Featuring Dorothy Robyn, Senior Policy Expert, Clinton and Obama Administrations; Stephen Van Beek, Vice President of Aviation Consulting, ICF International; and Chris Edwards, Editor, DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Of all the rights the U.S. Constitution protects, courts are probably most vigilant about protecting free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a cornerstone of democratic government, but also central to the more ordinary choices citizens make in their daily lives. Yet one class of speech has been almost entirely ignored by the courts: speech by professionals engaged in their business. In the new issue of Regulation, Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur argues that the Supreme Court should make it clear that censoring professionals is intolerable.
As one of us has already noted, on Monday evening the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to put President Obama’s Clean Power Plan on ice—where it will remain until the justices get a chance to rule on the regulatory package themselves or until a new President sidelines it. The White House, whistling past a graveyard of unrecyclable solar panels (thanks to all the arsenic in them), blew up the vorticity of its spin cycle into relativistic speeds, calling it a “bump in the road” and a “temporary procedural issue.”
Published in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kelo v. New London, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America made a powerful contribution to the firestorm of interest in protecting property rights. Now in its second edition, Cornerstone of Liberty has been fully updated by authors Timothy and Christina Sandefur, and examines how dozens of new developments in courtrooms and legislatures across the country have shifted the landscape of private property rights since 2005.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Case against a Standing Nation-Building Office
Featuring Justin Logan, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Christopher Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
The idea that the United States needs a standing nation-building office has gained strong bipartisan support in Congress. The arguments in favor of such an office are rooted in the belief that failed states are threats to U.S. national security. But do failed states pose such a threat? Further, to the extent that they do, would a permanent nation-building office succeed in averting or remedying state failure? When interventions are absolutely necessary, do we need a standing nation-building corps to plan for the missions?
Justin Logan will discuss his and Christopher Preble’s recent Policy Analysis, “Failed States and Flawed Logic: The Case against a Standing Nation-Building Office,” which explains why the presumption that state failure poses a threat to the United States is flawed. He will also explore the likely costs and risks of a foreign policy dedicated to nation building, given that U.S. nation-building projects in the past have had a highly dubious track record. Preble will explore the greatest foreign policy challenge facing the United States today — looming state failure in Iraq — and describe why it is unlikely that a standing nation-building office would have reduced the costs and risks of the current military mission there.