Listen Now

Last week I reported on a huge victory for state-based liberty in Arizona, where Governor Doug Ducey recently signed into law a bill that makes school choice available to all K-12 students in the Grand Canyon State. HB 2853 made universal an earlier “Empowerment Scholarship Account” program that grants parents a choice over where Arizona’s tax dollars are spent for their kids’ schooling. Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, touts the reform as the gold standard model for the rest of the country, and other states are sure to follow suit once politicians realize how overwhelmingly popular school choice has become with parents. The popularity of school choice has been steadily rising but reached a tipping point in Arizona during COVID-19, when parents could see firsthand the extent of indoctrination taking place in virtual public school classrooms. In the end, it would seem that teacher’s unions’ insistence on extended remote learning has backfired dramatically, as the parent-led revolution in taking back control over education continues. Beienburg joins the show this Sunday to discuss the Goldwater Institute’s role in crafting the original ESA legislation that empowered particularly disadvantaged students to opt out of failing public schools. He will also answer some of the many objections to school choice trotted out by the left to insulate the government from competition in the arena of education.

My listeners know that I am an optimist, despite all of the doom-and-gloom type stories we read daily. This week, there has been more bad news – as usual. Two pieces from the American Institute for Economic Research especially caught my eye: one about the Fed’s recent interest rate hikes, and another about attempts to combat climate change through “de-growth” (read: coercion and green energy handouts). Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Economic Research seems to be defining down the definition of a recession to exclude the past two months of consecutive negative growth. However, there is always good news to find if you just know where to look. Reason #1: There is Still Freedom in the 50 States The biggest reason I find to be optimistic this week comes from a Cato Institute project led by AIER President and Cato research fellow William Ruger as well as Jason Sorens. Ruger and Sorens are the authors of the “Freedom in the 50 States” report, which gives an annual assessment of which states are increasing and decreasing in the rankings of a broad index of liberties. They both will join my show for the first time to discuss how the index weighs different broad categories of freedom – from regulatory, to financial to personal – as well as specific freedoms that vary in importance for different people. Of course, there are many people who would be happy to live in a state that restricts other people’s liberty, while their own cherished freedoms are left untouched. But which states guarantee liberty for all? Find out this Sunday on the show of ideas what separates the #freestates from the unfree.

This Sunday, I’m happy to welcome F.H. Buckley back to the show to discuss his newest book, Progressive Conservatism: How Republicans Will Become America's Natural Governing Party. Progressive conservatism sounds like an oxymoron – a bit like an exact estimate, jumbo shrimp, or a dull roar. Buckley, however, argues that progressive conservatism is not only a meaningful political label, but that it has a rich history – both in America and around the world. A former speech writer for President Trump, Buckley believes that Trump voters will still determine the future of the Republican Party, even though Trump has disgraced himself.

You’ve heard of legally blind, and even legally blonde, but what about legally white? GMU Law Professor and Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein explores “the borderlands of legal whiteness” in his new book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. Fellow conspiracist and Prof. Randy Barnett has already included it in the syllabus for his upcoming Georgetown Law seminar, Recent Books on the Constitution. Bernstein joins to discuss the many contradictions involved in the government’s attempt to put clear labels on complex categories. Should Hispanics of Spanish descent be considered minorities, or European whites? Why are Asians discriminated against in college admissions – especially given the incredible range of geographies, cultures, and socio-economic statuses contained within that broad designation? What will the Supreme Court decide in the pending suit against Harvard and the University of North Carolina brought by the “Students for Fair Admissions” group? Tune in every Sunday morning on AM radio, or streaming online Having had a sneak preview of the book, I can tell you that it is a must-read for Constitutional Law buffs, and anyone interested in American legal history.

Joe Biden’s gaffes are usually unplanned slips of the tongue – not pre-meditated social media posts that presumably received approval from staffers prior to publication. However, his recent Tweet demanding that gas stations lower their prices to alleviate the “pain at the pump” is far more embarrassing than his accidental public speaking fumbles. Even Jeff Bezos had to correct the President for his ignorance of basic economics, which combined blatant scapegoating with a denial of the universal laws of supply and demand. However, in a nation where the vast majority of citizens have likely never taken an undergraduate economics course, can Biden be blamed for engaging in such classic political opportunism? Perhaps we can channel former President Barack Obama in considering this a “teachable moment.” Or as Rahm Emmanuel once said, we should never let a good crisis go to waste. I’m delighted to welcome Professor Emeritus ****Steven E. Rhoads to the show to discuss the new and substantially revised 35th anniversary edition of his best-selling book, *[The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being](https://amazon.com/Economists-View-World-Quest-Well-Being/dp/1108845940).* Rhoads wrote the book as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia (home of the Public Choice economics), and was surprised when the original edition skyrocketed to the tops of best-seller lists and made economic principles accessible to millions who would have otherwise believed the fallacies embedded in Biden’s tweet. David Henderson – editor of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics – calls it “A Wide-Ranging Book for Non-Economists and Economists" alike, and the WSJ named it one of the best books of 2021. Steven E. Rhoads and I attempted to distill an entire semester’s worth of economic thinking into a full hour. Don’t miss it.

I originally invited Clark Neily to join me to discuss his essay on what libertarians should think about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to make everyone happy with a discussion of such a controversial issue. And yet Clark and his co-essayist Jay Schweikert do an excellent job threading the needle on what they call “the hard problem of abortion.” They write: Libertarianism tolerates a wide range of views on the policy question of abortion access But the policy question is only the beginning. The Constitutional question is what was taken up recently by the Supreme Court, and while the outcome may be disappointing to those who support abortion as a policy matter, Clark and Schweikert note that “there are still many valid grounds to criticize how the Court has constitutionalized abortion rights in particular.” What makes abortion different from other “unenumerated rights” discovered by the court in the modern era, like contraception, parental rights over their child’s education, or the right to privacy in the bedroom? The *Dobbs* decision reconsiders *Roes* classification of abortion among these rights, and holds that question of individual liberty is not so straightforward where unborn life is concerned. To be sure, we got to these delicate questions, but we also talked about an area where the Court has refused to reconsider a prior decision that appears to be in error. The doctrine of qualified immunity, which the Cato Institute characterizes as an “Unlawful Shield,” protects prosecutors, police officers and other government officials from civil liability. While pundits endlessly argue about the legal reasoning *Roe*, Clark and I will be talking about the 1982 case of *Harlow v. Fitzgerald*, in which the Supreme Court made it harder to prosecute violations of individual rights perpetrated by members of the protected class known as government employees. Although I covered the topic in 2020, and Clark has been continuing the fight to “#AbolishQI,” it still doesn't get nearly enough attention.

“The bonds will be paid by Disney. They will be paying taxes, probably more taxes. They will follow the laws that every other person has to do, and they will no longer have the ability to run their own government.” – Governor Ron DeSantis, at a Fox News town hall (April 28) The story of how the Disney Corporation came to have the unique ability to run their own government on a swampy tract of land in Central Florida is documented in Richard Foglesong’s remarkable book, Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando. Foglesong, a retired Professor of Politics at Rollins College, has become a sought-after commentator in the wake of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s move to revoke the special privileges granted to Disney over 50 years ago. The proximate cause? Disney’s vocal opposition to Florida’s new “Parental Rights in Education” law (HB 1557) – sometimes called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Some argue that DeSantis is just leveling the playing field, and finally treating all corporations the same, but given his status as a rising star in the Republican Party – known for being pro-growth – one might ask why DeSantis isn’t instead moving to give more legal autonomy to neighboring theme park resorts like Universal Studios, rather than put an end to one of the most successful experiments in private governance ever to be attempted? Hong Kong is often cited as the greatest growth miracle of the 20th century – demonstrating the power of legal autonomy and the free enterprise system to supercharge a city’s economic engine. Free market Hong Kong outperformed communist China so spectacularly that the Communist Party had to effectively admit defeat and copy the free-market model in establishing its Special Economic Zones throughout the country. And yet Walt Disney World in Orland Florida may be an even better poster child for charter cities – a truly Magical Kingdom, that continues to produce growth and prosperity for the surrounding region. The population of Orange County, Florida, doubled in less than thirty years at the behest of Disney executives and the business-friendly government based in Orlando. The secret sauce behind this sensational growth was the agreement to structure the theme park development as a “special district” that effectively granted the Disney Corporation complete autonomy to build the infrastructure according to its own vision and needs. Unlike Disneyland in Anaheim, California, Disney World was birthed as an autonomous city within the state of Florida – free to build out Walt Disney’s vision for the cities of the future. Why would DeSantis be inclined to break up a marriage that by all appearances has been a wildly successful one? To understand this, we must consult Foglesong and his book, which analyzes the 55-year experiment through the lens of the marriage analogy, complete with successive stages of “serendipity", “seduction,” “secrecy,” “marriage,” “growth,” “conflict,” “abuse,” “negotiation,” and finally, therapy. Today, Disney World’s special district status is at risk, since Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have moved to terminate the district in June of 2023. Foglesong, who knows the history of the marriage between Disney and Florida government better than anyone, is a trusted commentator on the looming “divorce.” He joined the show of ideas to discuss the implications of the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Special District, and what we can learn about urban growth and the politics of charter cities from the rich story he tells in his book. We also discussed the tension between the ideals of free enterprise touted by Walt Disney, and the centralized administration of the theme park and surrounding community. Finally, we discussed the question of democracy in the context of an autonomous city, where a single corporation wishes to make political decisions efficiently and unilaterally. Richard Foglesong reports in his remarkable book Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando that the population of Orange County, Florida, doubled in less than thirty years at the behest of Disney executives and the business-friendly government based in Orlando. The secret sauce behind this sensational growth was the agreement to structure the theme park development as a “special district” that effectively granted the Disney Corporation complete autonomy to build the infrastructure according to its own vision and needs. Unlike Disney Land in Anaheim, California, Disney World was birthed as an autonomous city within the state of Florida – free to build out Walt Disney’s vision for the cities of the future. Today, Disney World’s special district status is at risk, since Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have moved to terminate the district in June of 2023. Foglesong, who knows the history of the marriage between Disney and Florida government better than anyone, is a trusted commentator on the looming “divorce.” He joined the show of ideas to discuss the implications of the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Special District, and what we can learn about urban growth and the politics of charter cities from the rich story he tells in his book. We also discussed the tension between the ideals of free enterprise touted by Walt Disney, and the centralized administration of the theme park and surrounding community. Finally, we discussed the question of democracy

Abusive Fines and Fees by TheBobZadekShow

Back in February, frustrated San Francisco parents voted to recall three school board members for spending more time renaming schools than planning their post-pandemic re-opening. Among the school names being “canceled” were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John Muir, and even Dianne Feinstein – found guilty of exploitation and oppression. The pervasiveness of so-called critical race theory in school curriculums is not brand new, although it appears that remote learning during COVID caused many parents to start paying attention and to express their disapproval at the ballot box. The recall was a strong sign, like the ousting of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, that most Americans still believe that schools should be in the education business, not the indoctrination industry. The term critical race theory has been thrown around a lot in the conversations surrounding the appropriate way to teach American history. Oddly, the proponents and defenders of critical race theory seem afraid to admit that it is already being taught in many places (as if they had a guilty conscience), while its detractors often seem confused about what they are opposing. Thus, Heritage Foundation fellow Jonathan Butcher has done the American public a great service with his new book, Splintered: Critical Race Theory and the Progressive War on Truth. The book charts the evolution of the idea in understandable terms, from its Marxian roots in academia, through the law schools, and now trickling down into grade schools across the country. Forget the universities – they’re too far gone. But can we still save elementary school kids from being lectured about privilege, while minority students are taught that they can’t advance because of system racism in the United States? Butcher’s book is a powerful antidote to the ignorance on both sides of the issue. If we are to preserve America’s founding ideals, parents and policymakers must read and understand the ideas they are protesting. Butcher and I discussed the main points from his book. Be sure to subscribe to the mailing list for a condensed summary of the book, plus show highlights and announcements.

The sun has set on the Golden Era of Tobacco, much like the bygone Golden Era of Hollywood. Perhaps once movie stars stopped smoking cigarettes on the Silver Screen, audiences found the activity less glamorous. Or perhaps the dramatic decline in smoking rates was a more rational response by consumers and celebrities alike to new information about the dangers of tobacco products. However, the regulators at the FDA are not content with people’s free and informed choices. They have moved to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, along with many flavored “vape” cartridges, in the name of public health and (of course) protecting the children. [Guy Bentley](http://twitter.com/gbentley1), Director of Consumer Freedom Research at the Reason Foundation, has been the “Voice of Reason” in multiple respects on this issue, calmly and rationally pointing out the facts that regulators have ignored, such as… - E-cigarettes have helped countless adults quit smoking. - Vaping is far less dangerous than traditional cigarette smoking. - Menthol bans will disproportionately affect African Americans. And last, but not least, the continuation of failed prohibition policies — this time applied to cigarettes instead of alcohol or drugs — creates yet more victimless crimes and empowers law enforcement to abuse their power in new and creative ways. Remember the cautionary tale of Eric Garner, detained and ultimately suffocated to death by a policeman for selling “loosies” outside a corner store? Bentley reminds us of this, and other flaws with the seemingly “liberal” policy of protecting people from themselves. Guy joined me to review the evidence on relative harms to adults and children of various nicotine and tobacco products, and put the proposed FDA rule in its proper historical and modern context.

We’ve been hearing about the end of globalization for the better part of the last decade, and yet rumors of its demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated. The latest calls for American energy independence and re-shoring manufacturing are part of this broader trend, which seeks to insulate the domestic economy from turmoil in faraway regions. COVID-19 also brought the idea of “industrial policy” back to the forefront. While it’s hard to pin down an exact definition, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute relates some key features behind the misguided notion that the government must steer critical industries for reasons of national importance. Whether we’re talking about steel, oil, or semi-conductors, the proponents of a robust industrial policy argue that we’ve become too reliant on our potential foes for strategic resources, and must set national production goals through legislation rather than impartial market forces. This can range from Soviet-style central planning (which led to the ultimate collapse of the USSR), to the use of trade barriers, tax incentives and subsidies - i.e., “picking winners and losers.” Even with the latter approach, Lincicome points out many flaws in modern American industrial policy. In a recent Cato white paper, Questioning Industrial Policy, he highlights the inefficiencies brought about by injecting politics into the market’s discovery process, and notes how most recent attempts to “improve” the outcomes of global competition have tended to hinder even our vital domestic industries. Scott joined me to break down the report, and make the case for embracing globalization and free trade in the 21st century rather than hunkering down in our domestic silo. Check out Scott’s excellent newsletter “Capitolism” at the Dispatch.

Politico’s publication of a leaked draft of the Dobbs decision has turned the Internet upside-down, with rampant speculation about who the leaker was, whether the decision is final, and what will happen next if early-term abortion once again becomes a policy issue for states to decide rather than a right upheld by the Supreme Court. I find the details of the leak uninteresting (except insofar as it impacts the legitimacy of the court). I am much more interested in how the five Justices voting in the majority arrived at their tentative opinion. Evan Bernick, a law professor at North Illinois University’s College of Law, is an expert on Originalism the judicial philosophy on which the Dobbs decision is ostensibly based. Bernick joined me to dissent from this assumption. Instead, he argues, Alito’s decision stems from a judicial philosophy that seeks to “stop the Court from recognizing unenumerated rights.” Bernick believes in a more activistic judiciary when it comes to defending individual rights, as we discussed [the last time he was on my show. We discussed the constitutional considerations behind both the Roe decision and the *Dobbs* reversal of an almost 50-year-old precedent. I’ll also ask Evan how the policy issue is likely to play out in the states, with progressive states becoming destinations for women seeking abortions. Follow Evan on Twitter, and check out his book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, co-authored with Randy Barnett.

What do competitive markets have to do with truth? Ask a philosopher and you might get one answer. Ask an economist and you will get another. Ask an economist with a philosophical grounding, and you get Art Carden’s fantastic piece, The Misuse of Knowledge in Society: Intervention Means Prices are Lying. Carden is a senior fellow with [the American Institute for Economic Research. He joined the show to discuss the article that caught my eye on AIER.org, which is one of the best explanations I’ve ever read of the price mechanism of free markets. What happens when we stop the price system of competitive markets from working? In a word, untruth. It’s why price-gouging laws always fail, and increase human misery. A price control, Carden says, is a kind of institutionalized lie. Just because the government says it’s so, doesn’t mean that the underlying scarcity of the good has been altered. You don’t have to be either a philosopher or an economist to understand the importance of having reliable information when making decisions. Hear Carden’s accessible explanation of the complex topic of price theory only on the Show of Ideas, not attitude.

Hoover Senior Fellow and host of the Defining Ideas podcast “The Libertarian” , Richard Epstein returns to the program to discuss a new case making it’s way to the Supreme Court: This past week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in an important case that could determine the structure of American interstate markets for years to come. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross involves a constitutional challenge to Proposition 12, a 2018 California referendum that requires all pork products sold in the state be prepared in facilities meeting California standards of animal health and safety, no matter where they are raised. As the plaintiffs explain in their brief, virtually all of the pork products (some 99.8 percent) sold in California come from out of state. On the flip-side, California represents 13 percent of the national consumer market for pork products. In its unique and inverted version of federalism, California seems to always find a way to impose its own strict regulations on the rest of the country—using its economic might to foist “progressive values” on other states. Can California legislate outside its own borders? Well, it’s complicated. As usual, when I’m faced with a complex hybrid legal/economic questions, I turn to the Libertarian himself. And as usual, we will try to pack a semester’s worth of economics into an hour of radio. Epstein holds positions as a law professor at NYU, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and Senior fellowship at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

“Science,” it has been said, “advances one funeral at a time.” In other words, what was once heterodox only became accepted as orthodox truth when the defenders of the old paradigm died off, or could no longer maintain their position of authority in the face of clear new evidence. Dr. Jeffrey Singer – senior fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor to Reason Magazine – has been my go-to guest on topics of medical science since well before the pandemic. His latest article in the May 2022 edition of Reason takes on a set of philosophical questions about the nature of scientific truth, and how we arrive at it. In it, Singer contrasts what he calls the “Priesthood” acting as gatekeepers of information, with the sole authority to decide which experts can be heard. Using examples from the pandemic, such as the silencing and smearing of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Singer points out how often the “official” narrative has been proven wrong by subsequent studies, such as those confirming that in fact lockdowns did little to slow the spread. Now, the California Assembly is debating a bill that would threaten doctors with the loss of their license for offering any medical advice that is considered contrary to official CDC guidelines regarding vaccination. As epidemiologist and noted COVID expert Jay Bhattacharya notes, the law would essentially take away a physician's ability to offer individualized care to their patients, who may have valid reasons (like prior immunity or other conditions) for not getting the vaccine. It appears that politics has infected our public discourse around science. Someone call the doctor! The Doctor for Liberty, that is. Singer joined me to separate the real experts from the phony high priests of the public health establishment.

America’s high prison incarceration rates are known around the world – an embarrassment for an alleged beacon of liberty. Yet few realize that we have another problem associated with our jails. Those charged with a crime are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but our bail system disproportionately punishes the poor and reverses the formula – making them guilty until proven innocent. I have previously covered the civil liberties issues associated with cash bail back in 2018, and how a wave of states was starting to test out alternatives. Since then, New York has joined that wave — eliminating their bail system for pre-trial offenders who are not deemed high risk. This is great news: other states have proven that it works to reduce jail populations and ensure that people who do not belong behind bars are released prior to trial. But just when I thought it was time to celebrate, Reason Magazine’s Joe Lancaster informs me that these reforms are in jeopardy. New York Governor Kathy Hochul is working behind the scenes to roll back the reforms – expanding the number of crimes eligible for bail, against the findings of a new report that shows the change in the law is working as intended. Joe Lancaster, an assistant editor at Reason, joined me to break down the findings of the report, and the status of other state-based bail reforms.

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, a pseudonymous writer who called himself “Junius” came under scrutiny for his letters protesting the abuses by the Crown against his fellow Englishmen. Professor Jeff Kosseff recounts the myriad motivations Junius had for remaining anonymous (his identity is still not known to this day) in his new book The United States of Anonymous. From there, Kosseff explores “how the right to anonymity has shaped American values, politics, business, security, and discourse, particularly as technology has enabled people to separate their identities from their communications.” Who are the Junius’s today whose anonymity requires protection? Jeff Kosseff is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy. He is the author of Cybersecurity Law (Wiley), the first comprehensive textbook on U.S. cybersecurity laws and regulations, and in Spring 2019 he published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (Cornell University Press), a nonfiction narrative history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Jeff has practiced cybersecurity and privacy law, and clerked for Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Michigan. Before becoming a lawyer, he was a journalist for The Oregonian and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.

“This will only be the beginning.” Those six ominous words are not what many Americans will want to hear when it comes to the increased prices they’ve been paying for everyday purchases. Whenever I want to break the bad news to my audience about the state of out-of-control spending or inflation in the United States, I turn to my friend Jonathan Bydlak. Jonathan is director of the Governance program at the R Street Institute, and the creator of SpendingTracker.org – the first ever real-time spending site that tracks the fiscal records of Members of Congress. If you’re looking for a hard dose of reality, follow Jonathan on Twitter – @JBydlak – and find out how much your representatives vote for in spending each year: Then, give his latest essay for The Spectator a read, on the topic of what’s likely to result from our sanctions against Russia. Who’s really behind rising gas prices? Moscow or Washington D.C.? I continued my on-going, in-depth coverage of the Russia–Ukraine conflict with insights you won’t find anywhere else, as Jonathan Bydlak joined me for the full hour.

The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, joined the show to discuss his new book, Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation. The book comes as a sequel to his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. Astute listeners will notice an uncanny similarity between both book covers and my own book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again. Both books broadly make a case for states to take back powers from the federal government. But where my book emphasized the virtues of experimentation at the policy level, Sutton’s books inspect the balance of powers between federal and state judiciaries. The cover of his book, arranging the outlines of each state under the capitol rotunda, foreshadows his argument that federal courts have assumed too much power to decide what count as constitutional rights. While this may sound like a classic argument for judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches, Sutton defends a more “activistic” approach to judging at the state level. He points out that the true precedent for judicial review was not Marbury v. Madison, as we all learned in high school civics, but in the many cases preceding it in the states that established the judiciary’s role in deciding which law should apply: the “higher” law of the state constitution, or the laws passed by the legislature. Today, as the Supreme Court increasingly weighs in on partisan topics like vaccine mandates, it’s especially important that we frame the issue correctly: it’s not a question of how we or the judges feel personally about the outcome, but about who decides.

[@JustinTLogan](https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan) joined on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We will have the latest updates and analysis that you won’t get on cable news – with the depth you can’t find on Twitter or social media. [**Listen Live →**](https://860amtheanswer.com/) Logan says, “the US military cannot — and will not — come to Ukraine’s aid.” Is there any role for western intervention? What should we make of the apparent bullying by Putin’s Russia. As usual, restraint and insight are rare commodities. I hope we can go deeper than the superficial narratives and media coverage thus far. [Follow Justin’s articles and other appearances at Cato.org](https://www.cato.org/people/justin-logan)**.**