Worth Reading for April 2008

4/30 In the name of entrepreneurship and innovation, let’s create another bureaucratic, rent-seeking government agency? Jeff Cornwall says Just say “No”. Which is a little easier remembering the wise words of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Will Rogers.

4/29 Psychological limits and updating the “crow-epistemology” numbers: Not seven but four?

4/28 Attorney Tom Kirkendell reflects on the US’s extraordinarily high incarceration rates and, given that much of it is a consequence of our wrong-headed war on drugs, links to this exchange in the LA Times between Reason’s Jacob Sullum and Heritage’s Charles Stimson.

4/26 Some pathetic racist conspiracy theories. (Thanks to Anja for the link.) And Robert Bidinotto has this perceptive diagnosis of the psychology of conspiracy theorists. And all I can say about this is: Keep those sorcerers away from me.

4/25 Fascinating statistics: a video interview with Thomas Sowell about his Economic Facts and Fallacies. (Thanks to Anja for the link.) And here is Thomas Sowell on writing: “the only way I know to become a good writer is to be a bad writer and keep on improving.” (Via Not PC.)

4/24 Science predicts the future and it’s not all science fiction. (Thanks to Craig for the link.) And while we solved the problem of politicized religion hundreds of years ago, now we’re learning about politicized science. (Thanks to Anja for the link.)

4/23 In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: business ethicist Alexei Marcoux’s overview of the current state of the debate in the business ethics literature.

4/22 Excellent rebuttals: David R. Henderson takes apart a sloppy mish-mash assessment of Milton Friedman’s views by The New York Times‘s Peter Goodman. And Richard Dawkins explains, more patiently than I would, why Darwin was not the cause of Hitler. Both of which raise the question: Why do so many journalists and academics have problems with basic scholarship?

4/15 A shocker: What Iran can teach us about the virtues of capitalism.

4/14 Thinking about why we think: Philosopher Michael Ruse has Darwin on his mind. And pleasant news that more students are thinking about majoring in Philosophy. (Thanks to Shawn for the link.)

4/13 Why the sudden grounding of so many planes: actual safety issues or dysfunctional politics? (Via TIA Daily.) Checking in with Walter Olson and the latest zaniness from the world of litigation. And Lincoln McLain has a series of one-liners answering the question: “If you could change one thing about the ‘environmental movement,’ what would it be?”

4/12 Classical Values has coverage of the current wave of assaults on free speech in Canada, of all places. One of the bloggers under attack, Ezra Levant, has these wonderfully forthright words for his government inquisitors. (Thanks to Ralph for the link.) And in Iran, some odd choices in censoring Western magazines. (Via Philosopher Stone.)

4/11 A Washington Post article on the booming homeschooling movement. (Via Division of Labour.) FLOW’s Michael Strong urges the freedom to innovate as a key component of educational reform. And in related educational-innovation news, I have joined the Board of Advisors of the Reason, Individualism, and Freedom Institute, headed by Marsha Enright.

4/10 Not a pretty picture, though a warped consistency: Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir as thinkers and human beings.

4/9 Larry Ribstein lists several factors contributing to rising CEO pay levels. Tyler Cowen raises further questions about measuring the marginal product of CEOs. Don Boudreaux asks whether anti-takeover legislation protects incumbent CEOs from market forces, thus contributing inappropriately to some high CEO salaries. And Cato’s Daniel Mitchell explains how taxes on American corporations’ foreign earnings cost us all in competitiveness, profits, and jobs.

4/7 Shawn Klein looks at several “What if …” history scenarios.

4/2 A guided tour of alchemy and an Isaac Newton manuscript.

4/1 Larry Sechrest on Mises and the anti-capitalist mentality. And Professor David Mayer explains why it’s justice versus “social justice.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *