It was great to sit down with Russ Roberts, Econtalk host and former professor of mine, to discuss his great new book, How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life: An Unexpected Guide to Human Nature and Happiness. Russ is, in class, one of the most concise communicators of economic ideas I’ve ever seen. He’s also able to abandon much of the jargon that makes economic ideas so often uninteresting to the average person.
I don’t usually go in for buying stuff ironically, but …
I sometimes wonder if the parents who chuckle knowingly at stories like these ever sense that they’ve utterly failed at the most basic child-rearing tasks:
Your 32-year-old may make outrageous demands incommensurate with the $87.04 in crumpled bills and pennies in her Mason jar. For instance: beginning the day with a $10 green juice after a night of picklebacks and one-dollar pizza; pursuing another M.F.A. degree; living in Park Slope “independently” instead of with four roommates.
Rather than flatly refuse, we recommend gentle compromise: suggesting she convert to canned V8; advising her to put her poetry and fiction M.F.A.s to use before plunging into the lucrative world of printmaking; and noting that “independently” suggests “without subsidies,” which, you’ve been meaning to tell her, are ending soon.
Still, it’s pretty funny. RTWT.
Leonard Liggio, who died this week, was an important pillar in the modern libertarian movement and someone who connected modern libertarian ideas with their historical antecedents. I chatted briefly with Tom G. Palmer about Liggio’s impact on ideas and libertarianism.
In The New York Times Magazine‘s piece on the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, I came across this:
This year’s Kentucky Senate race is the latest chapter in this political arms race, drawing contributions from large outside “super PACs” and wealthy individual donors.
Factually incorrect, but not surprising.
It’s typical for media outlets to ignore the important distinction between a direct contribution to a campaign and political advertising that supports a candidate. What’s troubling to me how often the error occurs and the ignorance it demands of reporters and editors. I’d prefer to believe that it’s borne out of a poor understanding of both the First Amendment and campaign finance laws, but it’s very hard to square.
Reporters, in my experience, broadly support restrictions on free spending on political ads and other advocacy by unaffiliated groups. Establishment journalism has long occupied a special place free from exactly those kinds of restrictions, but there’s no good reason to believe that kind of exemption would have to continue. Newspapers, radio stations and television outlets have served as providers of both information and advocacy, endorsing candidates freely and spending mightily on the bandwidth to broadcast those messages. There’s no clear distinction between the spending of a super PAC on a message and the spending of a newspaper to express the same thing.
If it’s pure ignorance that drives reporters to not clearly understand the implications of tight regulation on “outside” advocacy, it’s galling. If the error is driven by the specious, unstated belief that no future Congress would dare impose those same restrictions on establishment media, it’s dangerous.
“Burning Man, like any city or nation, requires funding and organization to function. When people buy tickets, they help to pay for the event’s needs as a price of citizenship. It’s exactly the same as a tax.”
– Tom Berman, “Here’s Why Republicans Should Not Be Getting Into Burning Man”
You see, it’s just like when I pay my annual CostCo tax or the occasional Concert Tax or Batting Cage Tax. It’s exactly the same thing. Except I don’t have to pay any of those taxes. Now, actual taxes? Yeah, you pay those or go to jail.
U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) visited my office this week to discuss federal regulation of hemp, polling in his own district on medical marijuana reform, reasserting the Second Amendment in D.C. and the legislative effort to curtail the National Security Agency’s sweeping data collection practices.
Yesterday afternoon, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that D.C.’s “complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.” Alan Gura is the attorney on the case. We talked earlier today about the ruling and how D.C. might comply.
Gura, along with Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy, served as cocounsel to Dick Heller in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The lead plaintiff in this case is Cato Institute senior fellow Tom G. Palmer.
On his blog, here’s how Gura characterized the win:
With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly.