Cato Event Podcast

Many critics think social media poses a novel threat to liberal democracy. Seeking to divide Americans, agents of the Russian government bought ads on Facebook. Extreme speech also finds a home on the internet, fostering conflicts that appear to generate more heat than light. Governments and consumers worry about “fake news” designed to misinform readers for fun, profit, and power. And yet social media has made more information more widely available at less cost than any technology since the printing press. Less reliant on gatekeepers than traditional media, the new purveyors of news arguably better satisfy the diverse preferences of the American electorate. Following up on the Project on Political Reform at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, we will consider the troubles and triumphs of the social media platforms that promise to host American political debate for generations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Congress’s most solemn constitutional duty is to determine whether, where, and against whom the United States will engage in war. Yet for far too long, legislators have ceded that responsibility to the executive branch, allowing multiple administrations to use the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a blank check to wage war whenever and wherever the president decides.As Congress determines how to respond to growing demands for a new AUMF, it should beware of proposals that would institutionalize mission creep by surrendering more authority to the executive branch. Instead, Congress should repeal—and not replace—the 2001 AUMF. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With a doctorate from the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought and decades of work in the world of international human rights institutions behind him, Aaron Rhodes has written a devastating account of that world’s intellectual confusions and moral corruption. In exquisite detail, and as none before it has, his new book explains how the 20th century’s push to treat economic and social “rights” as human rights has undermined the very idea of human or natural rights. That has led in turn to restrictions on the rights that alone have secured the liberty of countless millions around the world. Please join us for a discussion of the foundations, course, and prospects of the Enlightenment project that has given us the modern world of individual liberty. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Congress is considering a major farm bill this year to extend the current multi-billion-dollar array of subsidies. The last farm bill—in 2014—created two new crop subsidy programs that have cost more than promised. Meanwhile, the crop insurance program has soared in cost and provides handouts to millionaire farm households. There is also concern that crop subsidies harm the environment and undermine America’s international trade relationships.In the wake of the bloated omnibus bill and rising deficits, will Republicans support more giveaways to well-off farmers? And will the Trump administration defend its proposed agricultural reforms and push back against subsidy advocates in Congress? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Marijuana is big business in the 29 states that have legalized medical cannabis and in several more that have legalized recreational use. However, the federal prohibition on marijuana prevents banks from serving legitimate marijuana clients—resulting in billions of dollars of marijuana-related profits being handled almost exclusively in cash. A new Federalist Society short documentary, “Medical Marijuana and Money Laundering,” tells the story. Join us May 10 for a screening followed by a roundtable discussion. We will explain the laws that create this peculiar situation, explore the problems it causes, and hash out some potential solutions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

America’s Founders placed freedom of speech at the head of the Bill of Rights, yet we still struggle to protect it. In fact, it was not until the 20th century that our courts began to develop a systematic jurisprudence against attacks on speech. In recent years, however, ill-defined “hate speech” has been a particular target—especially on the nation’s campuses, where one would expect speech to enjoy the greatest protection. In her closely argued new book, Nadine Strossen has given us a powerful and incisive defense of even the speech that most offends, carefully distinguishing what should and should not be protected. Her mission, she writes, is to refute the argument that the United States should follow the lead of many other nations and adopt a broad concept of illegal hate speech. In the process, she demonstrates not only that doing so would violate our fundamental principles, but also that it would do more harm than good. Please join us for point and counterpoint on one of the most pressing free speech issues of our day. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Iraq, U.S. soldiers often encounter ISIS fighters armed with American-made weapons. Intentionally sold to the corrupt, poorly-trained, ill-disciplined Iraqi military by previous U.S. administrations, many of these weapons have now fallen into the hands of terrorists. Far from an isolated incident, this example underscores the unintended—and often dangerous—consequences of international arms sales.The Trump administration has embraced arms sales, and at such a fever pitch that it is difficult to determine which sales will come with serious consequences that risk American lives. To help policymakers evaluate the possible downstream effects of selling weapons to specific countries, Cato scholars Trevor Thrall and Caroline Dorminey have created a comprehensive risk assessment index. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The school choice debate has largely focused on whether society should have any school choice at all. But not all choice programs are identical. And they certainly do not all produce the same outcomes for students. If school choice policies are to pass, what should they look like? Should we embrace public charter schools, private school choice options, or both? Should financing be through vouchers, tax credits, or education savings accounts? Should funding be public or private? Should the federal government be involved? What types of program regulations promote—or stifle—success? And what does the evidence say about these topics? Join a panel of experts as they tackle these critical policy questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After three decades of constant gains, global respect for free speech has been in decline since 2004. In the recent past even Europe’s liberal democracies have contributed to the decline by adopting increasingly restrictive measures in the name of national security, the countering of hate speech, and, most recently, standing against “fake news.” Does Europe’s model of “militant democracy” offer promising lessons for embattled democracies or a dangerous abandonment of first principles? Should the United States follow the European lead or remain true to its exceptional protection for extreme and disturbing speech? Please join us for a candid and intriguing discussion of issues that have once again put freedom of speech on the agenda of developed nations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his new book, Republic in Peril, David C. Hendrickson advances a critique of American policy since the end of the Cold War. America’s outsized military spending and global commitments, he argues, undermine rather than uphold international order. They raise rather than reduce the danger of war, imperiling both American security and domestic liberty. An alternative path lies in a new internationalism in tune with the United Nations Charter and the philosophy of republican liberty embraced by America’s Founders. Please join us for a lively discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us for a special private screening of the motion picture Little Pink House. The event includes a Q&A session with Susette Kelo, the real-life plaintiff in the infamous U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, along with the film’s director and writer, Courtney Moorehead Balaker, and producer, Ted Balaker, and Institute for Justice President Scott Bullock, who argued Kelo’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Little Pink House has been lauded by the Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and John Stossel, among others. It stars two-time Academy Award nominee Catherine Keener and Emmy nominee Jeanne Tripplehorn, and it features the original song “Home Free,” written and performed for the movie by rock legend David Crosby of Crosby, Stills & Nash.The movie showcases the true story of Susette Kelo, a small-town paramedic who buys her first home — a cottage — and paints it pink. When politicians plan to bulldoze it for a corporation, she fights back, taking her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even after she lost in court, her struggle sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain abuse that today helps millions of Americans better protect what is rightfully theirs.11:30AM – NoonRegistration and sandwichesNoonPrivate film screening 1:40PMQ&A with lunch and dessert to followDuration of the film is 99 minutes. For more information on the film, visit www.LittlePinkHouseMovie.com.This film screening will not be live streamed online. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Free speech is under attack at colleges and universities today, with critics on and off campus challenging the value of open inquiry and freewheeling intellectual debate. Too often speakers are shouted down, professors are threatened, and classes are disrupted. Constitutional scholar Keith E. Whittington argues that universities must protect and encourage free speech because vigorous free speech is the lifeblood of the university. Without free speech, a university cannot fulfill its most basic, fundamental, and essential purposes, including to foster freedom of thought, ideological diversity, and tolerance. Examining such hot-button issues as trigger warnings, safe spaces, hate speech, disruptive protests, speaker disinvitations, the use of social media by faculty, and academic politics, Speak Freely describes the dangers of empowering campus censors to limit speech and enforce orthodoxy. It explains why free speech and civil discourse are at the heart of the university’s mission of creating and nurturing an open and diverse community dedicated to learning. It shows why universities must make space for voices from both the left and right. And it points out how a better understanding of why the university lives or dies by free speech can help guide everyone—including students, faculty, administrators, and alumni—faced with difficult challenges such as unpopular, hateful, or dangerous speech.Timely and vitally important, Speak Freely demonstrates why universities can succeed only by fostering more free speech, more free thought—and a greater tolerance for both. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his new book, Directorate S, author Steve Coll explains how Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is partly responsible for the United States’ struggles in neighboring Afghanistan. Coll, a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, sheds light on Pakistan’s policy of aiding, supplying, and legitimizing the Taliban, a policy President Trump has openly criticized. With an investigator’s precision, Coll also walks readers through the mistakes and misjudgments that have resulted in approximately 140,000 Afghan deaths, along with American casualties in the thousands, and war costs as high as $2 trillion. At the center of the discussion will be the tumultuous U.S.–Pakistan relationship, which continues to define the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Please join us for a lively discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Congress has not overhauled America’s legal immigration system in nearly three decades. While legal immigrants overwhelmingly benefit the United States, the system is unfair to those who go through it, and its arbitrary and outdated rules undermine the economic and social benefits that legal immigrants contribute to America. With Congress now in the midst of a wide-ranging debate over which reforms to adopt, innovative approaches will be critical to pushing reform across the finish line. Join us as our speakers draw on the best aspects of immigration systems around the world to present new ideas to improve America’s system for the 21st century and beyond. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What principles inform the U.S. Constitution? How have they been systematically subverted? And — what can Americans do to restore the integral order of the American constitutional order?From Cato University 2018: College of Law Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Constitution was designed to protect a variety of economic liberties, including the right to earn an honest living, but the Supreme Court has subverted that constitutional design by refusing to enforce those provisions consistent with the text, history, and purpose of the Constitution.From Cato University 2018: College of Law Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Law isn’t just for lawyers, but concerns and impacts everyone. A look at how simple rules that respect and protect the liberty of individuals are the foundation of complex social orders.From Cato University 2018: College of Law Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Popular legend has it that before the Federal Radio Commission was established in 1927, the radio spectrum was in chaos, with broadcasting stations blasting powerful signals to drown out rivals. Tom Hazlett, a distinguished scholar in law and economics and former chief economist at the FCC (the commission’s successor), debunks that idea. Instead, regulators blocked competition at the behest of incumbent interests and, for nearly a century, have suppressed innovation while quashing out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints. Hazlett details how spectrum officials produced a “vast wasteland” that they publicly criticized but privately protected. The story twists and turns, as farsighted visionaries — and the march of science — rose to challenge the old regime. Over decades, reforms to liberate the radio spectrum have generated explosive progress, ushering in the “smartphone revolution,” ubiquitous social media, and the amazing wireless world that is now emerging. Still, Hazlett argues, and current FCC controversies confirm, the battle is not even half won. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the past 25 years, more than 2,000 individuals have been exonerated in the United States after being wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. There is good reason to believe that tens or even hundreds of thousands more languish in American prisons today.How this can happen unfolds in the riveting new book from Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington. The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist recounts the story of two Mississippi doctors—Dr. Steven Hayne, a medical examiner, and Dr. Michael West, a dentist—who built successful careers as the go-to experts for prosecutors and whose actions led many innocent defendants to land in prison. Some of the convictions then began to fall apart, including those of two innocent men who spent a combined 30 years in prison before being exonerated in 2008.Balko and Carrington reveal how Mississippi officials propelled West and Hayne to the top of the state’s criminal justice apparatus and then, through institutional failures and structural racism, empowered these two “experts” to produce countless flawed convictions on bad evidence and bogus science. Please join us for a conversation about the book and the broader lessons we can learn about criminal justice in our country. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The President has linked tariffs on aluminum and steel to the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, although he has exempted Canada and Mexico for now. Negotiations on a new NAFTA had been looking positive, but linking the trade deal to tariffs could undermine that progress. What is the future of continental free trade? And how should a renegotiated NAFTA be different? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Representative Smith and Christopher Preble will discuss the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, including their findings from a new article they are copublishing in Strategic Studies Quarterly about BRAC, its impact on defense communities, and the future.For a number of years, the U.S. military — with support of presidents from both parties — has sought congressional authorization to rid itself of excess infrastructure. Unfortunately, Congress continues to stand in the way, often citing concerns about the effect of closures on local communities.In failing to authorize a BRAC round, however, Congress is doing more harm than good. Local communities are deprived of the support and clarity BRAC would provide, and they are denied access to property that could be put to productive use. Our military is forced to allocate resources away from training and equipping our soldiers in order to maintain unnecessary and unwanted infrastructure. Meanwhile, tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars continue to be wasted.Debate over the BRAC process needs to be better informed by context and a real-world understanding of downstream effects, particularly the less-appreciated way that closing excess facilities positively affects communities. This conversation aims to do just that. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Each year since the early 1900s, the world has recognized March 8th as International Women’s Day, an opportunity to celebrate women’s social, economic, cultural, and political achievements while calling for global gender equality.What is the state of global gender equality? How free are women around the world today? What role has government historically played in women’s oppression and liberation? How have market-driven innovations and the unprecedented economic growth of the last decades changed women’s lives? Are policies designed to promote gender equality working? What changes still need to happen?This International Women’s Day, please join the Cato Institute for an interactive, online-only Facebook Live discussion of women’s liberty around the world and tweet your questions using #CatoDigital. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.Far from being a naïve hope, the Enlightenment, we now know, has worked. But more than ever, it needs a vigorous defense. The Enlightenment project swims against currents of human nature — tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking — which demagogues are all too willing to exploit. Many commentators, committed to political, religious, or romantic ideologies, fight a rearguard action against it. The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.With intellectual depth and literary flair, Enlightenment Now makes the case for reason, science, and humanism: the ideals we need to confront our problems and continue our progress. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, an important First Amendment case that could clarify voters' speech rights nationwide. Lead plaintiff Andy Cilek (executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance) voted in the 2010 election in a Tea Party T-shirt that said "Don't tread on me." Because Minnesota prohibits badges, buttons, or other insignia that promote a group with "recognizable political views," at polling places an election official delayed Cilek from voting and took down his name and address for potential prosecution. Cilek sued to have the law struck down. Throughout litigation, the government has embraced the sheer breadth of Minnesota's ban on political apparel. In addition to prohibiting Tea Party apparel, the ban extends to apparel featuring the logo of the Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, NRA, NAACP, and countless other organizations that might be associated with a political viewpoint. Cilek asks the Supreme Court to invalidate the law as an overbroad restriction on expression. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that the Court should look with skepticism at a law, like Minnesota's, that targets core political speech. Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important First Amendment cases of the year a few days before argument. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The infamous “Nunes memo” has landed. Produced by Congressional staff and declassified by the President, the document alleged surveillance warrants on Trump campaign officials from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) were obtained without providing the court with important information.Intelligence experts have generally been skeptical of the memo’s conclusions, but the fight over this document may do long-term damage to attempts to provide important oversight for the secretive FISC. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On February 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a case that has the potential to overturn a 40-year-old precedent (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) that allows public-sector unions to charge nonmembers “agency fees.” Currently, half the states have laws that enable such fees. Mark Janus—an Illinois state employee but not a union member—objects generally to being required to pay AFSCME, as well as to these funds being used to support the union’s ongoing legal fight against the governor’s policy reforms. Janus sued the union for violating his First Amendment rights by compelling these payments. In addition to their responses to that constitutional claim, AFSCME and Illinois have argued throughout the litigation that stare decisis—the prudential doctrine regarding judicial respect for settled precedent—demands that Abood be maintained. Cato filed a brief discussing the historical underpinnings of stare decisis and contending that a proper understanding of stare decisis actually demands that Abood be overturned. Please join us for a discussion of a case pitting workers’ rights against union rights and state powers—one that may accomplish the rare feat of reversing Supreme Court precedent. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How can advanced democracies modernize their economies and reform their welfare states? Drawing on the successful experiences of Sweden and Australia, Nils Karlson will explain the ways in which competing political parties can promote more dynamic economies and more flexible and open societies. He will discuss how distinct reform strategies, the development of new ideas, and policy entrepreneurship can overcome barriers to reform. John Samples will discuss the book's relevance to the rise of populism, overregulation, chronic budget deficits, and other features of many modern welfare states. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1994, responding to a terrible murder, Congress passed a law requiring all 50 states to set up sex offender registries. Now many states closely control where and with whom persons on the registries may live, while public maps showing offenders’ places of residence lead to social shunning and occasional harassment. They also scare parents from letting their children play outside.But does the registry make kids any safer? Lenore Skenazy, the New York newspaper columnist famous for letting her 9-year-old son ride the subway alone and founding the “anti-helicopter parenting” movement, has found that offender maps have helped shape public perceptions of a society rife with child-snatching. That led her to other questions: Who gets on the list? Could you, or someone you love, wind up on the list? How about getting off it?Lenore Skenazy has spoken around the world on the costs of irrational fears of risk to young people and is the president of the new nonprofit dedicated to overthrowing overprotection, Let Grow. Commenting on her remarks will be Vox senior reporter Dara Lind, who has written on how the registry system fits into the wider scheme of criminal justice sanctions and how it may affect recidivism. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Born into slavery in 1818, Frederick Douglass rose to become one of the nation’s foremost intellectuals—a statesman, author, lecturer, and scholar who helped lead the fight against slavery and racial oppression. But unlike some other prominent abolitionists, Douglass embraced the U.S. Constitution, insisting that it was essentially an anti-slavery document and that its guarantees for individual rights belonged to all Americans, of all races. Further, in his most popular lecture, “Self-Made Men,” Douglass spoke of people who rise through their own efforts and devotion rather than through circumstances of privilege. As the nation pauses to remember him on his bicentennial, Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man takes a fresh look at his remarkable life and ideas and the enduring principles of equality and liberty. Weaving together history, politics, and philosophy, this new biography illuminates Douglass’s immense scholarship with his personal experiences. Please join us as we discuss how Douglass’s legacy continues to inspire today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration exists to certify the safety and efficacy of medical technologies. Yet all too often, the FDA polices not drugs and medical devices, but speech. The agency prohibits many people from sharing truthful and non-misleading information about lawful uses of FDA-approved products. When the FDA restricts what people can say about drugs and medical devices, it violates the free-speech rights of patients and guarantees they will not learn about new treatments. Does protecting patients require the government to restrict speech? Even if the answer is yes, does the First Amendment even allow such a gag rule? Please join us as we explore these questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It has long been believed that the education system must assimilate new and different groups into American society. Public school assimilation efforts, however, have often been wrenching for students and families, seemingly based on an assumption that some groups will refuse to assimilate or will even rebel against prevailing norms. This worry has animated opposition to school choice and may be particularly acute when it comes to Muslims, especially since 9/11. But are fears that Islamic schools may be failing to Americanize—or worse, are teaching things antithetical to American values—borne out in reality? This new book, incorporating national survey data on Islamic schools, in-depth interviews with Islamic school leaders, and more, begins to answer that question. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Education is important, and the more of it you and everyone else get, the better. More years in school, more college degrees, means a better economy, country, and world for everyone. Right? Wrong, argues Bryan Caplan in a brand new book that challenges almost all the understandable, powerful—but perhaps ultimately damaging—assumptions people make about education. We hope you’ll join us for a lively debate about this assault on education orthodoxy, and the premiere of this new book. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A year into President Trump’s term, what can we say about the Trump Doctrine? As a candidate, Trump promised dramatic changes for American foreign policy. As president, many would agree he has delivered on that promise. In just one year, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Paris climate treaty, launched cruise missiles at Syria for using chemical weapons, increased American arms sales abroad, refused to certify Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, increased the number of American forces operating in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and rattled sabers on the Korean peninsula. How do these changes square with Trump’s call for an “America First” foreign policy? How does Trump’s operating style differ from that of previous presidents? Is America safer today than it was a year ago?From the Cato Conference: The Trump Doctrine at One Year Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A year into President Trump’s term, what can we say about the Trump Doctrine? As a candidate, Trump promised dramatic changes for American foreign policy. As president, many would agree he has delivered on that promise. In just one year, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Paris climate treaty, launched cruise missiles at Syria for using chemical weapons, increased American arms sales abroad, refused to certify Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, increased the number of American forces operating in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and rattled sabers on the Korean peninsula. How do these changes square with Trump’s call for an “America First” foreign policy? How does Trump’s operating style differ from that of previous presidents? Is America safer today than it was a year ago?From the Cato Conference: The Trump Doctrine at One Year Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Like the country’s overall education discussion, the national school choice debate is far too often reduced to “which schools get better test scores” and maybe even “who gets kids to graduation.” But there is so much more to education than blunt academic outcome measures, including shaping character, transmitting culture, and just plain advancing freedom.In this special, National School Choice Week Facebook Live event, join the Cato Center for Educational Freedom crew to tackle these far deeper, arguably far more important goals and desires for education. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trade, tariffs, and America’s role in the global economy have taken center stage in the public policy debate during the first year of Donald Trump’s tumultuous presidency. That’s not surprising to economic historian and Dartmouth economics professor Douglas A. Irwin, whose latest treatise on the subject documents in exquisite detail how “the Tariff” has sparked passionate political, economic, and constitutional debate and has been a source of bitter political conflict from the Founding of the Republic to the present. Between 1787 and the Civil War, the main purpose of the tariff was to raise revenues for the operations of a modest federal government, which had few other sources of revenue. Although arguments for using the tariff to protect domestic industry prevailed on occasion during this era, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that bald protectionism became the tariff’s primary motive. In the early 1930s, as the disastrous effects of the Tariff Act of 1930 (i.e., “Smoot-Hawley” or “the Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” as Irwin calls it) were rippling across the globe, the tariff was repurposed, again, for the nobler objective of inducing governments to agree to reciprocal reductions in their border protectionism. According to Irwin’s thesis, from the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to the founding of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, through the multiple GATT rounds culminating in the founding of the World Trade Organization in 1995, and through the Obama presidency, reciprocal trade liberalization was the main purpose of the tariff. Will Congress acquiesce in a new purpose for the tariff or will it assert its authority against a new president who considers protectionism a tool to make America great again? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For just one week every year, roughly 70,000 people from around the world come together in the Nevada desert to create Black Rock City, home to Burning Man, billed by its organizers as an “annual experiment in temporary community dedicated to radical self-expression and radical self-reliance.”Because cash exchanges and the barter system are largely banned in Black Rock City (Burning Man instead relies on something called the “gift economy”), Burning Man is often seen as an attack on conventional libertarian principles.However, as a voluntary community driven by freedom of association, self-governance, nonviolent dispute mediation, and emergent order, Burning Man is in many ways a quintessential example of the libertopian ideal.On Wednesday, January 24th, please join the Cato Institute for a robust conversation about what libertarians can learn from Burning Man — and how these lessons can be applied to policy and philosophy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Public corruption is the silent killer of our economy. We’ve spawned the thickest network of patronage and influence ever seen in any country, a crony capitalism in which business partners with government and transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. This is a betrayal of the Framers’ vision for America, and of the Constitution they saw as an anti corruption covenant. This state of affairs repels many Americans, a response that explains the otherwise improbable rises of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But what can be done to counter corruption? Congress has passed two major campaign finance laws in recent decades and established a government office of ethics. Both have serious flaws and hardly seem equal to the task. Are there other possibilities? Join us for an insightful examination of American government today and its prospects for the future. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The second session of the 115th Congress is underway, and congressional leaders have to address a number of wide-ranging and contentious issues before the midterm campaign and election season begins.Among those, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program expires early in March, and whatever happens in the short term will still leave reform opportunities for policies that satisfy both the security and labor needs of the country and that ensure the just and equitable treatment of noncitizen residents. Also, by the end of September, America’s agricultural agenda will need to be codified as components of the “farm bill” are again up for reauthorization. An opportunity here involves the United States Department of Agriculture’s sugar program, which contributes to problematic effects for American consumers as well as having knotty international trade implications. Furthermore, from the White House come promises both to tackle “welfare reform”—the contours of which have not been outlined by the president or GOP agenda setters—and to pass a new infrastructure program, thus fulfilling a significant campaign promise. Divisions exist on each of these topics between the parties, within the parties, and between Congress and the Executive branch.Join us as our panel of experts explores these issues and outlines common-sense solutions to how these problems can be adjudicated while preserving principles of liberty, fiscal responsibility, and the economic well-being of the nation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Colorado became the first state to allow for the sale of recreational marijuana, United States drug policy has been on shaky and unpredictable ground. Just this month U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has thrown out Obama-era guidance to protect businesses and individuals in states that have legalized cannabis for medical and recreational purposes. Now that federal prosecutors have additional discretion, what's next for the feds' reinvigorated war on pot?Join us for a live discussion about federalism and drug laws. Send your questions via Twitter with "#CatoConnects."This is an online only event. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Governments across the globe have begun evolving from lumbering bureaucracies into smaller, more agile special jurisdictions. Private providers increasingly deliver services that political authorities formerly monopolized, inspiring greater competition and efficiency. In Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations, Tom W. Bell, professor at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, shows how these trends suggest that new networks of special jurisdictions will soon surpass nation-states in the same way that networked computers replaced mainframes. This quiet revolution is transforming governments from the bottom up, inside out, worldwide, with the potential to bring more freedom, peace, and prosperity to people everywhere.Join us for a conversation with author Professor Bell, hosted by Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus of Libertarianism.org’s Free Thoughts podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler have written a book about the hidden motives in all of us: quite often, our brains get up to activities that we know little or nothing about. This isn’t just a question of regulating hormone levels or involuntary reflexes. Many of these involuntary behaviors are social signals, such as laughter or tears. Involuntary motives appear to underlie many forms of human sociability, including family formation, art, religion, and recreation. What are the implications for public policy? How can we understand politics and governance better in light of our hidden motives? Our discussion of The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life will focus on just these questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Federal Reserve likely to raise interest rates at this week’s FOMC meeting, another step will have been taken in the Fed’s “Normalization” plan. The Fed will, however, enter 2018 facing many more issues: the continued unwinding of response measures taken during the Financial Crisis and the high levels of turnover in the Federal Reserve system. Federal Reserve Chair nominee Jerome Powell awaits a confirmation vote and searches continue for other key positions. Join us for a wide-ranging conversation on the role of the Fed and send your questions via Twitter using the hashtag #CatoConnects and via Facebook Live.This is an online only event. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of Carpenter v. United States, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more—and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of Carpenter v. United States, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more—and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of Carpenter v. United States, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more — and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of Carpenter v. United States, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more—and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How is the Pentagon faring under the Trump administration? More than many administrations, the Trump administration seems determined to rely on the Department of Defense as the primary tool of U.S. foreign policy. With the President’s open acclaim for his ‘generals,’ the Pentagon looms large in today’s U.S. foreign policy.Yet the new administration’s policies also create questions about the future of U.S. defense policy, from increased deployments in the Middle East to ongoing debate over the defense budget.Join us for a live taping of our new foreign policy podcast, Power Problems, where Cato’s own Trevor Thrall and Emma Ashford offer a skeptical take on U.S. foreign policy and discuss some of today’s big questions with guests from across the political spectrum. In this episode, they sit down with Aaron Mehta, Senior Pentagon correspondent at Defense News to discuss a variety of defense-related issues. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of <em>Carpenter v. United States</em>, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more—and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From front-page news stories featuring transcripts of wiretapped campaign officials to dramatic cyberattacks using hacking tools stolen from the National Security Agency, intelligence and surveillance issues have saturated the news in 2017. Yet there were also plenty of important surveillance stories that didn't get the exposure they deserved: the ongoing debate over reauthorizing the NSA's controversial section 702 spying authority, set to expire at year's end; the Supreme Court's pending consideration of Carpenter v. United States, which could radically alter the contours of Fourth Amendment law; law enforcement's growing reliance on sophisticated data mining to attempt to identify criminals or terrorists before they act. The Cato Institute's annual surveillance conference will gather prominent experts, policymakers, technologists, and civil society advocates to explore these issues and more—and debate how much monitoring we should accept in a society that aspires to be both safe and free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.