% growth would be impossible after so many years of 0–2% growth under Obama, the recent data is proving otherwise. Moore co-founded the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity in 2015 with Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Forbes. They aimed to “persuade the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes.” Did the plan work? Perhaps, but it remains to be seen whether economic growth will be enough to pull the US out of debt (now standing at $21,606,948,383,546.28).]]>2851falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/local-leviathan-clint-bolick-on-grassroots-tyranny--47954152
If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.

On the flip side, states and local governments are not immune from the temptation to seize powers beyond their designated scope. The 10th amendment specifies that the powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The founders were clear in their writings that the ultimate authority rests in individuals. Both conservatives and liberals have ignored individual sovereignty in promoting a bastardized version of federalism. Conservatives have often championed discriminatory legislation based on “states rights,” while contemporary liberals support the power of state and local governments to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Standing firm against this “local leviathan” are libertarians. The smallest minority on earth, Ayn Rand noted, is the individual. Sometimes the individual has to fight city hall all by himself, and the odds are stacked against him. Other times, however, groups like the Institute for Justice can take the government to court to defend their constitutional rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Before becoming an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Clint Bolick co-founded the IJ, which has been featured many times on this show. Shortly after founding the IJ, Bolick authored a book titled Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism (Cato Institute Press). In it, he cautioned proponents of decentralization that localizing power is no guarantee that it won’t be abused. It’s not all about empowering states, Bolick says — both states and federal government are merely devices that ultimately derive their powers from their protection of individual liberty.

While states and local governments can still serve as “laboratories of democracy,” these laboratories must never be allowed to violate inalienable rights, lest federalism — the “bulwark” of liberty — turn loose a thousand experiments in governance gone wrong.

Tune in for the full discussion between Bob and Clint on Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954152Sat, 22 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn designing the American Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a balance of powers — not only among co-equal branches of federal government, but also among states, federal government, and the people themselves. If the United...
If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.

On the flip side, states and local governments are not immune from the temptation to seize powers beyond their designated scope. The 10th amendment specifies that the powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The founders were clear in their writings that the ultimate authority rests in individuals. Both conservatives and liberals have ignored individual sovereignty in promoting a bastardized version of federalism. Conservatives have often championed discriminatory legislation based on “states rights,” while contemporary liberals support the power of state and local governments to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Standing firm against this “local leviathan” are libertarians. The smallest minority on earth, Ayn Rand noted, is the individual. Sometimes the individual has to fight city hall all by himself, and the odds are stacked against him. Other times, however, groups like the Institute for Justice can take the government to court to defend their constitutional rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Before becoming an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Clint Bolick co-founded the IJ, which has been featured many times on this show. Shortly after founding the IJ, Bolick authored a book titled Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism (Cato Institute Press). In it, he cautioned proponents of decentralization that localizing power is no guarantee that it won’t be abused. It’s not all about empowering states, Bolick says — both states and federal government are merely devices that ultimately derive their powers from their protection of individual liberty.

While states and local governments can still serve as “laboratories of democracy,” these laboratories must never be allowed to violate inalienable rights, lest federalism — the “bulwark” of liberty — turn loose a thousand experiments in governance gone wrong.

Tune in for the full discussion between Bob and Clint on Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism.]]>3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-one-book-you-must-read-to-understand-american-politics-in-2018--47954244
Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It (2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a “natural aristocracy,” in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.

Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, has created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.

Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed (Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:

Frank joined Bob on Sunday (9/16) with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics. Sign up for weekly emails to get early access to the transcript when it is available.

Pre-empting a charge of hypocrisy, Professor Buckley is forthright in admitting to being a member of the New Class. However, he is not looking to defend his economic and social privilege. This privilege, he says, stems from a regulatory briar patch too thick for small businesses to navigate, a broken educational system that keeps the lower class trapped in poverty, and an immigration system that blocks out high-skilled competitors while allowing large influxes of low-skilled labor to undercut middle-class wages.

Some libertarians will find the book difficult to read. Buckley marshals survey data indicating that the political “sweet spot” in 2018 America is not socially liberal and economically conservative, but rather moderately socially conservative and economically liberal with respect to a social safety net. For example, Social Security and Medicare remain some of the most popular government programs on the book. In other words, we’re not all libertarians now.

The silver lining is that Trump’s vision of a workers party includes slashing regulations by as much as 70 percent, nominating judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, and introducing greater choice and competition into our school system.

On trade, Trump looks particularly bad to libertarians. Buckley admits that Trump’s tariffs, and the worst-case scenario of a trade war with China, harm American workers. We can pray for the removal of Trump’s protectionist economic advisor Peter Navarro, who is the “source of all chaos” in the White House according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear.

Finally, Trump’s goal of immigration reform is often viewed as bigoted — a return to nationalism that offends those with New Class cosmopolitan sensibilities. Here, Professor Buckley’s Canadian-America citizenship gives him a particularly nuanced perspective. In short, he advocates something closer to the Canadian system of merit-based immigration. Carefully distinguishing between a healthy nationalism and unhealthy populism, he goes on to explain that solidarity with one’s fellow Americans can never be racist, given our diverse citizenry.

“National governments can demand too much and turn oppressive. So too can families. But that’s not an argument against the affection one naturally feels for one’s nation or one’s family.”

— Frank Buckley, *The Republican Workers Party*

While warning against the dangers of both excessive and ethnic nationalism, Buckley takes a bold stand for American cultural nationalism, which is ultimately a liberal nationalism. The Democrats, he says, have lost their commitment to the liberalism of the Founding fathers, which has always been about economic opportunity for all who are willing to work for it.

Tune in for a longer summary of Buckley’s book The Republican Workers Party.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954244Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:05:00 +0000Bob ZadekAccording to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas — the surprise result of the 2016 election was a product of political paradox. An establishment candidate of a...
Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It (2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a “natural aristocracy,” in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.

Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, has created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.

Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed (Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:

Frank joined Bob on Sunday (9/16) with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics. Sign up for weekly emails to get early access to the transcript when it is available.

Pre-empting a charge of hypocrisy, Professor Buckley is forthright in admitting to being a member of the New Class. However, he is not looking to defend his economic and social privilege. This privilege, he says, stems from a regulatory briar patch too thick for small businesses to navigate, a broken educational system that keeps the lower class trapped in poverty, and an immigration system that blocks out high-skilled competitors while allowing large influxes of low-skilled labor to undercut middle-class wages.

Some libertarians will find the book difficult to read. Buckley marshals survey data indicating that the political “sweet spot” in 2018 America is not socially liberal and economically conservative, but rather moderately socially conservative and economically liberal with respect to a social safety net. For example, Social Security and Medicare remain some of the most popular government programs on the book. In other words, we’re not all libertarians now.

The silver lining is that Trump’s vision of a workers party includes slashing regulations by as much as 70 percent, nominating judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, and introducing greater choice and competition into our school...]]>3070falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-haidt-on-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind--47954289
A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.

The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.

It doesn’t take a sophisticated analyst to see that wearing a sombrero on Halloween is not comparable to physical violence. However, much of the criticism of the “special snowflakes” by the right has only thrown more fuel on the fire. It has created a vicious cycle, whereby the anti-free speech left sees the inflammatory language as further proof that certain voices must not be heard. Once that point is granted, it’s easy to continually shrink the boundaries of acceptable speech. While there are some who may wish to inflict emotional pain on over-sensitive college students, the vast majority of professors and guest speakers who have been silenced have had good intentions — namely to share their knowledge and opinions in an environment where the ideas can be challenged and discussed in the open.

NYU psychology professor Jonathan Haidt has attempted to give a platform for all truth-seekers with his Heterodox Academy — a group of academics dedicated to increasing “viewpoint diversity.” The platform functions as something of a “safe space” amid the increasing hostility to free exchange of ideas on campus. Haidt’s latest book The Coddling of the American Mind (co-authored with Greg Lukianoff of The FIRE) goes beyond the mockery and intentionally inflammatory speech directed at the small subset of college students who are most visibly outraged by political incorrectness. He applies principles of psychology to understand what drives the urge to suppress free speech and shows how this is precisely the wrong way for triggered young adults to handle their anxiety.

Equal parts pro-liberal philosophy and behavioral therapy, Haidt and Lukianoff’s book lays out the paradox of anxiety, and how our efforts to shield ourselves from negative ideas and emotions makes us less able to cope with them. They say that blame-seeking, or “vindictive protectiveness,” re-labels well-intentioned people as “aggressors,” and is having a disastrous effect on people’s mental health. They back it up with data, too, showing how the "iGeneration" now entering their college years is seeing skyrocketing rates of severe anxiety as a result of having been shielded by adults from real life.

A New York Times review of the book wonders if our cultural obsession with safety could spell the “Downfall of Democracy.” With stakes this high, we need more thinkers like Haidt — and more conversations that bring hard questions and ugly truths to the surface where they can be debated, studied, and understood by the next generation of politicians, professionals, and thought leaders.

JJonathan Haidt joined the show of ideas - not attitude - on Sunday (9/9) from 8–9am PACIFIC. He and Bob analyzed how well our top schools stack up to the Jeffersonian conception of the university as a place to fearlessly pursue the truth, and talk about how students can better prepare themselves mentally in this important quest.
Share the link with any students beginning their freshman year, or continuing in their education at a school where these issues are being worked out in real-time.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954289Sat, 08 Sep 2018 00:12:00 +0000Bob Zadek“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”  — Thomas Jefferson, upon founding...
A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.

The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.

It doesn’t take a sophisticated analyst to see that wearing a sombrero on Halloween is not comparable to physical violence. However, much of the criticism of the “special snowflakes” by the right has only thrown more fuel on the fire. It has created a vicious cycle, whereby the anti-free speech left sees the inflammatory language as further proof that certain voices must not be heard. Once that point is granted, it’s easy to continually shrink the boundaries of acceptable speech. While there are some who may wish to inflict emotional pain on over-sensitive college students, the vast majority of professors and guest speakers who have been silenced have had good intentions — namely to share their knowledge and opinions in an environment where the ideas can be challenged and discussed in the open.

NYU psychology professor Jonathan Haidt has attempted to give a platform for all truth-seekers with his Heterodox Academy — a group of academics dedicated to increasing “viewpoint diversity.” The platform functions as something of a “safe space” amid the increasing hostility to free exchange of ideas on campus. Haidt’s latest book The Coddling of the American Mind (co-authored with Greg Lukianoff of The FIRE) goes beyond the mockery and intentionally inflammatory speech directed at the small subset of college students who are most visibly outraged by political incorrectness. He applies principles of psychology to understand what drives the urge to suppress free speech and shows how this is precisely the wrong way for triggered young adults to handle their anxiety.

Equal parts pro-liberal philosophy and behavioral therapy, Haidt and Lukianoff’s book lays out the paradox of anxiety, and how our efforts to shield ourselves from negative ideas and emotions makes us less able to cope with them. They say that blame-seeking, or “vindictive protectiveness,” re-labels well-intentioned people as “aggressors,” and is having a disastrous effect on people’s mental health. They back it up with data, too, showing how the "iGeneration" now entering their college years is seeing skyrocketing rates of severe anxiety as a result of having been shielded by adults from real life.

A New York Times review of the book wonders if our cultural obsession with safety could spell the “Downfall of Democracy.” With stakes this high, we need more thinkers like Haidt — and more conversations that bring hard questions and ugly truths to the surface where they can be debated, studied, and understood by the next generation of politicians, professionals, and thought leaders.

JJonathan Haidt joined the show of ideas - not attitude - on Sunday (9/9) from 8–9am PACIFIC. He and...]]>3118falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-curious-case-of-the-32-000-couch--47954326In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid And Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia.

Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.

On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.

However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”

The majority of the charges revolve around lavish spending on their offices — partly a product of the lack of oversight on judicial budgets in West Virginia. Laurie Lin (@WVPundette), a columnist for West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette-Mail and former attorney, has been following the story carefully. Earlier this month, she recapped the depressing yet almost comical saga in a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society, and fielded questions on the political implications of such a blatant abuse of power.

It’s easy to blame judicial elections for such widespread corruption. We know that voters are largely ignorant. Furthermore, elections could create incentives for judges to favor those who give to their campaigns. But in this case, the maladministration seems to have simply come from a unique culture of corruption within the courthouse — specifically around office expenditures. In addition to the infamous $32,000 sofa, one justice had renovated her office with a tacky Egyptian theme, meaning that her successor had to spend significant sums just to restore it to something normal. This quickly snowballed into a culture of personalizing offices to an absurd degree.

Now, Governor Jim Justice is replacing the justices who resigned with temporary appointees — both from his own party (Republican) — and Democrats in the House are calling foul play. While this story may seem beyond odd to outsiders of West Virginia politics, it comes as little surprise to the state’s residents. Wikipedia provides some helpful pretext for West Virginia’s political bizarro world:

“In 2015, Justice switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and announced his candidacy for Governor in the 2016 election. He ran as a Democrat and defeated the Republican nominee, Bill Cole. Less than seven months after taking office, Justice switched back to the Republican Party the day after announcing his plans at a President Trump rally in the state.”
— Wikipedia page for Jim Justice
Soon enough, the voters of West Virginia will have a chance to elect new judges to the two to five vacant seats that will be left in the wake of the judicial crisis. They’ve already repealed the part of the constitution that enables the judiciary to get away with unaccountable spending on couches, Egyptian-themed offices, and the like. But a broader debate remains over the merits of electing judges versus appointing them, under a system sometimes known as merit selection.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954326Sun, 02 Sep 2018 00:21:00 +0000Bob ZadekMal·ad·min·is·tra·tion — n. (formal) : inefficient or dishonest administration; mismanagement. In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I...In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid And Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia.

Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.

On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.

However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”

The majority of the charges revolve around lavish spending on their offices — partly a product of the lack of oversight on judicial budgets in West Virginia. Laurie Lin (@WVPundette), a columnist for West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette-Mail and former attorney, has been following the story carefully. Earlier this month, she recapped the depressing yet almost comical saga in a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society, and fielded questions on the political implications of such a blatant abuse of power.

It’s easy to blame judicial elections for such widespread corruption. We know that voters are largely ignorant. Furthermore, elections could create incentives for judges to favor those who give to their campaigns. But in this case, the maladministration seems to have simply come from a unique culture of corruption within the courthouse — specifically around office expenditures. In addition to the infamous $32,000 sofa, one justice had renovated her office with a tacky Egyptian theme, meaning that her successor had to spend significant sums just to restore it to something normal. This quickly snowballed into a culture of personalizing offices to an absurd degree.

Now, Governor Jim Justice is replacing the justices who resigned with temporary appointees — both from his own party (Republican) — and Democrats in the House are calling foul play. While this story may seem beyond odd to outsiders of West Virginia politics, it comes as little surprise to the state’s residents. Wikipedia provides some helpful pretext for West Virginia’s political bizarro world:

“In 2015, Justice switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and announced his candidacy for Governor in the 2016 election. He ran as a Democrat and defeated the Republican nominee, Bill Cole. Less than seven months after taking office, Justice switched back to the Republican Party the day after announcing his plans at a President Trump rally in the state.”
— Wikipedia page for Jim Justice
Soon enough, the voters of West Virginia will have a chance to elect new judges to the two to five vacant seats that will be left in the wake of the judicial crisis. They’ve already repealed the part of the constitution that enables the judiciary to get away with unaccountable spending on couches, Egyptian-themed offices, and the like. But a broader debate remains over the merits of electing judges versus appointing them, under a system sometimes known as merit selection.]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/elizabeth-warren-s-socialist-dogwhistle--47954383
It would seem like old-fashioned socialism hasn’t gone completely out of style if Matt Yglesias’ fawning coverage at Vox is any indicator of this kind of plan’s popularity with left-leaning Americans.

Yglesias writes:

“As much as Warren’s proposal is about ending inequality, it’s also about saving capitalism.”
Putting aside the fact that Warren is likely using this to position herself as the hard-left favorite for the 2020 presidential election, it’s worth examining what such a policy would actually mean for businesses and working people in the United States. A full analysis would require both a legal scholar and an economist. Fortunately, Professor Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution and NYU’s School of Law joined The Bob Zadek Show to explain how Elizabeth Warren’s Surreptitious Socialism threatens the foundations of our (mostly) free economy.

The most sinister aspect of Warren’s proposal is its surface appeal. Giving workers and community members a greater share alongside shareholders and the board of directors seems like a nice way to orient a corporation around goals nobler than a mere profit motive. But as Epstein points out, the way the bill is defined, anyone could claim to be a stakeholder — even a firm’s competitors. Take away the forces of free competition and you kill the engine of prosperity.

That’s far from the only problem. In a global economy, where corporations have a choice of where to do business, such a law would send capital fleeing to other countries to avoid the burdensome compliance costs, which would predominantly be driven by political rather than social or economic concerns.

As Milton Friedman explained decades ago, the profit-motive harnessed within a functioning legal system is all that’s required for both the individual and collective good to be maximized. Warren’s plan to “save” capitalism would conveniently align corporate interests with her own political interests. While she may not wish to turn the U.S. into North Korea overnight, it’s a slippery slope from her Accountable Capitalism Act to full-blown socialism.

For a full discussion of the long list of errors and economic fallacies Warren makes in her piece, tune into the show of ideas — not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954383Sat, 25 Aug 2018 00:30:00 +0000Bob ZadekJust a few weeks ago, the media was fawning over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her youthful makeover of tired socialist ideas. Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal introducing a modest proposal to completely...
It would seem like old-fashioned socialism hasn’t gone completely out of style if Matt Yglesias’ fawning coverage at Vox is any indicator of this kind of plan’s popularity with left-leaning Americans.

Yglesias writes:

“As much as Warren’s proposal is about ending inequality, it’s also about saving capitalism.”
Putting aside the fact that Warren is likely using this to position herself as the hard-left favorite for the 2020 presidential election, it’s worth examining what such a policy would actually mean for businesses and working people in the United States. A full analysis would require both a legal scholar and an economist. Fortunately, Professor Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution and NYU’s School of Law joined The Bob Zadek Show to explain how Elizabeth Warren’s Surreptitious Socialism threatens the foundations of our (mostly) free economy.

The most sinister aspect of Warren’s proposal is its surface appeal. Giving workers and community members a greater share alongside shareholders and the board of directors seems like a nice way to orient a corporation around goals nobler than a mere profit motive. But as Epstein points out, the way the bill is defined, anyone could claim to be a stakeholder — even a firm’s competitors. Take away the forces of free competition and you kill the engine of prosperity.

That’s far from the only problem. In a global economy, where corporations have a choice of where to do business, such a law would send capital fleeing to other countries to avoid the burdensome compliance costs, which would predominantly be driven by political rather than social or economic concerns.

As Milton Friedman explained decades ago, the profit-motive harnessed within a functioning legal system is all that’s required for both the individual and collective good to be maximized. Warren’s plan to “save” capitalism would conveniently align corporate interests with her own political interests. While she may not wish to turn the U.S. into North Korea overnight, it’s a slippery slope from her Accountable Capitalism Act to full-blown socialism.

For a full discussion of the long list of errors and economic fallacies Warren makes in her piece, tune into the show of ideas — not attitude.]]>3061falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-spot-tabloid-climate-science--47954472
The Independent, a British tabloid, also cites generic experts who say the fires will only get worse over time because of climate change.

Never mind that most forest fires are started on poorly managed land owned by the federal government, or that science has not established a cause-and-effect relationship between fires and carbon dioxide emissions, these experts will tell you with certainty that man-made global warming is the problem. For years, the U.S. Forest Service has wanted to increase logging to reduce fuel loads of overgrown forests — filled with dead and diseased trees — but they have been blocked by environmentalists. The Endangered Species Act has often been the reason for allowing forests to turn into tinderboxes. However, endangered species are less compelling villains than big oil companies, so don’t expect Governor Brown to blame the spotted owl anytime soon.

Just who are these climate experts the media is always citing, and should we trust them? Some may recall Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic outgoing address to Congress in which he warned of a coming military-industrial complex, but few realize that modern climate science is driven by the same revolving door Eisenhower feared. As government monopolizes science, it gets to call the shots. Today, the environmental movement has co-opted and corrupted science in an unholy alliance with the regulatory state. Only a handful of nonprofits and scientists have had the courage to stand against it.

The Heartland Institute, based in Illinois, is one such group. They have been educating the public and producing freely available literature that shows how “the climate consensus” can be debunked using mainstream data and studies. H. Sterling Burnett, a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, joins the show to give a lesson on spotting environmental fake news.

That increase in extreme weather events you’re always hearing about? It’s mostly fabricated for attention-grabbing headlines. As the Heartland Institute notes:

“[A]ccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. state-wide extreme weather records database, probably the best of its kind in the world, there has been no increase in extreme weather.
What’s more, climate models over-estimated the warming trend in 97.4% of their predictions between 1998 and 2014. Rest assured, their models must be getting better — it’s hard to imagine them getting much worse.

Follow the Money
For all of their efforts to clear the air and promote rational environmental science and energy regulations, the Heartland Institute has been subject to false accusation and smear tactics from left-leaning and environmental blogs. The common complaints that they are in the pockets of big oil, however, don’t stand up to scrutiny. Exxon’s short-lived donations to the Institute never exceeded 5% of the budget. Rather, Exxon has been much more active in its giving to environmental causes that are trying to stamp out its competitors in the coal industry, which is often the cheapest and most efficient form of energy available to the developing world.

The real bias in climate science is spurred by government funding of alarmist research . It’s gone unnoticed because we’ve grown accustomed to cronyism as the status quo. Carl Jung wrote, “It’s hard to see the lion that has eaten you.” Yet the tendency of government to fund studies confirming the looming ecological apocalypse is well-established, and is summed up eloquently by MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen.


This corruption of environmental science has many beneficiaries — from the bureaucracies that boost their budget when a frightened public votes for increased taxes and regulations, to renewable energy insiders that only find a viable market for their products in a subsidized environment. The end result is a bootleggers-and-baptist coalition between sincere-but-misinformed activists, corporate interests in the monopolistic energy industry, and the politicians that make the great theft possible.

The Latest Hoax: “Public Nuisance” Lawsuits Against Oil Companies
Professor Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institution scholar and frequent guest on the show, did a podcast in January on a series of lawsuits in New York City, San Francisco, and Oakland, trying to extract damages from five major oil companies.

As usual, the Professor dispelled the faulty legal arguments behind the plaintiffs in both written and oral form.

He concludes that private lawsuits cannot deliver remedies for ill-defined damages, especially when only a fraction of those hypothetical damages could be said to be caused by the named defendants (in this case, Exxon, Chevron, etc.). Putting aside the fact that these oil companies are only responsible for a small percentage of total energy production, and that the oil companies themselves are not emitting (this responsibility falls on us — the consumers), Epstein notes that fossil fuels are the only option for keeping transportation, manufacturing, and commerce alive. As Milton Friedman once said, “Energy is the lifeblood of a market economy.”

Fortunately, a federal court recently dismissed New York City’s climate lawsuit.

Other Green Shoots
Elsewhere, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the government’s current policy of leasing land to coal companies without having to a review of the impact of coal on climate. While the Obama administration put a moratorium on coal extraction, the Trump administration has been pushing an agenda of “energy dominance.” The EPA already applies an environmental impact analysis — the ruling simply prevented a new layer of red tape. Taking away coal forces power companies to switch to less reliable, more expensive alternatives, including wind and solar configurations that are often built at great expense to the environment — destroying habitats and requiring ample energy to build and maintain.

You won’t read about any of this in the papers. Mainstream media bias positions government and environmentalists as the saviors from evil corporations and energy companies. It’s a simple story that sells magazines and keeps people on the edge of their seats. There’s just one problem. It’s not true.

While the Trump administration has rolled back a number of the worst regulations, the corruption of science persists. For every Richard Epstein, Richard Lindzen, H. Sterling Burnett, and Matt Ridley, there are scores of scientists on university payrolls that remain locked into the group-think that reinforces the problem.

In 2015, The Heartland Institute began distributing 300,000 free copies of a booklet titled, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.” As expected, it evoked much ire, but the message is getting out there. The majority of the public doesn’t blame capitalism for climate change, nor do they rank it as a major concern compared to other problems.

Once one steps outside of the government–media–academic echo chamber, the talk of international accords and the need for global governance start to sound ridiculous. Don’t get fooled.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954472Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:41:00 +0000Bob ZadekNorthern California is burning, and climate alarmists — including California Governor Jerry Brown — are blaming carbons emissions. It’s unclear when or how Governor Brown became a climate expert, but he claims the Carr fire is evidence of the climate...
The Independent, a British tabloid, also cites generic experts who say the fires will only get worse over time because of climate change.

Never mind that most forest fires are started on poorly managed land owned by the federal government, or that science has not established a cause-and-effect relationship between fires and carbon dioxide emissions, these experts will tell you with certainty that man-made global warming is the problem. For years, the U.S. Forest Service has wanted to increase logging to reduce fuel loads of overgrown forests — filled with dead and diseased trees — but they have been blocked by environmentalists. The Endangered Species Act has often been the reason for allowing forests to turn into tinderboxes. However, endangered species are less compelling villains than big oil companies, so don’t expect Governor Brown to blame the spotted owl anytime soon.

Just who are these climate experts the media is always citing, and should we trust them? Some may recall Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic outgoing address to Congress in which he warned of a coming military-industrial complex, but few realize that modern climate science is driven by the same revolving door Eisenhower feared. As government monopolizes science, it gets to call the shots. Today, the environmental movement has co-opted and corrupted science in an unholy alliance with the regulatory state. Only a handful of nonprofits and scientists have had the courage to stand against it.

The Heartland Institute, based in Illinois, is one such group. They have been educating the public and producing freely available literature that shows how “the climate consensus” can be debunked using mainstream data and studies. H. Sterling Burnett, a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, joins the show to give a lesson on spotting environmental fake news.

That increase in extreme weather events you’re always hearing about? It’s mostly fabricated for attention-grabbing headlines. As the Heartland Institute notes:

“[A]ccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. state-wide extreme weather records database, probably the best of its kind in the world, there has been no increase in extreme weather.
What’s more, climate models over-estimated the warming trend in 97.4% of their predictions between 1998 and 2014. Rest assured, their models must be getting better — it’s hard to imagine them getting much worse.

Follow the Money
For all of their efforts to clear the air and promote rational environmental science and energy regulations, the Heartland Institute has been subject to false accusation and smear tactics from left-leaning and environmental blogs. The common complaints that they are in the pockets of big oil, however, don’t stand up to scrutiny. Exxon’s short-lived donations to the Institute never exceeded 5% of the budget. Rather, Exxon has been much more active in its giving to environmental causes that are trying to stamp out its competitors in the coal industry, which is often the cheapest and most efficient form of energy available to the developing world.

The real bias in climate science is spurred by government funding of alarmist research . It’s gone unnoticed because we’ve grown accustomed to cronyism as the status quo. Carl Jung wrote, “It’s hard to see the lion that has eaten you.” Yet the tendency of government to fund studies confirming the looming ecological apocalypse is well-established, and is summed up eloquently by MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen.


This...]]>3111falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-bail-traps-the-poor-in-jail-with-scott-shackford--47954534
In the essay, author Scott Shackford details several sad and often infuriating stories of people who clearly pose no threat to society being held on exorbitant bail charges. While it’s understandable that we would lock up a murder suspect with a criminal record awaiting trial, the whole point of the bail system is to allow those who are wrongly convicted or generally law-abiding citizens to serve only the time they are formally sentenced to — not a pretrial jail term that can sometimes be as long as the actual sentence.

Around half a million Americans are sitting behind bars who have yet to be convicted of a crime, writes Shackford. This issue has brought together some strange bedfellows, including Senators Rand Paul with Kamala Harris (co-sponsors of the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act), as well as Google’s charitable arm with the Koch Foundation. Most recently, Bernie Sanders introduced the No Money Bail Act, but like Harris and Rand’s attempt, the bill is unlikely to pass through committee.

While Federal reform has stalled, Shackford takes note of a handful of state experiments with reforms that are making the system less biased against those who can’t afford bail. These efforts include eliminating cash bail, and encouraging judges to find alternatives to putting people in jail before their trials.

Some blame the $2 billion bail bonds industry for the lack of reform to date. Google even began blocking their ads on its search platform. This approach, however, may be flawed. Bail bonds, after all, are a legal service, and one that helps the system to function at that. As Marginal Revolution blogger Alex Tabarrok notes, “preventing advertising doesn’t reduce the need to pay bail, it simply makes it harder to find a lender.” Furthermore, taking away the option of judges to detain people who can’t afford bail has in some cases led them to merely put revoke that option altogether and hold them without bail.

Shackford joins the show of ideas, not attitude, to tackle a difficult but important topic of the American justice system. He and Bob will discuss the constitutionality of bail, and why the founders considered it important enough to limit “excessive bail” directly in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Pick up a copy of Shackford’s article on newsstands, and tune in for the full hour for your weekly dose of libertarian ideas.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954534Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe August/September 2018 Reason Magazine cover story features an issue of bi-partisan interest — the injustice of the cash bail system, which coerces poor defendants into guilty pleas. For those who can pay, bail means avoiding jail before they even...
In the essay, author Scott Shackford details several sad and often infuriating stories of people who clearly pose no threat to society being held on exorbitant bail charges. While it’s understandable that we would lock up a murder suspect with a criminal record awaiting trial, the whole point of the bail system is to allow those who are wrongly convicted or generally law-abiding citizens to serve only the time they are formally sentenced to — not a pretrial jail term that can sometimes be as long as the actual sentence.

Around half a million Americans are sitting behind bars who have yet to be convicted of a crime, writes Shackford. This issue has brought together some strange bedfellows, including Senators Rand Paul with Kamala Harris (co-sponsors of the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act), as well as Google’s charitable arm with the Koch Foundation. Most recently, Bernie Sanders introduced the No Money Bail Act, but like Harris and Rand’s attempt, the bill is unlikely to pass through committee.

While Federal reform has stalled, Shackford takes note of a handful of state experiments with reforms that are making the system less biased against those who can’t afford bail. These efforts include eliminating cash bail, and encouraging judges to find alternatives to putting people in jail before their trials.

Some blame the $2 billion bail bonds industry for the lack of reform to date. Google even began blocking their ads on its search platform. This approach, however, may be flawed. Bail bonds, after all, are a legal service, and one that helps the system to function at that. As Marginal Revolution blogger Alex Tabarrok notes, “preventing advertising doesn’t reduce the need to pay bail, it simply makes it harder to find a lender.” Furthermore, taking away the option of judges to detain people who can’t afford bail has in some cases led them to merely put revoke that option altogether and hold them without bail.

Shackford joins the show of ideas, not attitude, to tackle a difficult but important topic of the American justice system. He and Bob will discuss the constitutionality of bail, and why the founders considered it important enough to limit “excessive bail” directly in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Pick up a copy of Shackford’s article on newsstands, and tune in for the full hour for your weekly dose of libertarian ideas.]]>3094falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-discovers-federalism--47954564
Joe Mathews, a syndicated columnist and California editor for Zocalo Public Square, came up with a unique legal proposal during the debate over Deferred Action (read: deportation) for Childhood Arrivals: an alternative “California resident” status. While not quite U.S. citizenship (which California can’t grant), residency would be a step towards integration for immigrant children, raised in California, whose national identity and true citizenship differ. Maybe, Mathews suggests, the best way to resolve the discrepancy is to make “Californian” into something more like a nationality — a legal relationship between non-citizen residents and state government. This would imply greater sovereignty for California and, in turn, for other states seeking to reclaim powers delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Mathew specifically evoked the idea of federalism — referring to it as a “great American tradition” — much as Bob has been doing on this show for the past 10 years.

Is it Legal?
While the Constitution gives the Federal government jurisdiction over enforcing national immigration standards, there is no explicit prohibition on states taking action. As David Davenport of the Hoover Institution notes:

“Federalism incorporates the idea that the federal government is not the only player in our constitutional republic, because state and local governments also serve important roles. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reminds us that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

With Republicans in charge of the White House, both houses of Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, Democrats are rediscovering states’ rights and local government powers, as the out-of-power party in Washington often does. And as usual, California is leading the way in flexing state and local power, notably:

On immigration — The nearly 20 sanctuary cities and counties in California refuse to support the enforcement of Washington’s immigration laws, charting their own course at the risk of some federal funding.”

Mathews joined the show to unpack his proposal, and explain how it would work. He and Bob discussed the broader failures of our immigration system, and work through the logistics of a more federalist approach if the Golden State were to lead the way.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954564Fri, 20 Jul 2018 01:01:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt’s been called “federalism 2.0” — a move by states to buck the central government and try out their own policies in areas of the environment, immigration, drug policy, and criminal justice reform. California (for better or for worse) has been...
Joe Mathews, a syndicated columnist and California editor for Zocalo Public Square, came up with a unique legal proposal during the debate over Deferred Action (read: deportation) for Childhood Arrivals: an alternative “California resident” status. While not quite U.S. citizenship (which California can’t grant), residency would be a step towards integration for immigrant children, raised in California, whose national identity and true citizenship differ. Maybe, Mathews suggests, the best way to resolve the discrepancy is to make “Californian” into something more like a nationality — a legal relationship between non-citizen residents and state government. This would imply greater sovereignty for California and, in turn, for other states seeking to reclaim powers delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Mathew specifically evoked the idea of federalism — referring to it as a “great American tradition” — much as Bob has been doing on this show for the past 10 years.

Is it Legal?
While the Constitution gives the Federal government jurisdiction over enforcing national immigration standards, there is no explicit prohibition on states taking action. As David Davenport of the Hoover Institution notes:

“Federalism incorporates the idea that the federal government is not the only player in our constitutional republic, because state and local governments also serve important roles. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reminds us that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

With Republicans in charge of the White House, both houses of Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, Democrats are rediscovering states’ rights and local government powers, as the out-of-power party in Washington often does. And as usual, California is leading the way in flexing state and local power, notably:

On immigration — The nearly 20 sanctuary cities and counties in California refuse to support the enforcement of Washington’s immigration laws, charting their own course at the risk of some federal funding.”

Mathews joined the show to unpack his proposal, and explain how it would work. He and Bob discussed the broader failures of our immigration system, and work through the logistics of a more federalist approach if the Golden State were to lead the way.]]>3101falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-california-s-endangered-species-survive-u-s-fish-wildlife-policy--47954600
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The more fresh water retained in the Delta region, the thinking went, the more smelt there would be. Unfortunately, “preserving” freshwater (and essentially flushing it into the ocean) seems to have done nothing to revive smelt stocks. They are still dying. Making matters worse, other endangered species in the Valley are now being deprived of water from the San Joaquin.

Tony Francois is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation — a public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of vulnerable individuals and small businesses whose rights are threatened by overreaching legislative and executive power. Francois notes that property owners (farmers, etc.) are not the only ones with a stake in this issue, but also people who value biodiversity and sanity in government. He frames this as a moral issue, with the regulators to blame. However, he also puts some responsibility on citizens of various stripes to assert our power against an unaccountable agency run amok.

Tony joins the show to explain the disastrous unintended consequences of federal bureaucratic management of state resources and discuss other pending Supreme Court cases in which endangered species regulations are threatening people’s liberties (and often the environment). Finally, Bob and Tony discuss Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and his track record on cases involving the environment.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954600Fri, 13 Jul 2018 01:08:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen the population of a tiny fish called the Delta smelt started to dwindle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife kicked into high gear to save them from going to extinct. They used their authority to divert federal water from the smelt’s habitat in California’s...
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The more fresh water retained in the Delta region, the thinking went, the more smelt there would be. Unfortunately, “preserving” freshwater (and essentially flushing it into the ocean) seems to have done nothing to revive smelt stocks. They are still dying. Making matters worse, other endangered species in the Valley are now being deprived of water from the San Joaquin.

Tony Francois is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation — a public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of vulnerable individuals and small businesses whose rights are threatened by overreaching legislative and executive power. Francois notes that property owners (farmers, etc.) are not the only ones with a stake in this issue, but also people who value biodiversity and sanity in government. He frames this as a moral issue, with the regulators to blame. However, he also puts some responsibility on citizens of various stripes to assert our power against an unaccountable agency run amok.

Tony joins the show to explain the disastrous unintended consequences of federal bureaucratic management of state resources and discuss other pending Supreme Court cases in which endangered species regulations are threatening people’s liberties (and often the environment). Finally, Bob and Tony discuss Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and his track record on cases involving the environment.]]>3130falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-two-faces-of-janus-v-afscme--47954657The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and end of conflicts — one face looked rearward, to the past, while the other looked ahead to the future. With the end of the Supreme Court’s latest session and looming end to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s career, we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of jurisprudence.

Two years ago, the court decided not to hear the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, suspending the conflict between public sector unions and their opponents in the “right work” camp. Rebecca Friedrichs was a school teacher who resented paying dues, or even the less substantial non-member “agency fees” to her union. As a major political faction, public sector unions often push legislation in the interest of their members, such as increased funding for public school teachers’ salaries. Friedrichs, however, was not a typical union member. A rare anti-teacher’s union teacher, Friedrichs was recruited as an ideal plaintiff to go to court on behalf of the entire “right to work” movement — largely funded by conservative and libertarian interest groups — to argue that her free speech rights were being violated by the requirement to contribute financially to her union.

Many thought that the Friedrichs case was doomed when Justice Scalia suddenly passed away in 2016, until Trump’s election ushered in Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. The issue of public sector union dues returned to the docket in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. While the details were different, the essentials of the case was the same: do forced dues to a union constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as an instance of “compelled speech?”

A Precedent Overturned
Janus, a child protection specialist, contested the fees his union required him to pay. Since unions often function as a wing of the Democratic party, this seems like a reasonable complaint for public sector workers who broadly oppose the Democrats’ agenda. Indeed the court had found in a previous case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1970), which determined that dues collected from non-members were constitutional as long as they were only used for the union’s purposes of collective bargaining — separated from political activism funded by member dues.

Allowing employees to opt out of union fees entirely, however, creates a “free rider” problem, in which the non-members receive the benefits of the union’s negotiations at the expense of members. Thus, the decision in Janus — in favor of the plaintiff’s right to not pay any fees — deals a hard blow to public sector unions — one of the last organized supporting wings of the Democratic Party.

To understand why the case was so charged, one needs to understand the shifting political landscape — specifically, the shrinking power of unions as a check on business interests. Certain subgroups of the GOP have made it their goal to “defund and defang” public sector unions — the last bastion of organized labor — so that a free market agenda can advance with less opposition. As union membership has declined, we have seen a nearly inverted relationship with the share of income going to the top 10%. Whether the relationship is causal is hard to say, but the graphical evidence is compelling.

Subscribe to Jonathan’s podcast for a progressive perspective on issues related to organized labor and inequality.

Jonathan Tasini, host of the progressive “Working Life” podcast, sees this outcome as the result of a highly effective coalition of right-wing interest groups — including the Koch Foundation and the Uihlein Foundation — and the network of think tanks and organizations they support. Tasini links the decline in union influence over politics with the rise in inequality, and expects the Janus decision to further erode the fabric of working-class America.

However, it is not only progressives using partisan arguments for unions who are arguing against the 5–4 majority in Janus.

Was the Court Wrong?
Eugene Volokh, a noted libertarian legal scholar and lead blogger at Reason.com’s The Volokh Conspiracy, co-authored an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in support of a government union’s constitutional right to levy fees.In her dissent, Justice Kagan quotes Volokh’s brief, which offers “many examples to show that the First Amendment ‘simply do[es] not guarantee that one’s hard-earned dollars will never be spent on speech one disapproves of.’”

For example, when the government taxes, it often spends the money on campaigns to promote the ideology behind a given program. In a simpler case, government grants often fund causes and forms of expression that many taxpayers do not value. Kagan and Volokh suggest that we might as well think of the fee as a tax on government workers to pay for the collective bargaining that they must undertake with the union to determine fair pay and benefits.

This ultimately led Volokh to conclude, in the wake of the decision, that the new precedent won’t change much. After all, the government can just change its method of levying the fee to a tax — leaving union revenues unchanged.

Nonetheless, the Janus decision does seem to tilt the balance a bit further away from unions, which is why many libertarians are celebrating.

Bob has covered this topic several times in the past, including (most recently) his interview with Rebecca Friedrichs and her attorney. Now you can hear the other side of the debate from Jonathan Tasini.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954657Fri, 06 Jul 2018 01:18:00 +0000Bob ZadekProgressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a disaster for unions and working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it’s a bad decision, but won’t change much. The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and...The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and end of conflicts — one face looked rearward, to the past, while the other looked ahead to the future. With the end of the Supreme Court’s latest session and looming end to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s career, we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of jurisprudence.

Two years ago, the court decided not to hear the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, suspending the conflict between public sector unions and their opponents in the “right work” camp. Rebecca Friedrichs was a school teacher who resented paying dues, or even the less substantial non-member “agency fees” to her union. As a major political faction, public sector unions often push legislation in the interest of their members, such as increased funding for public school teachers’ salaries. Friedrichs, however, was not a typical union member. A rare anti-teacher’s union teacher, Friedrichs was recruited as an ideal plaintiff to go to court on behalf of the entire “right to work” movement — largely funded by conservative and libertarian interest groups — to argue that her free speech rights were being violated by the requirement to contribute financially to her union.

Many thought that the Friedrichs case was doomed when Justice Scalia suddenly passed away in 2016, until Trump’s election ushered in Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. The issue of public sector union dues returned to the docket in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. While the details were different, the essentials of the case was the same: do forced dues to a union constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as an instance of “compelled speech?”

A Precedent Overturned
Janus, a child protection specialist, contested the fees his union required him to pay. Since unions often function as a wing of the Democratic party, this seems like a reasonable complaint for public sector workers who broadly oppose the Democrats’ agenda. Indeed the court had found in a previous case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1970), which determined that dues collected from non-members were constitutional as long as they were only used for the union’s purposes of collective bargaining — separated from political activism funded by member dues.

Allowing employees to opt out of union fees entirely, however, creates a “free rider” problem, in which the non-members receive the benefits of the union’s negotiations at the expense of members. Thus, the decision in Janus — in favor of the plaintiff’s right to not pay any fees — deals a hard blow to public sector unions — one of the last organized supporting wings of the Democratic Party.

To understand why the case was so charged, one needs to understand the shifting political landscape — specifically, the shrinking power of unions as a check on business interests. Certain subgroups of the GOP have made it their goal to “defund and defang” public sector unions — the last bastion of organized labor — so that a free market agenda can advance with less opposition. As union membership has declined, we have seen a nearly inverted relationship with the share of income going to the top 10%. Whether the relationship is causal is hard to say, but the graphical evidence is compelling.

Subscribe to Jonathan’s podcast for a progressive perspective on issues related to organized labor and inequality.

Jonathan Tasini, host of the progressive “Working Life” podcast, sees this outcome as the result of a highly effective coalition of right-wing interest groups — including the Koch Foundation and the Uihlein Foundation — and the network of think tanks and organizations they support. Tasini links the decline in union influence over politics with the...]]>3110falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-end-of-nation-states--47954692
Ironically, the countries that have tried the hardest to engineer social outcomes are now implementing special zones where more organically-evolved legal systems are the law of the land. China’s SEZs — free trade zones modeled on western governance — are credited with bringing close to a billion people out of poverty. This economic miracle has spawned copy-cat experiments around the world, but they are not necessarily the end-all-be-all of good governance. Newer concepts like charter cities, technological zones, and startup cities have been proposed to jumpstart growth in dysfunctional jurisdictions around the world.

A few years ago, before a series of high profile failures in places like Honduras and Madagascar, these ideas seemed to be gaining traction. There was cross-spectrum support, ranging from “crazy utopian techno-libertarians” (like the “seasteaders”) to establishment-types like former World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer.

Mark Lutter straddles these two worlds. He knows what drives libertarian aspirations for free cities, having recently received his PhD from George Mason University (under Don Boudreaux, no less). But Lutter also knows what it takes for radical ideas to get a hearing with the people with the authority to implement it. He recently founded the Center for Innovative Governance, a new think tank, to fill the vacuum in credible academic literature and guide pragmatic policy-makers who see the potential for more innovative governance.

Although it has become a cliche in some circles, governance matters — more than many realize. Writing for Jacobite Magazine, Lutter notes that a practical approach must convince the ruling elites. Our empirical knowledge of what works (rule of law, property rights, etc.) needs to be transmitted to the parts of the world where darkness, superstition, and authoritarianism still reign.

Why City States?
Nation-states have been the default configuration for governance for 400 years. Static in their geographic boundaries, and sclerotic in their administration, nation-states are like lumbering giants that frequently start wars against other countries and shackle their own citizens with one-size-fits-all laws. When it comes to economic activity, however, cities are by far the more dynamic relevant unit. They are also where most of the problems requiring government need to be solved. As Richard Florida, founder of CityLabs, recently wrote:

“Local governments tend to be less ideological and more focused on problem-solving, and they know intimately which problems actually need to be solved. They are more accountable to the people they represent, because they interact with them every day. And because people pick where they live by “voting with their feet,” constituents tend to share the same values as their leaders.”
The push for more innovative governance builds on the on-going devolution of power from dysfunctional nation-states to cities and neighborhoods. Where this devolution is stalled, we see widespread human misery: Honduras, Venezuela, and much of Africa.

This brings up the possibility of cities wresting even more autonomy from their Federal counterparts, and implementing best practices or trying out new ones in the competition for tax-paying constituents. Florida and Lutter suspect that cities that are most attractive to knowledge workers — and those that innovate — are most likely to win.

Lutter is also working on a narrative that will make it easier for policy-makers to implement the changes that will help cities evolve into hubs of next-generation governance. He returns to the show this Sunday to talk about his new organization’s work on this crucial dimension. As a think tank, the Center for Innovative Governance Research aims to provide a menu of policy options, and even more importantly, to cast these options in a compelling light that captures people’s imaginations. He and Bob discuss some of these options, and the surprising places where innovative governance is taking off.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954692Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:23:00 +0000Bob ZadekEver since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men have dreamed of using science to advance empirical knowledge and bring relief to the human condition. But in the area of law and governance in particular, some countries have tried to apply rational...
Ironically, the countries that have tried the hardest to engineer social outcomes are now implementing special zones where more organically-evolved legal systems are the law of the land. China’s SEZs — free trade zones modeled on western governance — are credited with bringing close to a billion people out of poverty. This economic miracle has spawned copy-cat experiments around the world, but they are not necessarily the end-all-be-all of good governance. Newer concepts like charter cities, technological zones, and startup cities have been proposed to jumpstart growth in dysfunctional jurisdictions around the world.

A few years ago, before a series of high profile failures in places like Honduras and Madagascar, these ideas seemed to be gaining traction. There was cross-spectrum support, ranging from “crazy utopian techno-libertarians” (like the “seasteaders”) to establishment-types like former World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer.

Mark Lutter straddles these two worlds. He knows what drives libertarian aspirations for free cities, having recently received his PhD from George Mason University (under Don Boudreaux, no less). But Lutter also knows what it takes for radical ideas to get a hearing with the people with the authority to implement it. He recently founded the Center for Innovative Governance, a new think tank, to fill the vacuum in credible academic literature and guide pragmatic policy-makers who see the potential for more innovative governance.

Although it has become a cliche in some circles, governance matters — more than many realize. Writing for Jacobite Magazine, Lutter notes that a practical approach must convince the ruling elites. Our empirical knowledge of what works (rule of law, property rights, etc.) needs to be transmitted to the parts of the world where darkness, superstition, and authoritarianism still reign.

Why City States?
Nation-states have been the default configuration for governance for 400 years. Static in their geographic boundaries, and sclerotic in their administration, nation-states are like lumbering giants that frequently start wars against other countries and shackle their own citizens with one-size-fits-all laws. When it comes to economic activity, however, cities are by far the more dynamic relevant unit. They are also where most of the problems requiring government need to be solved. As Richard Florida, founder of CityLabs, recently wrote:

“Local governments tend to be less ideological and more focused on problem-solving, and they know intimately which problems actually need to be solved. They are more accountable to the people they represent, because they interact with them every day. And because people pick where they live by “voting with their feet,” constituents tend to share the same values as their leaders.”
The push for more innovative governance builds on the on-going devolution of power from dysfunctional nation-states to cities and neighborhoods. Where this devolution is stalled, we see widespread human misery: Honduras, Venezuela, and much of Africa.

This brings up the possibility of cities wresting even more autonomy from their Federal counterparts, and implementing best practices or trying out new ones in the competition for tax-paying constituents. Florida and Lutter suspect that cities that are...]]>2900falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/non-aggression-in-a-nuclear-era--47954730
Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.

John Glaser is particularly focused on grand strategy and the role of prestige motivations in international politics. To read between the lines of the recent summit, he notes that we have to consider what motivates foreign dictators, and how best to defuse their feelings of insecurity. After all, they are humans with the same desire for status and respect as any of us.

Glaser’s calm and measured tone in recent TV and radio interviews has mirrored his advice to U.S. leaders and diplomats. First, he says, we have to look at historical patterns. What drives North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and aggression towards the U.S.? The evidence suggests that they mainly seek a deterrent to U.S. invasion. Given our track record in Libya and Iraq — breaking promises and toppling dictators — it’s no wonder that Kim Jong-Un seeks a stronger defense to prevent his own demise.

Second, we have to see how signals of respect — even if undeserved — may be the only way to get North Korea to make concessions in areas of human rights and nuclear de-armament. As the geniuses behind the “Bad Lip Reading” videos show, these meetings are less about specific negotiation points as they are about the surrounding theater, and the optics of a U.S. President meeting the North Korean ruler for the first time.

Despite the spin from both parties, the recent summit was neither a vindication of Trump’s tough-talk from a few months ago (as Republicans claim), nor was it a mistake. Glaser believes that the negotiations were a step in the right direction — a move towards removing some sanctions and giving North Korea some of the respect it craves on the international stage. However, he gives most of the credit to South Korean President Moon Jae-in for providing the assurances to Kim that primed him to attend the meeting.


Speaking on Fox News recently, Glaser noted that this kind of negotiation is exactly what North Korea has always wanted. President Trump hinted at reducing the join military exercises by the U.S. and South Korea, and North Korea has offered to remove long-range artillery from the border with South Korea. It’s almost as if a less aggressive stance towards countries like North Korea causes them to reciprocate and tone down their aggression.

While these are positive signs, the real progress will come in the months and years ahead, as diplomats work out the details behind closed doors. Will Trump and Kim be able to put their egos aside to continue down the path of reconciliation? Tune in to get the full picture on North Korea.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954730Sun, 24 Jun 2018 01:29:00 +0000Bob ZadekIf we trust the media, the world seems to be constantly on the brink of nuclear destruction. Since World War II, global powers have escalated the arms race to the point “Mutually Assured Destruction,” in which it would be suicidal madness for any...
Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.

John Glaser is particularly focused on grand strategy and the role of prestige motivations in international politics. To read between the lines of the recent summit, he notes that we have to consider what motivates foreign dictators, and how best to defuse their feelings of insecurity. After all, they are humans with the same desire for status and respect as any of us.

Glaser’s calm and measured tone in recent TV and radio interviews has mirrored his advice to U.S. leaders and diplomats. First, he says, we have to look at historical patterns. What drives North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and aggression towards the U.S.? The evidence suggests that they mainly seek a deterrent to U.S. invasion. Given our track record in Libya and Iraq — breaking promises and toppling dictators — it’s no wonder that Kim Jong-Un seeks a stronger defense to prevent his own demise.

Second, we have to see how signals of respect — even if undeserved — may be the only way to get North Korea to make concessions in areas of human rights and nuclear de-armament. As the geniuses behind the “Bad Lip Reading” videos show, these meetings are less about specific negotiation points as they are about the surrounding theater, and the optics of a U.S. President meeting the North Korean ruler for the first time.

Despite the spin from both parties, the recent summit was neither a vindication of Trump’s tough-talk from a few months ago (as Republicans claim), nor was it a mistake. Glaser believes that the negotiations were a step in the right direction — a move towards removing some sanctions and giving North Korea some of the respect it craves on the international stage. However, he gives most of the credit to South Korean President Moon Jae-in for providing the assurances to Kim that primed him to attend the meeting.


Speaking on Fox News recently, Glaser noted that this kind of negotiation is exactly what North Korea has always wanted. President Trump hinted at reducing the join military exercises by the U.S. and South Korea, and North Korea has offered to remove long-range artillery from the border with South Korea. It’s almost as if a less aggressive stance towards countries like North Korea causes them to reciprocate and tone down their aggression.

While these are positive signs, the real progress will come in the months and years ahead, as diplomats work out the details behind closed doors. Will Trump and Kim be able to put their egos aside to continue down the path of reconciliation? Tune in to get the full picture on North Korea.]]>3129falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/thaddeus-russell-on-renegades-vs-conformists--47954804
The King of England was oppressing the colonies — taxation without representation , etc. — which sparked the American Revolution and quest for self-governance. This began a long struggle for democratic freedom that would be continually redefined, first through a civil war and then through a protracted civil rights battle to extend the liberties first won for white males to all of “We the People,” including women and minorities.
At each step, it’s said to be noble reformers and moral visionaries who took the courageous stand against the oppressive forces of injustice and discrimination. This naive telling may explain how certain civil liberties were gained, such as the right to vote or to be heard in the public square, but it neglects many of the freedoms that a majority of people seem to prefer to the lofty ideals of the founders.

Consider the freedom to drink, gamble, and cavort with whomever one wishes (not to mention the freedom to take long lunch breaks and summer vacations). None of these were guaranteed in the Constitution, and if it were up to some of the influential colonial leaders, people today might be banned from even more innocuous activities like dancing and celebrating Christmas.

Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup.

When Russell tried to share his revisionist research with his students at Barnard, his career was derailed. A talk delivered to his colleagues revealed that he wasn’t “one of them.” In other words, he wasn’t afraid to express unpopular opinions that offended the sensibilities of left-wing coastal elites.

To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.

Why Do We Work?
Furthermore, in a chapter titled “The Freedom of Slavery,” he claims that slaves enjoyed pleasures that were forbidden for white people. Far from defending the institution of slavery, Russell’s point is that following the civil war, the culture among former slaves frequently provided an important source of resistance to the oppressive culture of white Americans — a culture that put labor on a pedestal, and made it the reason for living, rather the means to living.

In his own life, however, Russell values work highly. He spoke with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his own mission of challenging the Federal process of university accreditation. He is doing so through “unregistered” courses in history and philosophy, offered through his very own Renegade University. Russell also keeps busy with the Unregistered Podcast, but he will remind you that these pursuits are all a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Is Postmodernism a Threat to Liberty?
If you’ve been following the news around freedom of expression on college campuses, you’ve probably seen stories about young, zealous “Social Justice Warriors,” who have a meltdown when confronted with a perspective that challenges their previous indoctrination, courtesy of politically correct humanities departments. Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson is perhaps the best-known opponent of this trend, for refusing to be silenced by students, administrators, or media personalities on the question of transgender pronouns (a kind of compelled speech because of Canada’s new laws).

Peterson has argued that the vaguely defined but sinister ideological movement known as postmodernism is responsible for the destruction of western norms, including free speech and even logic itself. He has described postmodernism as a unified ideology espoused incompletely by many individuals, none of whom perfectly embody or even understand the whole set of doctrines. However, collectively they a pushing a complete worldview, that is the inheritor of the Marxist system for analyzing struggles between the economic classes. Instead of looking at power relationships through an economic lens, postmodernists have shifted their focus to identity politics (perhaps in part because of the horrific failures of communism in the Soviet Union and China). While the ideas behind postmodernism cannot be written down and codified, they share some broad traits such as skepticism of all “metanarratives,” such as those that would place “enlightened man” at the center of history, as told within a story of unrelenting progress.

Russell, however, identifies post-modernism as one of the greatest achievements of academia to date, offering a course through Renegade University titled, “What is Postmodernism?”. He says that thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are being abused when their theories are applied to enforce totalitarian ideals or compelled speech. Instead, post-modernism is supposed to free humanity from alleged social constructs, including race, class, and gender, so that we can become more responsible for our own fate.

Russell believes that the real problem in academia is the cowardice on the part of tenured professors to say and research what they want, rather than what they know will be safe and acceptable to their suprisingly like-minded colleagues (recall that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 10 to 1).

---

Find out what students are really being taught in humanities and social science departments today. Is postmodernism really the pernicious, nihilistic doctrine that Jordan Peterson claims it to be? Before you answer, be sure to tune into Bob’s interview with Thaddeus Russell.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954804Fri, 08 Jun 2018 01:40:00 +0000Bob ZadekMost mainstream accounts of U.S. history run something like this: The King of England was oppressing the colonies — taxation without representation , etc. — which sparked the American Revolution and quest for self-governance. This began a long...
The King of England was oppressing the colonies — taxation without representation , etc. — which sparked the American Revolution and quest for self-governance. This began a long struggle for democratic freedom that would be continually redefined, first through a civil war and then through a protracted civil rights battle to extend the liberties first won for white males to all of “We the People,” including women and minorities.
At each step, it’s said to be noble reformers and moral visionaries who took the courageous stand against the oppressive forces of injustice and discrimination. This naive telling may explain how certain civil liberties were gained, such as the right to vote or to be heard in the public square, but it neglects many of the freedoms that a majority of people seem to prefer to the lofty ideals of the founders.

Consider the freedom to drink, gamble, and cavort with whomever one wishes (not to mention the freedom to take long lunch breaks and summer vacations). None of these were guaranteed in the Constitution, and if it were up to some of the influential colonial leaders, people today might be banned from even more innocuous activities like dancing and celebrating Christmas.

Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup.

When Russell tried to share his revisionist research with his students at Barnard, his career was derailed. A talk delivered to his colleagues revealed that he wasn’t “one of them.” In other words, he wasn’t afraid to express unpopular opinions that offended the sensibilities of left-wing coastal elites.

To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.

Why Do We Work?
Furthermore, in a chapter titled “The Freedom of Slavery,” he claims that slaves enjoyed pleasures that were forbidden for white people. Far from defending the institution of slavery, Russell’s point is that following the civil war, the culture among former slaves frequently provided an important source of resistance to the oppressive culture of white Americans — a culture that put labor on a pedestal, and made it the reason for living, rather the means to living.

In his own life, however, Russell values work highly. He spoke with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his own mission of challenging the Federal process of university accreditation. He is doing so through “unregistered” courses in history and philosophy, offered through his very own Renegade University. Russell also keeps busy with the Unregistered Podcast, but he will remind you that these pursuits are all a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Is Postmodernism a Threat to Liberty?
If you’ve been following the news around freedom of expression on college campuses, you’ve probably seen stories about young, zealous “Social Justice Warriors,” who have a meltdown when confronted with a perspective that challenges their previous indoctrination, courtesy of politically correct humanities departments. Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson is perhaps the best-known opponent of this trend, for refusing to be silenced by students, administrators, or media personalities on the question of transgender pronouns (a kind of compelled speech because of Canada’s new laws).

Peterson has argued that the vaguely defined but sinister ideological movement known as postmodernism is responsible for the destruction of western norms, including free speech and...]]>3167falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/joel-engel-on-scorched-worth-a-true-story-of-destruction-deceit-and-government-corruption-6-3--47954826Joel joined the show on Sunday 6/3 to unravel what would have resulted in one of the largest wrongful settlements in forestry history (if it weren’t for those meddling kids).]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954826Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekHollywood loves to dramatize stories involving corporate bad guys – lawyered up multinational behemoths who plunder the land just to make a buck. Bestselling author and screenwriter Joel Engel could have taken this well-worn path, and written another...Joel joined the show on Sunday 6/3 to unravel what would have resulted in one of the largest wrongful settlements in forestry history (if it weren’t for those meddling kids).]]>3109falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bryan-caplan-s-case-against-higher-education--47954849
Know any high school students considering an alternative to the elaborate and expensive system of hoops we call the University? Get them to tune in, too, and share the link to our Medium article.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954849Thu, 10 May 2018 01:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekEach year, the government spends $80 billion dollars on subsidies to higher education, making it more attractive for high school students to spend four of their most critical years studying topics only marginally more useful than underwater basket...
Know any high school students considering an alternative to the elaborate and expensive system of hoops we call the University? Get them to tune in, too, and share the link to our Medium article.]]>3116falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/breakfast-is-good-for-you-and-other-dangerous-government-sponsored-myths--47954901https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954901Tue, 01 May 2018 02:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekTerence Kealey is a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham – the UK's first entirely private university. He was already a skeptic of government-funded research when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2010, despite...3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/david-boaz-on-the-libertarian-ethos--47954946https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47954946Thu, 19 Apr 2018 02:08:00 +0000Bob ZadekBerkeley, California—The home of the “Free Speech Movement” became a center of attention last year when writer and professional provacateur Milo Yiannopoulos ignited protests on campus – testing the city’s tolerance of viewpoints outside the...3120falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ice-in-the-age-of-trump--47959742https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47959742Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:18:00 +0000Bob ZadekCalifornia businesses find themselves wedged between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the Federal Government's recent crackdown on undocumented workers – a head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says his agency plans to quadruple the...1759falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cheap-hawks-not-cheap-talk--47959877https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47959877Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:27:00 +0000Bob ZadekOn Wednesday night, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $1.3 trillion dollar "omnibus bill" to avert a government shutdown. In case you're wondering what $1.3 trillion gets you in 2018, the answer is "five more months of continued...3119falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-intellectual-discussion-of-sexual-harassment-with-richard-epstein--47959975
Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47959975Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:33:00 +0000Bob ZadekEach week, the list of celebrities accused of sexual assault seems to grow longer. Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, and now Harvey Weinstein are just a few of the mighty who have fallen from grace. But while none of these three men has yet to be officially...
Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.]]>3124falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/getting-the-government-back-out-of-marriage--47960052https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960052Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:39:00 +0000Bob ZadekDefenders of the free market are often caricatured as calculating, utility maximizers, whose only concern is the efficient allocation of resources. Any attempt to analyze a “market for love” with intersecting supply and demand curves is bound to fall...3075falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-sunday-morning-chat-with-the-world-s-worst-mom--47960121https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960121Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:48:00 +0000Bob ZadekWe moderns take pride in the fact that we no longer burn witches. But can we be so certain that we’ve emerged from the "Dark Ages" to a new enlightened state of mind? Lenore Skenazy sees some of the markings of a modern-day witch hunt in sex-offender...3122falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/let-s-talk-about-california-s-high-speed-rail--47960158https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960158Sun, 04 Feb 2018 12:54:00 +0000Bob ZadekCalifornia has problems. After years of drought, last year’s deluge caused the Oroville Dam to burst, costing nearly $1 billion. Meanwhile, the welfare rolls are swelling, and the millionaires on whom the state depends for its tax revenues are leaving...3128falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-basics-of-bitcoin-blockchain-with-stan-larimer--47960197
If you’re still in the dark about cryptocurrencies, tune in to our special hour-long primer with Stan Larimer. Bob and Stan will break down the basics of Bitcoin, as well as the Bitshares competitor, that Stan is helping to build on Bitcoin’s foundations as an alternative blockchain-based financial system. Known as “The Godfather of BitShares,” Stan Larimer has forty years of experience in software, hardware, and systems engineering, program management, business development and even teaching rocket science at the US Air Force Academy. Stan is CEO of Cryptonomex, a leading custom blockchain development company.

Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central banks as we know it? Furthermore, does it represent something larger and less predictable?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960197Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekYou’ve seen their tables at libertarian conferences, and heard their radio ads warning of an immanent collapse of the financial system. Goldbugs, who stockpile precious metals, have been stereotyped as paranoid — occupying a fringe of the...
If you’re still in the dark about cryptocurrencies, tune in to our special hour-long primer with Stan Larimer. Bob and Stan will break down the basics of Bitcoin, as well as the Bitshares competitor, that Stan is helping to build on Bitcoin’s foundations as an alternative blockchain-based financial system. Known as “The Godfather of BitShares,” Stan Larimer has forty years of experience in software, hardware, and systems engineering, program management, business development and even teaching rocket science at the US Air Force Academy. Stan is CEO of Cryptonomex, a leading custom blockchain development company.

Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central banks as we know it? Furthermore, does it represent something larger and less predictable?]]>3089falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/f-h-buckley-on-the-republic-of-virtue--47960295https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960295Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:12:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he surprised Bob with a cogent, intellectual case for the election of Donald Trump. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law, advised Team Trump on campaign speeches,...3089falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/capitalism-and-morality-twin-pillars-of-the-west--47960349https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960349Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:17:00 +0000Bob ZadekJayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world. An Indian-born Canadian citizen, Bhandari is often asked why he left one socialist country for...3083falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/amy-wax-defends-bourgeois-norms--47960900https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47960900Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:28:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt takes courage for a law professor to stand up for her values when she is being publicly condemned by her fellow faculty members, the dean of her law school, student groups, and a media mob. This is what U Penn law professor Amy Wax has done in the...3127falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-stay-sane-in-a-statist-world--47961392
This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein’s advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It’s not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, libertarian cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47961392Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:35:00 +0000Bob Zadek“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” - Prince Hamlet, Hamlet This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health....
This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein’s advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It’s not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, libertarian cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.]]>3077falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/robert-alt-of-the-buckeye-institute-power-to-the-states--47962719https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47962719Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:50:00 +0000Bob ZadekSo far, the biggest silver lining on the Trump presidency has been a national shift in focus toward state-level policies. In his inauguration speech, President Trump promised to return “power to the people” – devolving responsibilities previously...3144falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/luis-perez-breva-on-artificial-intelligence-myths--47962286
Myth 1: AI is going to kill our jobs
Myth 2: Robots are AI
Myth 3: Big Data and Analytics are AI
Myth 4: Machine Learning and Deep Learning are AI
Myth 5: Search engines are AI

Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47962286Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:42:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading...
Myth 1: AI is going to kill our jobs
Myth 2: Robots are AI
Myth 3: Big Data and Analytics are AI
Myth 4: Machine Learning and Deep Learning are AI
Myth 5: Search engines are AI

Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.]]>3116falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/anthony-l-fisher-on-antifa-violence-neo-reaction--47962781
*See the trailer below for Anthony's debut feature film, *Sidewalk Traffic,* which he wrote and directed. The film is available for rent/purchase on iTunes, Amazon, and most VOD outlets.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47962781Sun, 08 Oct 2017 14:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekLast time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher joined the show, he exposed the mysterious death of a 20-year-old confidential informant. His Reason TV documentary and article were later picked up by 60 Minutes, and led many to rethink the role of...
*See the trailer below for Anthony's debut feature film, *Sidewalk Traffic,* which he wrote and directed. The film is available for rent/purchase on iTunes, Amazon, and most VOD outlets.]]>2907falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rethinking-pax-americana-with-john-glaser--47962894https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47962894Sun, 01 Oct 2017 14:07:00 +0000Bob ZadekWe’re living through the longest period of peace the modern world has ever known, so why all the hysteria of late? John Glaser, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, says it’s past time to start closing many of the 800 U.S....3107falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/federalism-and-the-flat-tax-the-austin-petersen-plan--47963028
Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob this Sunday (9/24, 8-9am PT) to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him live, this Sunday, on the show of ideas not attitude. Call in with your questions at (424) BOB-SHOW.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963028Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekUPDATE: A previous version of this post said that Austin Petersen is in favor of Trump's border wall, which he is not. Petersen's Twitter feed made reference to "building a wall around the welfare state," which is quite distinct and compatible with...
Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob this Sunday (9/24, 8-9am PT) to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him live, this Sunday, on the show of ideas not attitude. Call in with your questions at (424) BOB-SHOW.]]>3127falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-strong-on-creating-a-world-in-which-all-humanity-flourishes--47963156https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963156Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:21:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution is taking off in the West, creating the world's first middle class, and giving rise to prosperous colonial outposts on the American frontier. But the colonies' new-found wealth has its critics. Cotton...3115falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/leviathan-in-chains-michael-munger-on-public-choice-economics--47963333https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963333Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekNancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains purports to be a bombshell of a book. Praised by NPR, her tale of how a southern academic single-handedly masterminded a plan to subvert American democracy is perfectly crafted to inflame and entertain progressive...3144falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/richard-epstein-on-climate-change--47963582https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963582Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekA new "state of the climate" report from 13 Federal agencies says Americans may already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, President Trump is doubling down in defense of his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord....3123falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-war-on-chinese-restaurants-with-gabriel-chin--47963639https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963639Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:58:00 +0000Bob ZadekHere’s a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald’s, KFC’s and Burger Kings combined. No doubt this is partly a result of the dedicated entrepreneurship of Chinese immigrants and the American appetite...2934falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-wilkinson-g-o-p-should-embrace-the-welfare-state--47963799https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47963799Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:13:00 +0000Bob ZadekRepublicans looking to repeal and replace Obamacare are in a dilemma of their own making this week. They have branded themselves as small government defenders, promising reductions in taxes and subsidies, despite knowledge that most of their...3032falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/miron-vs-sessions-on-the-drug-war--47966395https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966395Sun, 09 Jul 2017 18:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn a recent Washington Post op-ed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions inadvertently argued the case libertarians have been making about the War on Drugs for decades. Sessions observed, correctly, that the black market for drugs is inherently violent. He...3088falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-libertarian-infrastructure-plan--47966520
It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else.

But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is inevitable? People often bring up roads and infrastructure as the counterpoint to the libertarian injunction to “privatize it!” Chris Edwards – editor of the Cato Institute’s DownsizingGovernment.org – says that infrastructure isn't quite the exception government’s cheerleaders make it out to be. In a recent policy bulletin, Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?, Edwards shows how the Federal Government can decrease its involvement in roads, bridges, ports and dams. The majority of infrastructure is already owned and operated by the private sector, with the next largest chunk owned by state and local governments – as it should be. “Asset ownership conveys responsibility;” Edwards says, “federal intervention diffuses it.” He joins Bob to discuss the true state of U.S. infrastructure (rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated) and the hands-off policies that can accelerate the right kind of infrastructure at the right price.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966520Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:39:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt’s been called Friedman’s Law, and it holds almost as constant as any law of physics: It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else. But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is...
It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else.

But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is inevitable? People often bring up roads and infrastructure as the counterpoint to the libertarian injunction to “privatize it!” Chris Edwards – editor of the Cato Institute’s DownsizingGovernment.org – says that infrastructure isn't quite the exception government’s cheerleaders make it out to be. In a recent policy bulletin, Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?, Edwards shows how the Federal Government can decrease its involvement in roads, bridges, ports and dams. The majority of infrastructure is already owned and operated by the private sector, with the next largest chunk owned by state and local governments – as it should be. “Asset ownership conveys responsibility;” Edwards says, “federal intervention diffuses it.” He joins Bob to discuss the true state of U.S. infrastructure (rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated) and the hands-off policies that can accelerate the right kind of infrastructure at the right price.]]>350falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-vs-free-trade-with-richard-epstein--47966853
"I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”

If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor in the Oval Office, or even Bernie Sanders. To many, the statement appears perfectly sound. After all, we expect fairness in our personal dealings with others; our deals with global trading partners would seem to be no exception. Senior Hoover Institution Fellow and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein says that fairness should guide our trade policy, but that the classical liberal view of fairness happens to align with free trade. Fraud and coercion are certainly unfair practices, but mutually beneficial trade among willing buyers and sellers is not only fair, but is the very source of our wealth and prosperity. Epstein is known for his erudite commentary on law, politics and economics. He recently discussed Trump’s wrong-headed approach to trade on his Hoover Podcast The Libertarian. In this episode, the Professor is in. Richard and Bob will discuss the threat of an escalating trade war, and the value of free trade in keeping state and federal policymakers in line when it comes to domestic policies that would harm U.S. competitiveness.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966853Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekTake a guess who said the following: "I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.” If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor...
"I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”

If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor in the Oval Office, or even Bernie Sanders. To many, the statement appears perfectly sound. After all, we expect fairness in our personal dealings with others; our deals with global trading partners would seem to be no exception. Senior Hoover Institution Fellow and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein says that fairness should guide our trade policy, but that the classical liberal view of fairness happens to align with free trade. Fraud and coercion are certainly unfair practices, but mutually beneficial trade among willing buyers and sellers is not only fair, but is the very source of our wealth and prosperity. Epstein is known for his erudite commentary on law, politics and economics. He recently discussed Trump’s wrong-headed approach to trade on his Hoover Podcast The Libertarian. In this episode, the Professor is in. Richard and Bob will discuss the threat of an escalating trade war, and the value of free trade in keeping state and federal policymakers in line when it comes to domestic policies that would harm U.S. competitiveness.]]>1049falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-teacher-s-brave-stand-against-her-union-rebecca-friedrichs-and-terry-pell--47967555https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967555Sun, 18 Jun 2017 20:04:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen Rebecca Friedrichs first started teaching in Orange County nearly 30 years ago, she was surprised to discover how little recourse her school had to remove poor quality teachers from their posts. For decades, she would do her best to contain her...2098falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-there-a-war-on-cops--47966544https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966544Sun, 28 May 2017 18:43:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhatever your opinion is of law enforcement, the Black Lives Matter movement, or the root causes of violent crime, you can't claim to be informed without reading Heather Mac Donald's latest book, The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order...350falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-epa-violated-the-clean-air-act--47966598https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966598Sun, 21 May 2017 18:47:00 +0000Bob ZadekAsk a Californian what’s so special about the Golden State – you'll hear about our beaches, our redwood forests, and our high tech and entertainment hubs. 30 years ago, you'd have heard about our smog. Today's small business owners, however, will tell...350falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/venezuela-on-the-brink-with-fergus-hodgson--47966646https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966646Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:54:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt's rarely good news when Latin American politics makes headlines. For those who haven't been monitoring the situation in Venezuela, the "chavista" revolution that began in the 90’s has blossomed into a full-blown meltdown. Think 20th-century...2846falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/russia-today-yesterday-tomorrow--47966744https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966744Sun, 09 Apr 2017 18:59:00 +0000Bob ZadekSome viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the beginning of “The End of History.” The U.S. and its allies, it seemed, were ushering in an era of global liberal democracy. Today's headlines remind us that history is not over. Russia's aggressive...1049falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/judge-gorsuch-on-the-hot-seat--47966942https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966942Sat, 25 Mar 2017 19:13:00 +0000Bob ZadekFollowing Justice Scalia's death last year, Republicans took a gamble with their #NoHearingsNoVote strategy, refusing to confirm any Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of the election year. Ilya Shapiro, Editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court...328falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/debunking-inequality-myths-with-ed-conard--47966985https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47966985Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:24:00 +0000Bob ZadekMark Twain is often quoted as having said, “It’s not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Ironically, there is no evidence Twain ever said or wrote this line, but we can still reflect on its...2858falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/crossroads-for-liberty-with-william-watkins-jr--47967121https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967121Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekLatter-day patriots often speak of the U.S. Constitution as if it's sacred scripture – the wisdom of ages, revealed to men of letters through the divine faculties of reason. Although this makes for a good story, Bob and past guests have poked holes in...2834falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-return-of-big-spending-republicans--47967223https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967223Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekUnder President Obama, Republicans grew accustomed to their role opposing the prevailing winds of Big Government. Apparently the fastest way to turn conservative hawks into libertarian doves is to elect a national security hawk and Democrat as...2870falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dr-tom-palmer-on-self-control-vs-state-control--47967274https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967274Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:39:00 +0000Bob ZadekWith the inauguration of President-elect Trump coming later this week, citizens of the United States have developed radically divergent expectations for the next four years. Those who enthusiastically pulled the lever for Trump see a man who can “Make...2857falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-lame-duck-s-last-stand--47967315https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967315Sat, 07 Jan 2017 19:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekLibertarians constantly warn partisans of both sides to be wary of expanding executive power. With each changing of the guard, the ascendant party seems to suffer a collective amnesia in its push to grant the president ever greater authority to enact...2843falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/alex-nowrasteh-how-prop-187-turned-california-blue--47967385https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967385Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:49:00 +0000Bob ZadekAfter campaigning on a platform to crack down on illegal immigration, President Elect Trump is now facing a tall order. In enforcing his proposed policies, he will find himself at odds with many state and local governments, which have crafted their...2815falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/anthony-l-fisher-on-confidential-informants--47967427https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967427Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:52:00 +0000Bob ZadekAndrew Sadek was 20 years old when he was caught dealing small amounts of marijuana on his college campus in North Dakota. He was told by law enforcement that he could possibly face up to 40 years in prison, or accept a deal to aid campus drug busts...700falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mark-lutter-on-proprietary-cities--47967446https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967446Sat, 20 Aug 2016 19:55:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe George Mason University economics department is known for developing new ideas into influential ideas. The Virginia-based bastion of free market thought has been producing groundbreaking scholarly work for decades, and shows no signs of slowing...525falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dr-rick-doblin-on-maps-and-the-war-on-drugs--47967464
Founded in 1986, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that develops medical, legal, and cultural contexts for people to benefit from the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967464Sat, 16 Jul 2016 19:59:00 +0000Bob ZadekDr. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, joins the show to discuss the history of the War on Drugs, and the efforts to legalize certain scheduled substances through formal FDA approval. Founded in 1986,...
Founded in 1986, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that develops medical, legal, and cultural contexts for people to benefit from the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana.]]>3138falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/f-h-buckley-on-the-way-back-restoring-the-promise-of-america--47967491https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967491Sat, 02 Jul 2016 20:01:00 +0000Bob ZadekSensing a wave of populist frustration, the Democratic Party has embraced the narrative of the 99% versus the 1%, and called for a new round of socialist policies. Conservatives, seeing the failures of socialism, have downplayed the severity of...1049falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matthew-feeney-on-best-practices-for-police-body-cameras--47967610https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967610Sat, 04 Jun 2016 20:07:00 +0000Bob ZadekTechnology is rapidly changing the way law enforcement operates, and as we’ve learned from previous guests, such as Adam Bates on StingRay Surveillance, the change is not always for the better. On the other hand, the recent adoption of body cameras by...3144falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ilya-somin-on-democracy-and-political-ignorance--47967665https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967665Sat, 28 May 2016 20:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe second edition of Ilya Somin’s Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter could not have arrived at a better time. Most of us can sense something wrong with our democracy, but the source of our problems is often...3112falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ilya-shapiro-on-the-supreme-court-in-the-balance--47967701https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967701Sat, 14 May 2016 20:13:00 +0000Bob ZadekLast week, Bob examined how the United States has ended up in a situation that would have frustrated the Framer's intentions, had they seen it coming. The next president will likely hold more authority than was ever supposed to be granted to a single...2098falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sarah-stillman-on-minors-on-the-sex-offender-list--47967739https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967739Sat, 07 May 2016 20:16:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt’s tempting to divide the world, in its unyieldingly complexity, into "good guys" and "bad guys." This provides endless plots and ratings for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, but it often hides the messy reality of our criminal justice system,...3133falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/skip-young-on-the-wisdom-of-76-young-america-s-way-to-wealth--47967813https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967813Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:20:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen video surfaces featuring scores of Yale students signing a petition to repeal the First Amendment, “hope” seems to be the hardest word to say. Sadly, the Bill of Rights appears to be on life support, and the up-and-coming generation of...3151falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/carol-berkin-on-the-bill-of-rights-no-one-wanted--47967857https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967857Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:22:00 +0000Bob ZadekVaulted behind a thick glass display case at the National Archives, and revered above the marble edifices and monuments of Washington D.C., sits a faded piece of parchment. In the eyes of many, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution symbolizes...3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/gail-heriot-on-the-significance-of-justice-scalia-s-passing--47967930
Who will be confirmed, and how will it all unfold?]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967930Sat, 20 Feb 2016 20:26:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heralds an unprecedented moment in American politics. The sad news came as a surprise to his defenders and detractors alike, but the eulogies have been quickly eclipsed by the debate his...
Who will be confirmed, and how will it all unfold?]]>3153falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/randal-o-toole-on-rising-rents--47967967https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47967967Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:29:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole (aka the @antiplanner) returns to the show to discuss the epidemic of rising rents in metropolitan areas across America. As usual, planners at the federal, regional, and local levels have a policy solution in search...3136falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seeing-through-tsa-s-security-theater-with-jim-bovard--47968036https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968036Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekIf you're flying home from vacation this weekend, you have one more gift to look forward to before you reach your gate: a TSA body scan. As of this week, opt outs of the invasive technology will no longer be granted to all those who ask for the...3120falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/immigration-nation-nowrasteh-sets-it-straight-again--47968122https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968122Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:39:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe last time Alex Nowrasteh joined the show, several listeners called in with concerns over Bob and Alex’s boldly open stance on immigration. As a leading immigration scholar with the Cato Institute, Nowrasteh researches, blogs, speaks, and tweets...3135falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bill-frezza-s-history-of-telecom-innovation-and-not--47968175https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968175Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekThis Thanksgiving, try asking a college-aged relative whether they know it used to be illegal to own a phone. Today's smart-phone-owning young people do not remember the bygone era (pre-90s) when you had to rent it from the phone utility, Bell Labs....3144falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/john-chisholm-s-advice-for-unleashing-your-inner-company--47968194https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968194Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:47:00 +0000Bob ZadekJohn Chisholm has 30 years of experience as an entrepreneur, CEO & investor. The founder of two successful internet companies, CustomerSat & Decisive Technology, John has some surprisingly simple yet powerful pieces of advice for the aspiring...3132falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ronald-bailey-on-the-end-of-doom--47968217https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968217Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:51:00 +0000Bob Zadek3149falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/joe-quirk-on-seasteading-3-0--47968255https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968255Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:55:00 +0000Bob ZadekTwo weeks ago, Bob welcomed Czech native Vit Jedlicka to the show, to discuss his nascent new country of Liberland, located in the no-man's-land between Serbia and Croatia. While Vit is busy recruiting a global legion of volunteers and ambassadors for...3097falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vit-jedlicka-on-founding-liberland--47968283https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968283Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:58:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen was the last time you heard of a “pioneering” new movement in the literal sense of settling unclaimed lands with hope of a better future? For generations, virtually all land has been claimed and controlled by existing governments, making such...3139falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/baylen-linnekin-on-the-front-lines-of-the-fight-for-food-freedom--47968311https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968311Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:02:00 +0000Bob ZadekFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form...3138falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/david-boaz-on-the-libertarian-mind--47968359https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968359Sat, 04 Apr 2015 21:05:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob does a regular show with a very special guest – a walking embodiment of the libertarian ethos: David Boaz. Since joining the Cato Institute in 1981, Boaz has been pivotal in transforming the once-obscure think tank into a powerhouse – setting the...3160falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lucy-steigerwald-on-the-drug-war-and-private-prisons--47968390
To dissect this complicated issue, Bob is joined by prolific writer and podcast host Lucy Steigerwald. Steigerwald, a libertarian "millennial" and frequent contributor to VICE.com on issues of criminal justice, recently wrote an article on private prisons for The Daily Beast, which may straighten out some of the priorities of those who are still focused on the wrong injustices. Steigerwald is also a representative of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance, the premiere ladies organization serving the liberty movement.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968390Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:08:00 +0000Bob ZadekSpeak the words "private prison" to the wrong person and you are liable to get an earful about market fundamentalism run amok. Indeed, government's law-and-order functions seem to be among the most difficult to transition to the private sector. But is...
To dissect this complicated issue, Bob is joined by prolific writer and podcast host Lucy Steigerwald. Steigerwald, a libertarian "millennial" and frequent contributor to VICE.com on issues of criminal justice, recently wrote an article on private prisons for The Daily Beast, which may straighten out some of the priorities of those who are still focused on the wrong injustices. Steigerwald is also a representative of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance, the premiere ladies organization serving the liberty movement.]]>3125falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/inclusive-capitalism-economic-savior-or-socialism-in-disguise--47968430https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968430Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:11:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn his State of the Union address last month, President Obama called economic inequality the “defining issue of our time.” Indeed, America's middle class is stagnating by many measures, but even the President acknowledges that some of the driving...3074falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-re-under-arrest-overcriminalization-with-brian-walsh--47968470https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968470Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekYou're under arrest! Three words no law-abiding citizen ever wants – or expects – to hear. Yet the dreaded possibility of unwittingly committing a crime still looms, and ever more so with the growing number of federal criminal laws on the books....3131falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-rauch-on-the-new-attacks-on-free-thought--47968516https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968516Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:18:00 +0000Bob Zadek“Be nice” may be excellent advice for children on the playground, customer service workers, and indeed, for most people in most situations. Being nice, however, does not always advance what Jonathan Rauch calls "the liberal science" – the ongoing...3152falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/john-allison-on-the-leadership-crisis-and-the-free-market-cure--47970751https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970751Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:51:00 +0000Bob Zadek3186falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-wants-to-buy-a-politician-with-mike-munger--47968569https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968569Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:40:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court affirmed speech rights for corporate “persons,” was alleged by some to herald the end of democracy “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But are corporate interests really able to...3160falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/virginia-postrel-on-stasis-vs-dynamism--47968893https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968893Sat, 20 Dec 2014 21:43:00 +0000Bob ZadekSixteen years ago, Virginia Postrel published The Future and Its Enemies, a manifesto for her personal philosophy of "dynamism." Dynamists like Postrel favor the spontaneous, evolving forces of free markets over the "stasist" philosophy common to...3163falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lenore-skenazy-world-s-worst-mom--47968907https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968907Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekLenore Skenazy first made waves after writing a column about how she let her nine-year-old son ride the New York City subway home alone. This was followed by a public outcry, including the accusation of "World's Worst Mom," which led Lenore to defend...3145falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/overruling-government-overreach-damon-root-on-the-libertarian-legal-movement--47968935https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47968935Thu, 27 Nov 2014 21:49:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn his new book "Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court," Reason Magazine Senior Editor Damon Root takes up a central question to our Constitution: Should the courts exercise restraint by allowing lawmakers to craft a wide range...3159falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/has-america-become-an-elective-monarchy--47970734https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970734Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Constitutional Convention is generally remembered as a meeting of great minds, in which governing principles for a free and lasting republic were written down in accordance with the best ideas of the day. While this account contains much truth, we...3168falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-vital-issue-sigrid-fry-revere-on-iranian-kidney-markets--47970719https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970719Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekIf given the option of receiving a medical procedure in the United States or in Iran, which would you choose? Would you believe that it is far easier for Iranians to receive a life-saving kidney transplant than it is for Americans? It’s not a miracle...3160falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-new-royal-prerogative-philip-hamburger-on-administrative-law--47970699https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970699Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:41:00 +0000Bob ZadekConfused by all the talk around Halbig v. Burwell? Rumors abound that this case represents the next big legal challenge to Obamacare, but how do we know it's not just hype surrounding a technicality, as the law's supporters suggest? In Halbig, an IRS...3129falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/derek-khanna-what-s-stifling-innovation--47970671https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970671Sun, 03 Aug 2014 00:36:00 +0000Bob ZadekBack in April, Bob interviewed Ed Hudgins about The Republican Party’s Civil War, in which Hudgins urged Republicans to emphasize the value of “modernist achievers”—those who disrupt status quo industries and demonstrate what free individuals can...3158falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/united-iraq-falls-ivan-eland-on-partitioning-for-peace--47970618
Just before the draw-down of troops began in 2009, Eland penned a short, prescient tract on what a successful exit strategy for Iraq would entail. Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq argued against the Bush administration’s attempt to cast the country in the democratic image of the United States. His book laid a foundation for a more realistic political agreement: a negotiated partition of the country among the major factions that would grant each faction autonomy under a weak central government. The Obama administration got the “exit” part right, but its desire to maintain a unified Iraq continues to do damage, as de facto partition and civil war erupt in the absence of negotiation. Learn how the West’s misguided political correctness and short-sighted interventions over the past century have set the stage for the latest struggle in the Middle East.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970618Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:31:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe debate over the United States’ exit from Iraq is back, with the new wave of violence after a brief (relative) calm. Clearly, the vision of a peaceful, unified, and democratic Iraq has not worked out as proponents of the invasion hoped. But could...
Just before the draw-down of troops began in 2009, Eland penned a short, prescient tract on what a successful exit strategy for Iraq would entail. Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq argued against the Bush administration’s attempt to cast the country in the democratic image of the United States. His book laid a foundation for a more realistic political agreement: a negotiated partition of the country among the major factions that would grant each faction autonomy under a weak central government. The Obama administration got the “exit” part right, but its desire to maintain a unified Iraq continues to do damage, as de facto partition and civil war erupt in the absence of negotiation. Learn how the West’s misguided political correctness and short-sighted interventions over the past century have set the stage for the latest struggle in the Middle East.]]>3165falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/yeonmi-park-north-korean-defector-juche-die-markets-rise--47970580https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970580Sun, 22 Jun 2014 00:27:00 +0000Bob ZadekFor decades, the North Korean regime has kept its oppressive rule hidden from the rest of the world. But slowly, the truth has been emerging. Defectors like Yeonmi Park—who left the country in 2007 at the age of 15—have lived to tell the stories about...3150falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/alice-goffman-on-fugitive-life-in-an-american-city--47970466https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970466Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:23:00 +0000Bob ZadekAlice Goffman is no Ivory Tower academic. The author of a harrowing new field study, On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, Goffman spent the better part of a decade immersing herself in a crime-ridden neighborhood in Philadelphia. Once...3196falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matt-zwolinski-on-bleeding-heart-libertarianism--47970450https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970450Sun, 08 Jun 2014 00:20:00 +0000Bob ZadekThough some use it disparagingly, the label of “Bleeding Heart” is worn by others as a badge of honor. This apparent contradiction only starts to make sense when you contrast the frequently damaging results of government policy motivated by the...4959falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/worst-ten-economic-mistakes-of-the-20th-century--47970418http://www.mygovcost.org/). What’s your favorite? Prohibition? Social Security? Medicare? Environment? In this episode, Bob and Burt cover them all, as well as the root causes. It is astonishing to see what all these mistakes have in common. Listen to this podcast and you’ll learn why the best pick up line of the 21st Century will soon be “What’s your favorite economic folly?”]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970418Sun, 30 Mar 2014 00:15:00 +0000Bob ZadekWe’ve always had lists. Billboard had its “top 40.” Fortune has its “Fortune 100.” Only a free-market economist could build a list of the “The Terrible 10: A Century of Economic Folly.” That economist is Burton Abrams, Professor of Economics at the...http://www.mygovcost.org/). What’s your favorite? Prohibition? Social Security? Medicare? Environment? In this episode, Bob and Burt cover them all, as well as the root causes. It is astonishing to see what all these mistakes have in common. Listen to this podcast and you’ll learn why the best pick up line of the 21st Century will soon be “What’s your favorite economic folly?”]]>4880falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-the-most-sexually-hypocritical-nation-on-earth--47970091http://goo.gl/AsQV1T, joins Bob to discuss the legalization of “the oldest profession.” Why is America the only non-communist country to criminalize sex work? After all, many women expect their dates to pay for their meals and entertainment. Is that a crime? If not, how is that not prostitution? The lines between legal and illegal activity are impossibly blurred, leading to the inescapable conclusion that exchanging sex for money is only illegal if a poor woman does it. Class discrimination at its worst. These
laws infantilize and demean women, yet they remain on the books. Maggie helps us sort this out. One small step towards the end of hypocrisy about sex in America.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970091Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekMaggie McNeill, retired madam, sex worker, and a lead blogger at Cato Unbound http://goo.gl/AsQV1T, joins Bob to discuss the legalization of “the oldest profession.” Why is America the only non-communist country to criminalize sex work? After all,...http://goo.gl/AsQV1T, joins Bob to discuss the legalization of “the oldest profession.” Why is America the only non-communist country to criminalize sex work? After all, many women expect their dates to pay for their meals and entertainment. Is that a crime? If not, how is that not prostitution? The lines between legal and illegal activity are impossibly blurred, leading to the inescapable conclusion that exchanging sex for money is only illegal if a poor woman does it. Class discrimination at its worst. These
laws infantilize and demean women, yet they remain on the books. Maggie helps us sort this out. One small step towards the end of hypocrisy about sex in America.]]>4950falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/aren-t-men-entitled-to-due-process-on-campus--47970023
By popular demand, John Rothmann joins Bob once again to cross rhetorical swords on the issue of school vouchers which has become particularly timely in light of the House Republican bill to fund vouchers. The teachers unions are up in arms. This is a wedge issue that separates parents of minority kids from the Democrats. Interesting, and fun.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47970023Sat, 01 Feb 2014 23:27:00 +0000Bob ZadekEarly this year, Cathy Young, author of two books and a columnist for The Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal (to name merely a few news outlets) caught Bob’s attention with “Guilty Until Proven Innocent.” Her thoroughly...
By popular demand, John Rothmann joins Bob once again to cross rhetorical swords on the issue of school vouchers which has become particularly timely in light of the House Republican bill to fund vouchers. The teachers unions are up in arms. This is a wedge issue that separates parents of minority kids from the Democrats. Interesting, and fun.]]>4953falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-free-market-will-save-the-planet--47969962https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969962Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:21:00 +0000Bob ZadekEnvironmentalism is the natural enemy of free market capitalism. The former seems to be the socially acceptable cover used by those who seek to capture and control the world’s economic engine, in order to “save the planet.” (I wonder how much time we...4956falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/george-washington-s-providence--47969940https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969940Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn America we seem unable to resolve the proper Constitutional relationship between religion and our political life. We think we know what the founders intended: “separation of church and state,” “a wall of separation,” the Establishment Clause and...525falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-washington-invented-the-presidency--47969911https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969911Sat, 02 Nov 2013 23:11:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Constitution provides a framework for the American presidency. When the founders wrote it, the concept of an elected chief executive did not exist anywhere on earth. That position was created in 1787. When George Washington was elected as our...1049falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/posse-comitatus-repealed-but-not-gone--47969773https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969773Sat, 26 Oct 2013 23:01:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn 1878 the Posse Comitatus Act ended the use of the US Military to enforce state laws. Our founders uniformly abhorred any concept of a federal police force since “police power” was vested in the states. However, since the 1980s, the tactics of the...525falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-america-doomed-by-voter-ignorance--47969811https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969811Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:09:00 +0000Bob ZadekAccording to recent polls, only 42% of Americans could name the three branches of the federal government and only 28% could name two of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Even worse, 35% believed that “from each according to his...4954falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-americans-accept-second-class-medicine--47969733https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969733Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt is clear that Obamacare (and Medicare before it) will precipitate the decline in the quality of medical care in America. It will cause talented doctors to leave the profession, reduce the number of health care professionals available to provide us...4954falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-dreamin-about-sane-government--47969691https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969691Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:54:00 +0000Bob ZadekEverything begins in California. Fresh air comes from the Pacific Ocean and we are the first ones to foul it for the rest of the country. We were the first state to institute “right on red” as Woody Allen famously pointed out in Annie Hall. We started...4958falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/immigrants-the-ultimate-entrepreneurs--47969639https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969639Sat, 17 Aug 2013 22:48:00 +0000Bob ZadekAn entrepreneur is defined as “a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, usually with considerable initiative and risk.” These qualities have always been valued and cherished in America. Entrepreneurship has improved our quality of life in...4958falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/war-a-rationale-for-extra-constitutional-power--47969467https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969467Sat, 11 May 2013 22:42:00 +0000Bob Zadek“War” is the ultimate political cover for the unconstitutionally excessive exercise of governmental power. Any politician addicted to the wielding of power has discovered that war is the perfect narcotic; the ideal cover. Just find an enemy, declare...4922falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/let-them-all-in--47969406https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969406Sat, 04 May 2013 22:36:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhat was the secret of America’s emergence from a collection of very different British colonies with nothing in common except a love of freedom? Its secret was open borders. “Let them all in,” was our immigration policy . . . and it worked! It brought...2108falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/we-are-all-libertarians--47969349https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969349Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:33:00 +0000Bob ZadekHave you noticed that on the important issues of the day, Democrats and Republicans are moving in a Libertarian direction? Politicians are discovering that Libertarian values have been awakened in more and more voters. Only a few years ago, the very...4947falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-is-everyone-going--47969249https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969249Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:25:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn the past 15 years, California’s high tax burden caused 340,000 (mostly) high earners to go to other states like Nevada where they can keep more of their earnings. Is there a pattern? You bet there is. Americans are “voting with their feet” more...4946falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-morality-of-capitalism--47969203https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969203Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:18:00 +0000Bob ZadekThough Capitalism has elevated the standard of living of most humans on earth, it is misunderstood and under attack. It is perverted by the unholy alliance of big business and big government (think “crony capitalism”), thwarted by statists whose...3035falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/was-the-ratification-of-the-constitution-a-mistake--47969161https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969161Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:14:00 +0000Bob ZadekFor almost four years, Bob has been speaking about his uncompromising admiration for the work of the Founders. They drafted the Constitution and in getting it ratified by the colonies, created the United States of America. James Madison, George...3036falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-s-student-loan-problem--47969128https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969128Sat, 07 Jul 2012 22:10:00 +0000Bob ZadekEvidence from the student loan crisis would lead us to believe that a root cause of our economic doldrums stems from a shortage of anthropologists, fine arts majors and women’s studies experts. That must be why our federal government subsidizes the...3031falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/manny-klausner-a-libertarian-life--47969097https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969097Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:07:00 +0000Bob ZadekManny Klausner has lived the ultimate Libertarian life. He co-founded Reason Magazine, was a Co-Founding Director of the Institute for Justice and acts as General Counsel to the Individual Rights Foundation. From studying with Mises to spending time...3036falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/repeal-the-17th-amendment--47969053https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47969053Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:04:00 +0000Bob ZadekIt could be argued that almost all of the Amendments (excluding the Bills of Rights and the Civil War Amendments) have damaged the Constitution but the two Amendments that had an especially negative impact were the 16th (income tax) and the 17th...3034falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/high-speed-bankruptcy-the-california-way--47937661https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47937661Sat, 26 May 2012 21:00:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this episode, Bob welcomes Adrian Moore of Reason Magazine to his show. The topic – high speed rail in California and around the country. High speed rail is the intersection of crony capitalism, wealth transfers to unions and the hocking the...3036falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-s-looking-out-for-us--47937594https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47937594Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:50:00 +0000Bob ZadekFor over 20 years, attorney Larry Klayman has used the courts to successfully hold our elected officials accountable for their illegal and sometimes unconstitutional acts. From Clinton to Obama, Klayman has used the law to enforce the law. As...3035falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/occupy-movement-what-does-it-tell-us-about-america--47937558https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47937558Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekSix months ago, the Occupy Movement started in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Over time, the weather seemed to have chilled and dampened the enthusiasm of its core supporters. Will the movement be able to spring into spring with new vigor and better...3043falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/high-speed-bankruptcy-the-california-way--47937523https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47937523Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this episode, Bob welcomes Adrian Moore of Reason Magazine to his show. The topic – high speed rail in California and around the country. High speed rail is the intersection of crony capitalism, wealth transfers to unions and the hocking the...3036falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-triumph-of-principle-over-politics--47937433www.newstalk910.com.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47937433Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:37:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhen Gary Johnson first started competing in the Republican Presidential primary battle, Bob knew he was a candidate he could support based on his qualifications and beliefs; not because of his party affiliation. At last, there was a candidate who...www.newstalk910.com.]]>3034falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cops-are-no-better-than-criminals--47860375https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860375Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:57:00 +0000Bob ZadekEver hear of asset forfeiture? Probably not. But the odds are that you will. The day may come when you discover that local or federal law enforcement have confiscated your car or house even though you’ve not committed any crime. It’s called asset...2999falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economic-freedom-is-poverty-s-only-remedy--47860347https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860347Sat, 15 Oct 2011 23:53:00 +0000Bob ZadekIs poverty growing in America? What does “poverty” even mean? In this episode, Bob welcomes Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum to the show to discuss this contentious issue. As Hadley demonstrates, poverty is the product of the...3014falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-should-be-president-and-why--47860283https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860283Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:45:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe Presidential election costs about a billion dollars and it captures our attention for 15 months. Debates are held, we review the voting records of candidates, check their IQs, college transcripts, the intensity of their faith, relationships with...3024falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-your-alma-mater-a-soviet-gulag--47860220https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860220Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:35:00 +0000Bob ZadekThomas Jefferson valued higher education; perhaps more than any other Founding Father. He envisioned a University system where students and faculty would explore ideas in a bastion of free expression. That did not turn out to be the case. Our...3012falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fire-all-government-workers--47860146https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860146Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:25:00 +0000Bob ZadekVisit Utopia. Fly to Atlanta and take a short car trip to Sandy Spring, Georgia, the city that efficiently outsourced everything. Are they the wave of the future? Their budget is about half of what it would be with city employees doing the work!...3214falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hollywood-obama-s-ministry-of-propaganda--47860102https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47860102Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:20:00 +0000Bob ZadekBen Shapiro is an attorney, entertainer, journalist and blogger who has set out the link between Hollywood and the American Left. He argues that the movie moguls and TV producers have come to be the functional equivalent of the Democratic Party and...2998falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-us-the-next-enron--47859988https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47859988Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:09:00 +0000Bob ZadekS&P downgraded the credit rating on our country’s bonds. How did this happen? What does it mean to you and me? Most importantly, how does our country get its AAA rating back? If we are all going down in financial flames, should we file the...3016falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/obama-nationalizes-general-electric--47859910https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47859910Sat, 06 Aug 2011 23:03:00 +0000Bob ZadekDid you see this headline? Probably not, since it was never written. However, it has happened. Not just with GE but with General Motors, Big Oil and many other American business icons. Crony Capitalism has replaced the free market. Business/...3011falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-second-american-revolution-now--47859835https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47859835Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:58:00 +0000Bob ZadekThe current budget/deficit/spending fight among the President, the House and the Senate is setting the stage for the election of 2012. The Jefferson/Adams election contest of 1800 affected the size and reach of the federal government. 2012 will be a...3212truefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/crime-down-prison-costs-up--47859728https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47859728Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:43:00 +0000Bob ZadekFear of crime is so yesterday. At one time, violent crime was on everyone’s mind but today, money is the big issue. We are plagued by out of control deficits, powerful public employee union rip-offs, out of control government spending and the...3205falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/nick-gillespie-the-voice-of-reason--47859375https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47859375Sat, 18 Jun 2011 22:34:00 +0000Bob ZadekLast Sunday, Nick Gillespie was Bob’s special guest. He is the Editor-In-Chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com. Reason’s tagline is “Free Minds and Free Markets.” Nothing says it better. Bob and Nick discussed the evils of government subsidized art...3214falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/george-washington-was-our-guest--47858246https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47858246Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:59:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this episode, Bob interviewed our first president, George Washington. Well, not quite. But close. With great pride and excitement, we welcomed Thomas Fleming, one of our nation’s leading historians, biographer of Washington, Jefferson and...3214falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fire-all-government-workers--47858153https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47858153Sat, 21 May 2011 20:48:00 +0000Bob ZadekVisit Utopia. Fly to Atlanta and take a short car trip to Sandy Spring, Georgia, the city that efficiently outsourced everything. Are they the wave of the future? Their budget is about half of what it would be with city employees doing the work!...3214falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/immigration-reform-is-broken--47857878https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47857878Sat, 14 May 2011 20:37:00 +0000Bob ZadekOur Founders’ worse fears have materialized, compliments of Janet Napolitano. For the first time in 233 years, our country has a national police force! The Department of Homeland Security has deputized the entire nation’s police departments to...3213falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/straight-talk-with-gary-johnson--47857657https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47857657Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:19:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this encore episode, Bob is honored to speak to Gary Johnson: GOP candidate for President in 2012, former Governor of New Mexico and honorary chairman of the OUR America Initiative. Bob asks Governor Johnson about Libya, the monumental budget...3215falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/farming-subsidies--47856316https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47856316Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:38:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this episode, Bob is joined by Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute to cover farm subsidies and agricultural price supports. This is a huge federal budget item and ripe for total elimination. It is important economically but difficult...3016falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-better-america--47856150http://ouramericainitiative.com/) and will provide straight talk on election issues of importance in California and around the country. Is this a precursor to 2012? Tune in and decide for yourself.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47856150Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:26:00 +0000Bob ZadekBack for his second has appearance will be Gary Johnson, a two-term Governor of New Mexico. Gary has been touring the country on behalf of Our America Initiative (http://ouramericainitiative.com/) and will provide straight talk on election issues of...http://ouramericainitiative.com/) and will provide straight talk on election issues of importance in California and around the country. Is this a precursor to 2012? Tune in and decide for yourself.]]>2957falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-libertarian-plan--47852140https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47852140Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:44:00 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, Bob will be joined by Matt Welch, Editor-In-Chief of Reason Magazine to discuss a Libertarian plan that would totally eliminate the budget deficit without raising taxes. Crucial to this plan is a discussion of Enumerated Powers (a core...2953falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-great-founding-fathers--47851657https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851657Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:32:00 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, Bob will interview author Jack Rakove about his bestselling book “Revolutionaries.” Rakove, a Professor of history, American studies and political science at This Sunday, Bob will interview author Jack Rakove about his bestselling book...1257falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/libertarians-for-change--47851471http://ouramericainitiative.com/ to learn more about Governor Johnson.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851471Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:27:00 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, Fox News Radio 910 will air Bob’s interview with Gary Johnson, the admirable two-term Governor of New Mexico. Inspired by Thomas Jefferson, Governor Gary Johnson has successfully brought his Libertarian views to this high office. Governor...http://ouramericainitiative.com/ to learn more about Governor Johnson.]]>2911falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-age-of-unenlightment--47851414https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851414Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:20:00 +0000Bob ZadekIn this encore episode, Bob warns you about 2012. That’s the year that Congress has ordered us to stop using incandescent light bulbs. All our homes will look like the inside of a DMV office. Even the freedom to have light is being denied us. And...2548falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/libertarians-for-change--47851386http://ouramericainitiative.com/ to learn more about Governor Johnson.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851386Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:16:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob’s guest will be Gary Johnson, the admirable two-term Governor of New Mexico. Inspired by Thomas Jefferson, Governor Gary Johnson has successfully brought his Libertarian views to this high office. Governor Johnson will discuss issues ranging...http://ouramericainitiative.com/ to learn more about Governor Johnson.]]>2911falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-credit-crunch--47851367https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851367Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:11:00 +0000Bob ZadekSmall businesses account for 70% of jobs, yet they are being starved for credit. No one in the Administration has ever operated a small business, worked for one or seemingly ever met a small businessman. Ben Bernanke’s concept of “too big to fail”...2927falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/best-of-changing-the-face-of-history--47851302https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47851302Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:04:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob shares his outrage at the politicization of textbook writing. Are our kids being taught by politicians or by educators? High school kids are being indoctrinated in a way no different than radical Islam Madrassas indoctrinate their students....2934falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legalize-insider-trading--47843315https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47843315Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:47:00 +0000Bob ZadekLegalize Insider Trading – Bob is joined by Don Boudreaux, an economics professor at George Mason University. They discuss why they believe insider trading should be legalized. If investing were based on real numbers rather than pure speculation the...3600falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seasteading--47842805www.seasteading.org. A chance to live in Libertarian Utopia and experience America as the Founders intended. It’s well funded and on the way.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47842805Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:21:00 +0000Bob ZadekThis Sunday, Bob will chat with Patri Friedman, one of the creators of Seasteading. Check out their website at www.seasteading.org. A chance to live in Libertarian Utopia and experience America as the Founders intended. It’s well funded and on the way.www.seasteading.org. A chance to live in Libertarian Utopia and experience America as the Founders intended. It’s well funded and on the way.]]>3600falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legalization-of-prostitution--47842733https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47842733Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:13:00 +0000Bob ZadekIsn’t it about time we respected the privacy of a woman’s body and her freedom to do with it what she wishes? Even if she wishes to rent parts of it? Legalization of prostitution is good for women, good for the economy and good for politicians like...3597falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-the-unconstitutional-federal-involvement-in-education--47842670https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47842670Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:06:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob examined federal involvement in education policy and interviewed Andrew Coulson from the Cato Institute about the need for any federal involvement in education. Parents and teachers should control education, not civil servants who are thousands...3226falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cash-for-clunkers-is-a-dud--47841034https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47841034Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:46:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob interviewed Katherine Mangu- Ward, senior editor at Reason Magazine, about the Cash For Clunkers program. Find out how our government will pay you up to $4200 for a car that was previously worth nothing! Bentley owners need not apply.3588falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hate-crimes-legislation--47840827
Any group identification in legislation is anti-American and bad for the body politic.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47840827Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:34:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob interviewed Jacob Sullum , senior editor at Reason Magazine. They discussed hate crimes legislation and the recently passed Matthew Shepard Act, which continues the legislative trend of valuing some people’s lives more highly than others. Tune...
Any group identification in legislation is anti-American and bad for the body politic.]]>3603falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-founding-fathers--47840234https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47840234Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:02:00 +0000Bob ZadekWhat would they think of Obamamerica? Bob interviewed Jerry Hurwitz, American Revolution Historian and re-enactor. Bob and Jerry will share little known stories of the founding of America, the richness of our heritage and how close we came to not...3596falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legalize-drugs--47831013https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47831013Tue, 19 May 2009 02:52:00 +0000Bob ZadekA policy every Libertarian, Democrat and Republican can embrace.3242falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/legalizing-pot-in-california--47831047https://api.spreaker.com/episode/47831047Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:56:00 +0000Bob ZadekBob interviews John Lovell, a lobbyist for law enforcement groups who is fighting against the movement to legalize marijuana in the state of California. The initiative, also known as the “Tax Cannabis Act,” received enough signatures this week to...2943falsefull