Featuring David Walker, Former Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office; David Wessel, Director, Hutchins Center, Brookings Institution; and Mark Calabria, Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute; moderated by Josh Zumbrun, Reporter, Wall Street Journal.
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 the author Russell K. Nieli, Senior Preceptor, James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University; with comments by Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by John Samples,
Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
Racial preference policies first came on the national scene in response to black poverty and alienation in America as dramatically revealed in the destructive urban riots of the late 1960s. From the start, however, preference policies were controversial. Many who had opposed segregation and supported color-blind justice felt a sense of betrayal. A majority of Americans continue to oppose affirmative action, often with great intensity. Much of social science research on the topic undermines the central claims of supporters of affirmative action. The mere fact that preference policies have to be referred to through an elaborate system of euphemisms and code words—affirmative action, “diversity,” “goals and timetables,” “race sensitive admissions”—tells us something, Russell Nieli argues, about their widespread unpopularity, their tendency to reinforce negative stereotypes about their intended beneficiaries, and their incompatibility with core principles of American justice. Nieli concludes with an impassioned plea to refocus our public attention on the “truly disadvantaged” African American population in our nation’s urban centers. Please join us for a provocative look at racial preferences.