If the government actually believed that the homeland would be safer due to its actions overseas, why does it impose (under the threat of violence) a terrorism insurance requirement? And why do its warnings of impending doom seem to be increasing rather than decreasing?
When discussing NASA and its impact upon our society, one must deal with myths that have been spawned by the agency and its supporters over the last four decades, the first being that NASA, supposedly driven by technology, has created new technologies that have been easily transferred to civilian use.
When assessing the costs of the war in Iraq, the full costs, including the costs on the home front, must be considered every bit as much as the money costs. Sadly, the most expensive aspects of war, especially in terms of lost liberties and cultural decline, are usually the hardest to measure, and are therefore more easily ignored.
Like previous administrations in modern America, the Bush Administration has openly declared itself an enemy of the rule of law. If well-heeled corporations are unable to defend themselves from what essentially are illegal prosecutions, what chances will avail to the rest of us?
If hedge funds can be regulated or inhibited from selling short, asks Christopher Mayer, what is next? Ban mutual funds that invest in tobacco companies or other sin stocks? Ban investors from betting against a rise in the dollar? Prohibit investors from owning gold? (That's already been done before.)
In tough times, people cling to the words of politicians and the statements of TV's talking heads—the two sources least likely to offer a broad perspective that yields answers. Jeffrey Tucker recommends five books for a clear a historical perspective, a theoretical explanation, a forecast for the future, and an agenda for change.
How does the public sector decide that it is a good idea to explore space instead of spending the time, resources, and talent on other scientific explorations or, for that matter, some other area like building a road? Tibor Machan, for example, likes the idea of ocean living but few seem to agree with him.
People frequently refer to government policies as paternalistic—either to justify or criticize them. But there is no analogy between a family and government.
Many of the same people who debunked Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, and ridiculed its failures, are enthusiastically backing George W. Bush’s War on Terror. Both are big-government programs. Why back one and not the other?
Millions of students begin their first day of classes with a profound awareness of the impending make-or-break tests, to be taken at regular intervals from the first to the twelfth grade. On the face of it, writes Jeffrey Tucker, it seemed to work. But reformers forgot one thing: we are dealing here with public school.
