There are good reasons to believe that the AICOA would not enhance economic freedom nor improve overall welfare. This is a problem, not because big tech needs more defenders, but because it would stifle competition and economic freedom.
Dr. Miron has written over 100 op-eds and several books, including Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition (2004) and Libertarianism: from A to Z (2010).
This isn’t an accident. This is the purpose of these regulations — to protect established businesses from competition.
To discover the Next Big Thing, you need to think outside the box.
Republican reformers have repeatedly promised affordable healthcare for all Americans — doubly affordable, in fact. They promise sufficient subsidies to put premiums and out-of-pocket costs within reach of low- and middle-income consumers. At the same time, they promise that the plan will be affordable to the federal budget, even given the constraints their most conservative […]
Here are three economic principles you’ll see between security and takeoff.
“Oh for the days of Ma Bell!” is not a lament we’re likely to hear. And for good reason. Before the breakup of AT&T, America’s telephone system was a government-sanctioned monopoly characterized by stagnant service offerings, high costs, and a glacial pace of consumer-facing innovation. So it was distressing when a federal appeals court engaged […]
If human flourishing is our goal, we must return to a society where economic freedom is championed.
Zwolinski concludes his series on William Graham Sumner with the question of how we ought to help the poorest among us.
William Graham Sumner often gets unfairly labeled a social Darwinist. In this first post in a new series, Zwolinski tries to nail down just what “social Darwinism” means.
To survive, even the most successful companies have to be willing to quickly dispense with yesterday’s winning business plan
Data such as standardized test scores can only tell us so much. For one thing, children are not standardized.
On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. His victory in the 2016 election was a surprise to many, and his success in the so called Rust Belt made it happen. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all went to Trump, something that hadn’t happened for a Republican […]
The nomination of philanthropist and education reformer Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education has reignited debates over school choice policies. Aside from the opposition of groups invested in the status quo, pro-school choice reformers disagree about how to design choice policies and the role of the federal government. Any policy that empowers parents with more […]
In some types of school choice (like open enrollment programs and charter schools) the government plays a big role. And in others (like voucher programs and education savings accounts) not so much.
Calling education a public good is potentially dangerous.
The free-market concept is simple — private property owners should be able to preside over whatever policies they want.
Suppose that there are children throughout America who are utterly disengaged in their assigned public school each day, but that are absolutely riveted by the sports news on TV or YouTube each night. Suppose that at least one set of their parents realize their sports nut child is uninterested in school because it targets the instruction and examples to generic children.
In 1926, J. Gresham Machen testified before a congressional committee regarding a proposed federal department of education. In the first minute of his testimony, he explained that the purpose of the bill was “to promote uniformity in education,” which, he asserted, “is the worst fate into which any country can fall.”
Trump doesn’t seem like the type for self-improvement, but here are four unsolicited recommendations anyway.
Making higher education free of charge won’t make it free to provide.
“I learned in economics that in ‘perfect competition’ profits are zero, so any actual profits come from some kind of monopoly power. So how could profits be good?”
Imagine a society that always encouraged you to make the right choices without forcing to make those choices.
Two front-page stories in the Metro section of Monday’s Washington Post depict protected service providers desperately trying to fight off innovations that might serve customers better and threaten the comfortable incomes of the established providers.