You’ve probably had a boss who was a jerk. Indeed, you may be working under a jerk of a boss right now. Question: Would it be a good idea to pass an Anti-Jerk Law to protect workers from these jerky employers? Like existing employment discrimination laws, the Anti-Jerk Law would allow aggrieved employees to sue their employer for jerkiness – and received handsome compensation if they prove their charge in a court of law. I doubt many people would endorse this Anti-Jerk Law. On what basis, though, would they object?
Author: Bryan Caplan
Bryan Caplan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center. He is the author of The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, named “the best political book of the year” by the New York Times, and Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think. He has published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the American Economic Review, the Economic Journal, the Journal of Law and Economics, and Intelligence, and has appeared on 20/20, FoxNews, and C-SPAN.
Wretched Refuse? vs. Ominous Speculation
An army of immigration skeptics warn that mass immigration paves the road to socialism and tyranny. When they express these fears, they almost always find a receptive audience. Even thinkers inclined to favor immigration often get cold feet when they visualize the new arrivals’ broader political effects.
“Politically Motivated”
During the Euromaidan protests, journalists routinely described Ukraine’s prosecution and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko as “politically motivated.” The phrasing always struck me as odd. If she were innocent, you’d expect journalists to call the charges “trumped-up” or “false.” And this “politically motivated” meme is still going strong.* Which raises a general question: When people dismiss […]
The post “Politically Motivated” appeared first on Econlib.
Being Normal
I’ve always been weird, but at this point in my life I feel like I understand non-weird people quite well. If you’re still baffled, my weird friends, one simple principle captures most of what you need to know.
Impasse
I’ve spent over 30 years arguing about ideas. During those decades, I’ve learned a lot. I’ve changed my mind. I’ve changed minds. Normally, however, arguing about ideas is fruitless. Tempers fray. Discussion goes in circles. Each and every mental corruption that Philip Tetlock has explored rears its ugly epistemic head. You even lose friends.
Don’t Pickpocket Your Students
Imagine you’re a professor somewhere. You here rumors of the creation of a new Office of Student Property Security. “Whatever,” you think. Yet before long, you’re summoned to a brand-new mandatory training session run by certified officers of Student Property Security. At this session (in-person back in the old days; now Zoom of course), they give you a tortoise-paced 90-minute Powerpoint presentation on the student property crisis and the appropriate faculty response. And the whole spiel can be readily summarized in a single commandment: “Don’t pickpocket your students.” To me, such a training session would be insulting, pointless, and unhinged.
The Wrong Pieces on the Chessboard
Inspired by a few recent posts, several friends have asked me if I’ve finally “woken up” to the great political threat of wokism. In particular, they’re hoping that I’m ready to at least back the American right as the clear lesser of two evils. I fear my response is: It’s complicated. From a global point […]
The post The Wrong Pieces on the Chessboard appeared first on Econlib.
The Freedom to Do What Sounds Wrong
Friends of freedom routinely defend the right to do wrong. “If you’re only free to do good things, what freedom do you really have?” Yet on reflection, this sorely underrates the value of freedom. Yes, the freedom to do bad things is important. Much more important, though, is the freedom to do good things that sound bad.
Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine
The fact that many people refuse to do what works is a flimsy reason to humor them. And it is a terrible reason to endorse clear-cut errors like, “They just can’t do it.”
Orwellian Othering
As far as I know, intolerant, thin-skinned, anti-intellectual educators have been around for… well, forever. What has changed is the Orwellian nature of their reaction to dissent.