Behavioral economists say that since individuals are irrational, we need more state intervention in the economy. However, their criticism can be turned around: if individuals are irrational, government power is especially dangerous.
The economist’s task is not to demonstrate (empirically) that x is associated with y, but to provide a causal explanation of how x affects y.
The given explanations for "implied consent" to government rule would never pass muster if applied to any private-sector organization.
Bernie Sanders's proposed "House Fixing tax" would not only hurt flippers and their homebuying customers but also some landlords and tenants as well.
We need an anti-politics movement just as surely as we need an antiwar movement.
If we grant that Indian tribes ought to be able to restrict membership (i.e., naturalization) for their own groups, on what principle can this be denied to other groups?
Entrepreneurs try to find gaps in the marketplace where consumers are not quite satisfied with the status quo. Successful entrepreneurs then fill in those gaps.
Local governments think the key to "smart" downtown development is to restrict parking, and force people to take a bus. In reality, people just decide to avoid downtown, thwarting efforts at development.
Environmentalists rightly point out it is very difficult to manage a complex ecosystem. But they conveniently ignore the fact it's even more difficult to manage an economic system — especially one thrown into disarray by environmental regulations.
Both left and right now repeatedly push a myth: the myth that governments have been taken over by laissez-faire hard-core free-market economists who have turned the world into a landscape of untrammeled capitalism.
