On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children in four coordinated attacks, the deadliest such incident in history and the bloodiest day on American soil in over a century. Since that time, the Pentagon says more than 7,000 Americans have been killed in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Greater Middle East, as well as in other military operations associated with the War on Terror. Many Americans still recall the trauma of 9/11 and are aware of the scale of death and destruction wrought that day. Some have a sense of the numbers of U.S. troops killed in wars since. Very few, however, are aware of the others who have died in these wars. For example, the Costs of War Project counts at least 244,000 civilian deaths in just three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Much higher estimates may be derived from episodic reporting of incidents involving noncombatants killed as a result of U.S. military action worldwide. At this special policy forum, a distinguished panel of experts will explore the nature of these casualties, why the U.S. military’s efforts to limit harm to innocent men, women, and children sometimes fail, how and if recent congressional oversight has helped to shed light on the issue, and whether the U.S. media’s inconsistent coverage of noncombatant deaths is a symptom or a cause of the public’s relative ignorance of the true costs of America’s ongoing wars.

On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children in four coordinated attacks, the deadliest such incident in history and the bloodiest day on American soil in over a century. Since that time, the Pentagon says more than 7,000 Americans have been killed in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Greater Middle East, as well as in other military operations associated with the War on Terror. Many Americans still recall the trauma of 9/11 and are aware of the scale of death and destruction wrought that day. Some have a sense of the numbers of U.S. troops killed in wars since. Very few, however, are aware of the others who have died in these wars. For example, the Costs of War Project counts at least 244,000 civilian deaths in just three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Much higher estimates may be derived from episodic reporting of incidents involving noncombatants killed as a result of U.S. military action worldwide. At this special policy forum, a distinguished panel of experts will explore the nature of these casualties, why the U.S. military’s efforts to limit harm to innocent men, women, and children sometimes fail, how and if recent congressional oversight has helped to shed light on the issue, and whether the U.S. media’s inconsistent coverage of noncombatant deaths is a symptom or a cause of the public’s relative ignorance of the true costs of America’s ongoing wars.

The Human Costs of War: Assessing Civilian Casualties since 9/11

Libertarians and conservatives alike claim to be advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. In some policy spheres, these shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to similar conclusions about public policy. As a result, popular political discourse often conflates libertarianism with conservatism, and proponents of “fusionism” go so far as to regard a libertarian‐​conservative alliance as being both natural and politically useful. However, the differences between the two political philosophies are at least as significant as the similarities. On matters such as national security and foreign policy, immigration, criminal justice, drugs, surveillance, marriage and the family, and the role of religion in public policy, libertarians and conservatives often clash with one another. Despite whatever similarities they may have, libertarianism and conservatism are substantially different political philosophies. So which one provides better answers to today’s most important political questions? We invite you to a debate about the two political philosophies and their associated policy implications. Interns from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation will go head‐​to‐​head to answer the question: Is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy?

Libertarians and conservatives alike claim to be advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. In some policy spheres, these shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to similar conclusions about public policy. As a result, popular political discourse often conflates libertarianism with conservatism, and proponents of “fusionism” go so far as to regard a libertarian‐​conservative alliance as being both natural and politically useful. However, the differences between the two political philosophies are at least as significant as the similarities. On matters such as national security and foreign policy, immigration, criminal justice, drugs, surveillance, marriage and the family, and the role of religion in public policy, libertarians and conservatives often clash with one another. Despite whatever similarities they may have, libertarianism and conservatism are substantially different political philosophies. So which one provides better answers to today’s most important political questions? We invite you to a debate about the two political philosophies and their associated policy implications. Interns from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation will go head‐​to‐​head to answer the question: Is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy?

Debate: Libertarianism vs. Conservatism

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, yet it still appeals to parts of the American public that have little or no experience with it. Irreverent but honest economists Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell will describe what they saw when they visited real‐​life examples of socialism in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela and other countries that are living with the socialist legacy. Using anecdotes and informed by scholarship, they will explain why socialism is often catastrophic, why Sweden is not an example of socialism, and why many of the claims of socialist politicians in America are so wrong‐​headed. Matt Kibbe will describe how young Americans’ views on socialism have evolved in recent years.

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, yet it still appeals to parts of the American public that have little or no experience with it. Irreverent but honest economists Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell will describe what they saw when they visited real‐​life examples of socialism in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela and other countries that are living with the socialist legacy. Using anecdotes and informed by scholarship, they will explain why socialism is often catastrophic, why Sweden is not an example of socialism, and why many of the claims of socialist politicians in America are so wrong‐​headed. Matt Kibbe will describe how young Americans’ views on socialism have evolved in recent years.

Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way through the Unfree World

Six months after Nicolás Maduro was declared a “usurper” by Venezuela’s National Assembly and Juan Guaidó was sworn in as interim president, political gridlock has set in. The ongoing talks in Barbados between the regime and representatives of the democratic forces do not hold the promise of a swift solution to the crisis engulfing Venezuela. Luis Almagro, secretary general of the Organization of American States, will describe what’s at stake and discuss international efforts that can be made to put pressure on Maduro’s regime. María Corina Machado, former member of the National Assembly and prominent leader of the opposition, will assess the process of restoring democracy so far and offer a strategic vision. Pedro Urruchurtu will briefly explain how Venezuela got to this point.

Six months after Nicolás Maduro was declared a “usurper” by Venezuela’s National Assembly and Juan Guaidó was sworn in as interim president, political gridlock has set in. The ongoing talks in Barbados between the regime and representatives of the democratic forces do not hold the promise of a swift solution to the crisis engulfing Venezuela. Luis Almagro, secretary general of the Organization of American States, will describe what’s at stake and discuss international efforts that can be made to put pressure on Maduro’s regime. María Corina Machado, former member of the National Assembly and prominent leader of the opposition, will assess the process of restoring democracy so far and offer a strategic vision. Pedro Urruchurtu will briefly explain how Venezuela got to this point.

What's Next for Venezuela?

Since the 2016 election, college campuses have erupted in violent protests and demands for safe spaces and the silencing of views that activist groups find disagreeable. Who are the leaders behind these protests, and what do they want? In Panic Attack, libertarian journalist Robby Soave answers these questions by profiling young radicals from across the political spectrum. Soave documents a multitude of competing post‐​liberal political views among the young, from the Democratic Socialists of America to Turning Point USA. He explicates the ideologies and social conditions that have fostered these nascent movements, paying special attention to the identarian concerns that often animate Generation Z activists. Although these budding radicals are politically inexperienced and often poorly organized, they have already redrawn the lines of political debate around speech and censorship, and their break from the strictures of postwar party politics has the potential to permanently reshape America’s political landscape.

Since the 2016 election, college campuses have erupted in violent protests and demands for safe spaces and the silencing of views that activist groups find disagreeable. Who are the leaders behind these protests, and what do they want? In Panic Attack, libertarian journalist Robby Soave answers these questions by profiling young radicals from across the political spectrum. Soave documents a multitude of competing post‐​liberal political views among the young, from the Democratic Socialists of America to Turning Point USA. He explicates the ideologies and social conditions that have fostered these nascent movements, paying special attention to the identarian concerns that often animate Generation Z activists. Although these budding radicals are politically inexperienced and often poorly organized, they have already redrawn the lines of political debate around speech and censorship, and their break from the strictures of postwar party politics has the potential to permanently reshape America’s political landscape.

Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump

The ancient Greeks believed that the mythical Gorgon could turn those who stared at it to stone. The Pentagon’s surveillance technology named after this creature, Gorgon Stare, has used its aerial near-panopticon surveillance capabilities to turn Salafist insurgents into targets. But should such a powerful, virtually all-seeing aerial spying system be allowed to operate over American communities? Arthur Holland Michel, Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of the Drone, tackles this question in his new book, Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of Gorgon Stare and How It Will Watch Us All. Join us on June 25 at 1:00 p.m. as an expert panel talks with Michel about his book and about Gorgon Stare’s implications for the constitutional rights of Americans.

<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Secret-Gorgon-Stare-ebook/dp/B07FK9567C?tag=catoinstitute-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>The ancient Greeks believed that the mythical Gorgon could turn those who stared at it to stone. The Pentagon’s surveillance technology named after this creature, Gorgon Stare, has used its aerial near-panopticon surveillance capabilities to turn Salafist insurgents into targets. But should such a powerful, virtually all-seeing aerial spying system be allowed to operate over American communities? Arthur Holland Michel, Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of the Drone, tackles this question in his new book, Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of Gorgon Stare and How It Will Watch Us All. Join us on June 25 at 1:00 p.m. as an expert panel talks with Michel about his book and about Gorgon Stare’s implications for the constitutional rights of Americans.

Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of Gorgon Stare and How It Will Watch Us All

For many Americans, the distinction between military policy and domestic law enforcement is clear: the U.S. military is deployed abroad and tasked with defense of vital national interests, while at home police officers protect life, liberty, and property by investigating and deterring crimes. But as Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall explain in their book Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, years of policy decisions at home and abroad have eroded this distinction. Military equipment and tactics often find their way to police departments thanks to what Coyne and Hall call the “boomerang effect,” which can result in needlessly aggressive policing and violations of civil liberties. What are the origins of the boomerang effect? Can police militarization be reversed? Does modern policing require military‐​grade surveillance equipment? Join us for a book forum featuring Coyne and Hall, who tackle these and other pressing questions.

For many Americans, the distinction between military policy and domestic law enforcement is clear: the U.S. military is deployed abroad and tasked with defense of vital national interests, while at home police officers protect life, liberty, and property by investigating and deterring crimes. But as Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall explain in their book Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, years of policy decisions at home and abroad have eroded this distinction. Military equipment and tactics often find their way to police departments thanks to what Coyne and Hall call the “boomerang effect,” which can result in needlessly aggressive policing and violations of civil liberties. What are the origins of the boomerang effect? Can police militarization be reversed? Does modern policing require military‐​grade surveillance equipment? Join us for a book forum featuring Coyne and Hall, who tackle these and other pressing questions.

Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism

Congress reformed America’s legal immigration system nearly three decades ago. Since that time, the system’s outdated and arbitrary immigration quotas have doubled wait times for green cards for legal immigrants. At the border, a new challenge has emerged in the form of illegal immigration and asylum seekers from Central America. Wide bipartisan agreement exists that both temporary and permanent immigration policies need to be reformed, yet Congress and the administration have failed to settle on the best approach. As the debate continues in Congress, join us as our speakers explain the problems with and solutions for America’s legal immigration system.

Congress reformed America’s legal immigration system nearly three decades ago. Since that time, the system’s outdated and arbitrary immigration quotas have doubled wait times for green cards for legal immigrants. At the border, a new challenge has emerged in the form of illegal immigration and asylum seekers from Central America. Wide bipartisan agreement exists that both temporary and permanent immigration policies need to be reformed, yet Congress and the administration have failed to settle on the best approach. As the debate continues in Congress, join us as our speakers explain the problems with and solutions for America’s legal immigration system.

Legal Immigration: Problems and Solutions

Financial Inclusion: The Cato Summit on Financial Regulation - Luncheon and Address: Consumer Protection and Financial Inclusion

Financial Inclusion: The Cato Summit on Financial Regulation - Panel II: Uses without Abuses of Consumer Data

Podcast of policy and book forums, Capitol Hill briefings and other events from the Cato Institute

Its great to hear honest debate about topical issues.  However, the McCain: The Myth of a Maverick was horrid.  The author seemed to make an honest attempt at discussion of who McCain is and what he believes in.  The rebutal was so partisan that it was not even worth listening to.  It should be used as an example of poor logic.  It made me sad that anyone at the Cato Institue applauded it and makes me respect the organization less for doing so.  

Good but not always

I think this is definitely worth spending some time watching, it is well put together and informative regardless of whether your on the left or the right in American politics.  Beyond that though, the real reason I wanted to write a review about this podcast was to point out how surprised I was that no one else has reviewed it.  Whether you agree with CATO's viewpoints or not, their perspective and viewpoint is crucial to American democracy.  The latest drunk teenage bombshell can get hundreds of reviews for something they post on Itunes, yet serious intellectual discussion goes unnoticed.  Welcome to America.

Good podcast.

Events Videocast

At any given time, the United States holds almost two million people in prison for felony convictions. Often overlooked, however, are more than 11 million people who cycle in and out of American jails every year for misdemeanor offenses. Despite composing the largest part of our criminal system, misdemeanors don’t usually garner the same policy attention as more overtly draconian features of the system — such as decades‐​long mandatory minimum prison sentences — because they are viewed as “minor offenses.” However, the overall punitive effect of misdemeanors, particularly on poor people and people of color, far exceeds what should be imposed for supposedly minor crimes. In her recent book, Punishment without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal, Professor Alexandra Natapoff explains how our police, courts, and jails create a machinery of injustice that doles out unfair punishments and extracts wealth from those who can least afford it. She writes that the American criminal system “moonlight[s] as a regressive tax system and anti‐​welfare machine” that criminalizes the impoverished and further adds to their burdens. Natapoff’s research shows that the American petty crimes enforcement apparatus undermines the most important functions of criminal law by corroding the constitutional processes meant to provide justice to all. Join us Tuesday, May 7, as Professor Natapoff discusses her important and revealing book with the Cato Institute’s Jonathan Blanks.

At any given time, the United States holds almost two million people in prison for felony convictions. Often overlooked, however, are more than 11 million people who cycle in and out of American jails every year for misdemeanor offenses. Despite composing the largest part of our criminal system, misdemeanors don’t usually garner the same policy attention as more overtly draconian features of the system — such as decades‐​long mandatory minimum prison sentences — because they are viewed as “minor offenses.” However, the overall punitive effect of misdemeanors, particularly on poor people and people of color, far exceeds what should be imposed for supposedly minor crimes. In her recent book, Punishment without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal, Professor Alexandra Natapoff explains how our police, courts, and jails create a machinery of injustice that doles out unfair punishments and extracts wealth from those who can least afford it. She writes that the American criminal system “moonlight[s] as a regressive tax system and anti‐​welfare machine” that criminalizes the impoverished and further adds to their burdens. Natapoff’s research shows that the American petty crimes enforcement apparatus undermines the most important functions of criminal law by corroding the constitutional processes meant to provide justice to all. Join us Tuesday, May 7, as Professor Natapoff discusses her important and revealing book with the Cato Institute’s Jonathan Blanks.

Punishment without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal

Nina Teicholz is the investigative journalist who, in her book The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, overturned 40 years of official dietary advice and showed that meat, cheese, and butter are nutritious and need not be avoided. At this event, Ms. Teicholz will tell of her discovery of the systematic distortion of dietary advice by expert scientists, government and big business to the detriment of the health of Americans. She will chronicle the succession of unfortunate discoveries she made, and she will describe how the Nutrition Coalition, a non‐​profit, bipartisan group which she founded and directs, works to educate policy makers about the need for reform of nutrition policy so that it is evidence‐​based.

Nina Teicholz is the investigative journalist who, in her book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet</a>, overturned 40 years of official dietary advice and showed that meat, cheese, and butter are nutritious and need not be avoided. At this event, Ms. Teicholz will tell of her discovery of the systematic distortion of dietary advice by expert scientists, government and big business to the detriment of the health of Americans. She will chronicle the succession of unfortunate discoveries she made, and she will describe how the Nutrition Coalition, a non‐​profit, bipartisan group which she founded and directs, works to educate policy makers about the need for reform of nutrition policy so that it is evidence‐​based.

Big Fat Nutrition Policy

International security in the 21st century is increasingly characterized by the use of cyber operations. Concern over this still‐​developing domain of competition has led to inflated assessments of its dangers and greater support for a more aggressive U.S. posture on cyber security and cyber warfare. How do great powers like the United States, Russia, and China employ cyber capabilities? What threats does the United States currently face in this realm, and what is the most effective method of defense? What are the vulnerabilities of complacency, and, conversely, the risks of escalation? Join us to discuss these issues and more with experts in the field.

International security in the 21st century is increasingly characterized by the use of cyber operations. Concern over this still‐​developing domain of competition has led to inflated assessments of its dangers and greater support for a more aggressive U.S. posture on cyber security and cyber warfare. How do great powers like the United States, Russia, and China employ cyber capabilities? What threats does the United States currently face in this realm, and what is the most effective method of defense? What are the vulnerabilities of complacency, and, conversely, the risks of escalation? Join us to discuss these issues and more with experts in the field.

Cyber Warfare, Coercion, and Restraint

Some political leaders are saying that income and wealth inequality are at unacceptable levels and need to be countered by higher taxes on the wealthy and more transfer payments. But the data used to support those arguments are often misunderstood and omit key elements of the picture. John Early will describe gaps in the official data used in the inequality debate and discuss alternative income measures that better capture the well‐​being of different groups. Early argues that policymakers need to get the facts right before imposing prescriptions on the economy. John Early has twice been assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where he became an expert on these measurement issues. He has published a Cato study and a series of op‐​eds with former U.S. senator Phil Gramm examining the U.S. data on inequality. Following Early, Edwards will discuss the different sources of data on wealth inequality and the role of wealth in the economy. Watch: Short video on economic inequality featuring John F. Early Download the Power Point presentation (PPTX)

Some political leaders are saying that income and wealth inequality are at unacceptable levels and need to be countered by higher taxes on the wealthy and more transfer payments. But the data used to support those arguments are often misunderstood and omit key elements of the picture. John Early will describe gaps in the official data used in the inequality debate and discuss alternative income measures that better capture the well‐​being of different groups. Early argues that policymakers need to get the facts right before imposing prescriptions on the economy. John Early has twice been assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where he became an expert on these measurement issues. He has published a <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/reassessing-facts-about-inequality-poverty-redistribution" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cato study</a> and a series of op‐​eds with former U.S. senator Phil Gramm examining the U.S. data on inequality. Following Early, Edwards will discuss the different sources of data on wealth inequality and the role of wealth in the economy. <ul><li>Watch: <a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/economic-inequality-are-we-measuring-it-right-what-does-it-mean" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Short video on economic inequality featuring John F. Early</a></li></ul> <a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/documents/capitol-hill-forum-april-29-2019.pptx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Download the Power Point presentation (PPTX)</a>

Economic Inequality: Are We Measuring It Right and What Does It Mean?

The Jones Act is back in the news, with legislation introduced this year to repeal the law and the White House said to be considering a limited waiver of the law for the transport of liquefied natural gas. It’s about time. For nearly 100 years, the Jones Act has served as a burden on the U.S. economy and has raised transportation costs, damaged the environment, and even harmed U.S. exports. In the course of doing so, it has also manifestly failed to achieve its stated policy goals, with U.S. shipbuilding and the Jones Act fleet itself in a decades‐​long decline. Questions also abound about the law’s contribution to national security, as illustrated by the shortage of merchant mariners to crew the government‐​owned vessels in times of war and the Navy unable to afford ships from vastly uncompetitive U.S. shipyards to meet its sealift needs.  Learn more about the Jones Act

The Jones Act is back in the news, with legislation introduced this year to repeal the law and the White House said to be considering a limited waiver of the law for the transport of liquefied natural gas. It’s about time. For nearly 100 years, the Jones Act has served as a burden on the U.S. economy and has raised transportation costs, damaged the environment, and even harmed U.S. exports. In the course of doing so, it has also manifestly failed to achieve its stated policy goals, with U.S. shipbuilding and the Jones Act fleet itself in a decades‐​long decline. Questions also abound about the law’s contribution to national security, as illustrated by the shortage of merchant mariners to crew the government‐​owned vessels in times of war and the Navy unable to afford ships from vastly uncompetitive U.S. shipyards to meet its sealift needs. <ul> <li><a href="https://www.cato.org/project-on-jones-act-reform" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Learn more about the Jones Act</a></li></ul>

Keeping Up with the Jones Act

How did the modern dynamic economy, filled with wealth and opportunity, come about? In his new book, The Wealth Explosion: The Nature and Origins of Modernity, Stephen Davies examines the surprising, fundamental, and continuing processes of innovation and transformation that have produced the world we live in today. Exploring the academic literature and competing theories, he seeks to answer three questions of fundamental importance to any economist or historian: How and why is the world different today than that faced by our ancestors? What explains why this transformation began in northwestern Europe about 240 years ago? And, given this, can the modern dynamic economy endure?

How did the modern dynamic economy, filled with wealth and opportunity, come about? In his new book, The Wealth Explosion: The Nature and Origins of Modernity, Stephen Davies examines the surprising, fundamental, and continuing processes of innovation and transformation that have produced the world we live in today. Exploring the academic literature and competing theories, he seeks to answer three questions of fundamental importance to any economist or historian: How and why is the world different today than that faced by our ancestors? What explains why this transformation began in northwestern Europe about 240 years ago? And, given this, can the modern dynamic economy endure?

The Wealth Explosion: The Nature and Origins of Modernity

The perceived threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to the American workforce and society more broadly has become a common topic of discussion among policymakers, academics, and the wider public. But is AI a threat? And if so, are there appropriate policy solutions? History is replete with examples of disruption caused by past technological advances. Are the lessons from those advances applicable to AI? These are just some of the questions addressed by the PBS television documentary CyberWork and the American Dream.

The perceived threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to the American workforce and society more broadly has become a common topic of discussion among policymakers, academics, and the wider public. But is AI a threat? And if so, are there appropriate policy solutions? History is replete with examples of disruption caused by past technological advances. Are the lessons from those advances applicable to AI? These are just some of the questions addressed by the PBS television documentary CyberWork and the American Dream.

CyberWork and the American Dream

Depending on the type of institution, inflation‐​adjusted college prices have as much as tripled over the past 30 years. This cost increase has launched vociferous arguments about its underlying causes. Perhaps no theories loom larger than that cuts in direct state funding have forced schools to raise revenue from their students or that federal student aid has enabled colleges to inflate their prices no matter what is happening with their other funding streams. Join a panel of experts as they debate which theory is right, which is wrong, whether even more important factors are at work, and what to do about it all.

Depending on the type of institution, inflation‐​adjusted college prices have as much as tripled over the past 30 years. This cost increase has launched vociferous arguments about its underlying causes. Perhaps no theories loom larger than that cuts in direct state funding have forced schools to raise revenue from their students or that federal student aid has enabled colleges to inflate their prices no matter what is happening with their other funding streams. Join a panel of experts as they debate which theory is right, which is wrong, whether even more important factors are at work, and what to do about it all.

Why Is College So Pricey? Theories Compete!

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices.

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices.

Who's Afraid of Big Tech? - Welcome Remarks and Panel 1: Big Brother in Big Tech

When is it appropriate to resist the agents of the state? For many, the answer may be (all too) easy: never. But the United States itself was founded on one such act of resistance, and libertarians have always been deeply skeptical that the agents of the state enjoy any special status in moral philosophy. May an individual legitimately resist state agents? In what cases is such resistance allowed? What methods may be used, and to what ends? Philosopher Jason Brennan argues that sometimes, individuals have not only a right to resist unjust state actions but even an obligation to do so.

When is it appropriate to resist the agents of the state? For many, the answer may be (all too) easy: never. But the United States itself was founded on one such act of resistance, and libertarians have always been deeply skeptical that the agents of the state enjoy any special status in moral philosophy. May an individual legitimately resist state agents? In what cases is such resistance allowed? What methods may be used, and to what ends? Philosopher Jason Brennan argues that sometimes, individuals have not only a right to resist unjust state actions but even an obligation to do so.

When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice

Using eagles and flags to rainbows and abstract art, many people have expressed ideas about freedom in art. Are there commonalities among these representations? Do these representations reflect competing values? When do images make a stronger impression than words? What makes some images clichés and some unique and attention‐​getting successes? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

Using eagles and flags to rainbows and abstract art, many people have expressed ideas about freedom in art. Are there commonalities among these representations? Do these representations reflect competing values? When do images make a stronger impression than words? What makes some images clichés and some unique and attention‐​getting successes? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

The Imagery of Freedom

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.” Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney.

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.” Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney.

Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media

FLASH

Who's Afraid of Big Tech? - Flash Talk: The Time Is Now: A Framework for Comprehensive Privacy Protection and Digital Rights in the United States

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user‐​generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platforms it protects face increasing scrutiny, Twenty‐​Six Words demystifies this little‐​known yet vital statute.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user‐​generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platforms it protects face increasing scrutiny, Twenty‐​Six Words demystifies this little‐​known yet vital statute.

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

Should art offend? Does it matter if people are offended? Should offensive art be displayed? Should it be censored? Who decides what is offensive or appropriate? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

Should art offend? Does it matter if people are offended? Should offensive art be displayed? Should it be censored? Who decides what is offensive or appropriate? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

“I Am Offended”: Art & Free Expression

Are we running out of resources? That’s been a hotly debated question since the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb in 1968. The Stanford University biologist warned that population growth would result in the exhaustion of resources and a global catastrophe. University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Julian Simon, in contrast, argued that humans would innovate their way out of resource shortages. He believed that people were the “ultimate resource” that would make other resources more plentiful. On Earth Day 2019, David M. Simon will recall the humanism and optimism of his late father. Gale Pooley and Marian L. Tupy will present the updated findings from their recent paper “The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources” and launch The Simon Project, a new www​.human​progress​.org initiative. Finally, George Gilder will discuss the link between human ingenuity, innovation, and prosperity.

Are we running out of resources? That’s been a hotly debated question since the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb in 1968. The Stanford University biologist warned that population growth would result in the exhaustion of resources and a global catastrophe. University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Julian Simon, in contrast, argued that humans would innovate their way out of resource shortages. He believed that people were the “ultimate resource” that would make other resources more plentiful. On Earth Day 2019, David M. Simon will recall the humanism and optimism of his late father. Gale Pooley and Marian L. Tupy will present the updated findings from their recent paper “<a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/simon-abundance-index-new-way-measure-availability-resources" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources</a>” and launch The Simon Project, a new <a href="https://www.humanprogress.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www​.human​progress​.org</a> initiative. Finally, George Gilder will discuss the link between human ingenuity, innovation, and prosperity.

The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources

Alexander Hamilton

Donald Trump

From the nation building of Alexander Hamilton to the trade wars of Donald Trump, trade policy has been a key instrument of American power and wealth. The open trading system that the United States sponsored after the Second World War has served US interests by promoting cooperation and prosperity but has also allowed the allies to become more independent and China to rise. The case studies in Trade and American Leadershipexamine how the value of preferential trade programs is undercut by the multilateral liberalization that the United States promoted for generations, and how trade sanctions tend to be either too economically costly to impose or too modest to matter. These problems are exacerbated by a domestic political system in which the gains from trade are unevenly distributed, power is fragmented, and strategies are easily undermined. Trade and American Leadership places special emphasis on today’s challenges and on the rising danger of economic nationalism.

From the nation building of Alexander Hamilton to the trade wars of Donald Trump, trade policy has been a key instrument of American power and wealth. The open trading system that the United States sponsored after the Second World War has served US interests by promoting cooperation and prosperity but has also allowed the allies to become more independent and China to rise. The case studies in Trade and American Leadershipexamine how the value of preferential trade programs is undercut by the multilateral liberalization that the United States promoted for generations, and how trade sanctions tend to be either too economically costly to impose or too modest to matter. These problems are exacerbated by a domestic political system in which the gains from trade are unevenly distributed, power is fragmented, and strategies are easily undermined. Trade and American Leadership places special emphasis on today’s challenges and on the rising danger of economic nationalism.

Trade and American Leadership: The Paradoxes of Power and Wealth from Alexander Hamilton to Donald Trump

The disastrous choice to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power did enormous damage to the wealth, well‐​being, and reputations of the United States and Great Britain. To this day, the hangover of the Iraq war looms large over the politics of both nations. Yet how each of these “special friends” came to the decision to invade Iraq remains shrouded in mystery and mythology. Until now. On April 24, Patrick Porter, author of Blunder: Britain’s War in Iraq, and Michael Mazarr, author of Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America’s Greatest Foreign Policy Tragedy, will detail the motivations and ideas that drove two great democracies to a war of choice, and explain the lessons that must be learned to avoid similar disasters — today and in the future.

The disastrous choice to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power did enormous damage to the wealth, well‐​being, and reputations of the United States and Great Britain. To this day, the hangover of the Iraq war looms large over the politics of both nations. Yet how each of these “special friends” came to the decision to invade Iraq remains shrouded in mystery and mythology. Until now. On April 24, Patrick Porter, author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Blunder-Britains-Iraq-Patrick-Porter/dp/0198807961?tag=catoinstitute-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Blunder: Britain’s War in Iraq</a>, and Michael Mazarr, author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Leap-Faith-Negligence-Americas-Greatest/dp/1541768361/?tag=catoinstitute-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America’s Greatest Foreign Policy Tragedy</a>, will detail the motivations and ideas that drove two great democracies to a war of choice, and explain the lessons that must be learned to avoid similar disasters — today and in the future.

Two Roads to War: How (and Why) America and Britain Decided to Invade Iraq

After years of quiet U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen, top officials in the Trump administration are finally talking about ending the conflict. But a lasting resolution to the war remains a distant prospect, and the Yemeni people continue to suffer under bombardment and blockade in one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory. What are the facts in Yemen? Why has the United States abetted the Saudi war in Yemen for almost four years? And what is the role of Congress in checking the authority of the executive to get involved in distant conflicts? Please join us for a discussion of these topics.

After years of quiet U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen, top officials in the Trump administration are finally talking about ending the conflict. But a lasting resolution to the war remains a distant prospect, and the Yemeni people continue to suffer under bombardment and blockade in one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory. What are the facts in Yemen? Why has the United States abetted the Saudi war in Yemen for almost four years? And what is the role of Congress in checking the authority of the executive to get involved in distant conflicts? Please join us for a discussion of these topics.

Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen

The best podcast episodes on parenting. Interviewing experts and talking through common issues surrounding parenting. This topic is filled with important lessons and insights for anyone listening. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

OwlTail

Best Parenting Podcasts

The best episodes for anyone looking to learn more about topics such as happiness, fulfillment, depression and psychology/mental health in general. With interviews with industry experts, personal stories of individuals, this topic has lessons applicable to everyone. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!