Stossel looks at different ways of breaking into the job market. http://www.LibertyPen.com
Public education has seen little change in the past several decades, despite diminishing results. In these excerpts from his documentary, “Stupid In America’” John Stossel explores some better ideas. http://www.LibertyPen.com
From his TV special “Stupid In America” John Stossel reports on the success of charter schools and the effects of the teachers’ unions. http://www.LibertyPen.com
David Boaz (CATO) and Nick Gillespie (Reason.tv) join John to discuss the politics of individual liberty, social tolerance and fiscal responsibility. http://www.LibertyPen.com
Professor Friedman proposes a mechanism that empowers politicians to say no to special interests. http://www.LibertyPen.com
Some government contracts require taxpayers to provide peace officer wages and benefits to full-time union workers. Information is power, investigate http://www.LibertyPen.com
Thanks to welfare, subsidies, grants, bailouts and other handouts, government has created a nation of moochers. Charles J. Sykes. http://www.LibertyPen.com
Government will abridge free speech when it suits politicians.
More info on liberty issues at http://www.LibertyPen.com
Q – Why is government riddled with so much debt? A – It takes courage (a commodity rarely found in politics) to reduce public spending. Gov. Luis Fortuno displays what political courage has done for Puerto Rico.
Investigate more liberty issues at http://www.LibertyPen.com
David Henderson explains how narrowly focused government goals erode the liberties of Americans. Cameo by Rahm Emanuel.
More news on liberty issues at http://www.LibertyPen.com
Source: C-Span
Buy It: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AnEco
Some government regulations that are made with good intentions still lead to bad results. The Endangered Species Act is a good example of such a law. In this video, economics professor Don Boudreaux examines the Endangered Species Act, and uses it to explain how policymakers’ good intentions sometimes go awry. While the law intends to preserve threatened animals, it actually has the effect of giving landowners strong reasons to kill any endangered species they find on their property. This phenomenon is known as “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” Boudreaux implores us not to judge a policy by its intentions, but by its results. We can’t assume a policy will be good just because the intentions of the policymakers are good.
What do you think the role of government should be? Are you in favor of anarchy or minarchy? Do you believe there are public goods like defense that the government should provide, or should there be no state at all? Should the government provide a minimal welfare state, or even control the entire economy? What conclusions have you come to?
Government grows and grows. Why? Is there any way to limit government? Dr. Ashford explores the intellectual school known as “public choice.” Public choice theorists believe that politicians are self-interested, meaning they have a vested interest in growing government beyond its proper, limited size. This means that small, concentrated groups (like industry lobbying associations) yield tremendous power over the politics. This leads to subsidies and tax breaks for politically favored industries.
Is Social Security a good retirement plan? Economics professor Antony Davies shows that Americans stand to earn significantly less and assume more risk with Social Security than other investment options. According to Davies, taxpayers would be better off both in terms of financial security and return on investment by investing their money privately. Social security is extremely expensive, soon to be insolvent, and doesn’t even offer taxpayers the most bang for their buck. For those reasons, Prof. Davies argues that it is time for the government to phase out Social Security. Davies’ solution: the government should honor its obligations to current retirees while giving Americans the freedom to invest their money as they see fit.
Court Rejects Challenge to Indiana Choice Scholarship Program
Release: http://www.ij.org/schoolchoice/4258
Are you skeptical of school choice programs? Do words like private schools, charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits make you uneasy? If so, Prof. Angela Dills argues that there are four things that you should know about school choice before dismissing it as a viable improvement to our education system:
1. School choice doesn’t require parents to bear the full cost of educating their child.
2. School choice lowers the cost of schooling.
3. School choice raises the quality of schooling.
4. Low income and minority students are more likely to benefit from school choice programs.
Dills argues that the American education system is failing our children. We have thrown money at the problem for years with little or no effect. School choice, when it has been tried, has lowered the cost of schooling while maintaining, or even improving, the quality of education.
Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY
Are the choices provided by a market economy stressful? According to Prof. Mark Pennington, it can definitely be stressful to choose among several different options. In fact, Pennington himself is often overwhelmed by the choices provided to him in a modern supermarket.
This phenomena, called the paradox of choice, has often been used to make arguments in favor of government action on behalf of its citizens. However, these arguments overlook the flaws associated with government action.
For instance, if individual choices are stressful, it must be even more stressful for regulators and bureaucrats to make choices on behalf of millions of people. Moreover, even if it were assumed that bureaucrats and regulators were not stressed out by their decisions, they would lack the relevant knowledge of people’s personalities and preferences.
In a world with many choices, we must either shoulder the burden of making our own choices or shoulder the burden of knowing that other people are making decisions for us under a great deal of stress and insufficient knowledge.
Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY
Dr. Jeffrey Miron at Harvard highlights two different approaches to libertarianism. The first approach, which he refers to as philosophical libertarianism, claims that individuals have rights. These libertarians believe that their rights are often infringed upon by government action, and therefore, are averse to most government action.
The second approach, which Miron spends the bulk of his time discussing, is referred to as cost-benefit libertarianism or consequential libertarianism. This approach attempts to analyze the whole set of effects of a particular policy. In this view, the net consequences of government action that actually occur in the real world are often negative.
Using the example of drug policy, Miron shows that, regardless of your personal views on rights, marijuana prohibition generates a large amount of negative consequences with little or no positive effects.
Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY
The great debate between Keynesians and Austrians enters the digital age with the Mises Academy’s first ever online formal debate, between economists Karl Smith (Assistant Professor of Public Economics and Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Robert P. Murphy (Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute).
Visit the Mises Academy online at academy.mises.org
Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture by Walter Block was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama.
