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

Some Links

Tweet [1]

Shikha Dalmia debates Jeremy Waldron on freedom of speech [2].  A slice from Shikha’s remarks:

I think it’s fair to say that free speech is more endangered on college campuses than anywhere else in America, although the virus is spreading.

Partly this is due to federal mandates like Title IX that require all colleges, public and private that receive federal money, to ensure gender equality on campus and, prevent sexual “harassment” – verbal and nonverbal. But partly it is of their own volitional embrace of political correctness and demands by social justice warriors who want not freedom of speech but freedom from speech.

My colleague Alex Tabarrok is rightly flabbergasted at how depraved and evil some intellectuals with mainstream platforms can be [3].  As Alex correctly points out, the real world really does feature villains from Ayn Rand’s fiction.

Patrick Eddington is rightly critical of Hillary Clinton, who is a dishonest and dangerous neocon [4].  A slice:

Clinton has spent much of the post-convention campaign season excoriating Trump for his anti-Muslim language and proposals. He richly deserves the criticism. But Trump at least appears to be honest about the kind of unconstitutional surveillance and political repression he would likely try to perpetrate against Arabs and Muslims, whether its targeting those who already live here or those who would like to come here to escape a war-torn Middle East. Clinton is telling Arab- and Muslim-Americans how our government should not be persecuting members of their community while endorsing federal surveillance and related programs that do precisely that.

Elaine Schwartz helps us to see why the benefits of trade, although bountiful, are difficult to see [5].

My Mercatus Center colleagues Chris Koopman and Tom Savidge argue for less regulation of – and against government subsidies to – craft breweries [6].

In this short video, Johan Norberg reports on yet another unintended ill consequence of government intervention into the labor market [7].

Arnold Kling ponders the influence of Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson [8].  A slice (link added):

Back to academic economists. I think that both Friedman and Samuelson were guilty of promoting economic methods that involved imitating hard science (at least as they thought of science as being practiced). Instead, in my book [9] I argue that economic analysis can yield frameworks of interpretation, but economic hypotheses are not verifiable the way that they are in chemistry or physics.

Comments