- Cafe Hayek - https://cafehayek.com -

Some Links

Tweet [1]

As Mike Munger says on his Facebook page, the New York Times likely made a mistake: that newspaper published a genuinely superb analysis of the rise in real college tuition rates [2] – an analysis, written by Paul Campos, that denies the truth of mantras currently spouted by “Progressives.”  A slice:

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

Bob Higgs explains that immigration ‘policy’ is unjust [3].  A slice:

[T]he government may not justly carry out what is now called immigration policy. This policy violates migrants’ and would-be migrants’ natural right to move about peacefully so long as they do not trespass on anyone’s private property or trench on anyone’s other natural rights, and it violates the rights of residents to harbor, aid, do business, and associate freely with migrants and would-be migrants. If migrants wish to enter this country to visit or do business with me or to pursue any other peaceful purpose, no one may justly interfere with their doing so; and because none of us has a just right to interfere, neither may the government interfere, because no one may delegate to the government the defense of a right he does not possess and, to repeat, the government as such has no just rights of its own.

In my latest column at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, I address some historical ‘facts’ that ain’t so [4].  A slice:

[Stanley] Lebergott sensibly argues that, had slavery not existed, Southern ports such as that at Charleston, S.C., would have gotten a great deal more shipping business. But because slavery artificially kept most Southerners – unfree and free – poor, it kept the South from being a strong market for European manufactured goods.

These historical realities should be kept in mind by anyone attracted to the argument that capitalism was fathered by slavery.

James Pethokoukis deals with the myth that Wal-Mart is subsidized by the U.S. welfare state [5].  (I think there are even stronger arguments against this canard about subsidies [6]. 🙂 )

Freeman Dyson sensibly is not worried about climate change [7]: “He [Dyson] acknowledges that human activity has an effect on climate but claims it is much less than is claimed. He stresses the non-climate benefits of carbon are overwhelmingly favourable.”

William McGurn writes insightfully about the controversy now raging in Indiana [8].  (gated)  Here’s his conclusion:

For these people, usually characterized as social conservatives, the question is more fundamental: Will they retain sufficient freedom to live their lives and run their institutions in accord with their faith?

The irony of Indiana suggests that it may be the libertarians who have the strongest arguments for defending them.

Comments