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 the author Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; with comments by M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center; moderated by Roger Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
The Constitution was designed to limit government power and protect individuals from oppressive regulation and the tyranny of majorities. But those protections are meaningless if judges aren’t committed to enforcing them. America’s judges have largely abdicated that responsibility. Instead of judging the constitutionality of government action, courts too often simply rationalize it. The problem lies not with the Constitution but with courts’ reflexive deference to the other branches of government. From the abandonment of federalism to open disregard for property rights and economic freedom, the Supreme Court consistently protects power at the expense of liberty. Terms of Engagement combines real-world examples of the harm wrought by judicial abdication with a rigorous case for a more engaged judiciary, offering both an indictment of the current system and a guide to reform.