Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
Featuring Alan Gura, Partner, Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.; Dennis Henigan, Vice President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Nelson Lund, Professor, George Mason University Law School; and Alan B. Morrison, Professor, The George Washington University Law School; moderated by Roger Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
In 2008, for the first time in our history, the Supreme Court invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun-control law, holding that the federal government may not prohibit law-abiding citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense. In 2010, the Court held that state and local governments are also prohibited from banning handguns in the home. Major victories for individual liberty, those decisions were also very narrow. Can we expect future decisions to recognize a wide range of rights to keep and bear arms? Or will the Court’s recent decisions turn out to be mostly symbolic, with little effect on legislative discretion to regulate access to firearms? Please join us for a discussion of opposing views about what the courts are likely to do and what they should do.