Markets over Politics, Misers over Philanthropists
Landsburg's basic argument is that the reason's philanthropists and politics have such a good reputation is that the benefits of such are concentrated, while the costs are disbursed, despite the costs exceeding the benefits. Conversely, misers and markets get bad press because the benefitts are disbursed, the costs concentrated, despite the benefits exceeding the costs.
When reading the second, I couldn't help but thinking to myself that the author was astonishingly pro-market and anti-interventionist, almost Austrian. Surely enough, the author cites Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable, as well as Thomas DiLorenzo's Unhealthy Charities: Hazardous to Your Health and Wealth.