Featuring Matthew Feeney, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; Marc Scribner, Research Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research; moderated by Brink Lindsey, Vice President for Research, Cato Institute.
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.
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 the author Patrick Garry, University of South Dakota Law School; with comments by Roger Pilon, Cato Institute, and Abe Krash, Georgetown University Law Center and Arnold & Porter LLP; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.
This book takes a fresh look at the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. Although criticisms of judicial power often attribute its rise to the activism of justices seeking to advance particular political ideologies, Patrick Garry argues instead that the Court’s power has grown mainly because of certain New Deal-era decisions that initially seemed to portend a lessening of that power. The Rehnquist Court tried to strengthen the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty but, according to Garry, this effort only went halfway because the Court relied exclusively on judicially enforced rights. A more comprehensive reform would require a return to a reliance on federalism and separation of powers as devices for protecting liberty.