Featuring Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; David Burton, Senior Fellow in Economic Policy, Heritage Foundation; and Jason Fichtner, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; moderated by Peter Russo, Director, Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual. Individuals are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. In the new issue of Cato Policy Report, Cato scholar David Boaz, author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, explains the roles and rights of individuals in a free society, and cautions against a vision of a world in which individuals have no way to cooperate with others except through the state.
Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses, have given rise to a growing libertarian movement in our country – with a greater focus on individual liberty and less government power. David Boaz’s newly released The Libertarian Mind is a comprehensive guide to the history, philosophy, and growth of the libertarian movement, with incisive analyses of today’s most pressing issues and policies.
Featuring: Marvin Johnson, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; Mark Fitzgibbons, President, Corporate and Legal Affairs, AmericanTarget Advertising, Inc.; Stephen Hoersting, Executive Director, Center for Competitive Politics; and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government Cato Institute.
The House of Representatives will soon consider proposed ethics regulation that requires disclosure of the people and funding involved in grassroots lobbying efforts. “Reform” organizations are pushing such mandatory disclosure by claiming that “this lobbying disclosure reform would not in any way restrict” political speech. That is not so. For over 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that stripping citizens of their rights to speak anonymously to each other about issues chills their rights of speech and association, and the Court has upheld such compelled disclosure only in narrow circumstances. Please join us for a discussion of the downside of this new effort to regulate political speech.