Featuring Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, 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.
The precautionary principle always rigs the outcome in favor of immigration restriction because it’s impossible to prove that all refugees will be harmless just like it is impossible to prove than any of us will be harmless. If the precautionary principle is a starting point for debate then those favoring refugees will always fail. No debate should be stacked this way.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
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.
Featuring Harry de Gorter, Visiting Fellow, Cato Institute, and Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University; Kate McMahon, Biofuels Campaign Coordinator, Friends of the Earth; moderated by Kurt Couchman, Manager of Government Affairs, Cato Institute.
As Congress debates extending biofuel tax credits and the ethanol import tariff, questions are being raised about the broader policy mix that includes subsidies, tariffs, mandates, and sustainability standards. As a recent CBO report revealed, some of these policies — the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) in particular — are quite expensive. Although biofuels were once hailed as a panacea to global warming and energy security while helping farmers and generating jobs, recent analysis has shown that some of these policies work contrary to such goals and negatively impact air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and food affordability as well. What does the evidence indicate about energy security and green jobs creation claims? Are there any compelling reasons to subsidize biofuels, or should policymakers simply eliminate such preferences?