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, Gura & Possessky, Lead Counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Robert Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; and Emily Miller, Senior Editor, Washington Times, Author, Emily Gets Her Gun (forthcoming, Regnery); moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the strict gun-control laws in the nation’s capital—which amounted to a complete ban on any usable weapon for self-protection, even in the home—were unconstitutional. The Court finally confronted a long-simmering controversy over the scope of the Second Amendment and declared that, yes, that amendment does secure an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Now, five years later, with gun controls being debated both in the Congress and state legislatures, it is a good time to assess the impact of the Heller precedent. Please join us for a wide-ranging discussion of the Second Amendment, self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.