An Intellectual Discussion of Sexual Harassment with Richard Epstein

Each week, the list of celebrities accused of sexual assault seems to grow longer. Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, and now Harvey Weinstein are just a few of the mighty who have fallen from grace. But while none of these three men has yet to be officially convicted of a crime, the market's retribution has been swift. O'Reilly lost his show, Weinstein lost his job, and Cosby lost his reputation as the benign, sweater-wearing father figure that America so loved. On college campuses, criminal proceedings are being jettisoned (for different reasons) in favor of Title IX discrimination hearings, which lower the standard for guilt to a "preponderance of evidence." Reason Magazine's Robby Soave has documented numerous instances in which campus tribunals have functioned as kangaroo courts – ruining the lives of innocent men and women under the banner of civil rights.

Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.

Easy Dishes ToMake For Your50th BirthdayDinner Party (12).png

Subscribe

Download the show on iTunes or Stitcher

Mark Lutter on Proprietary Cities

The George Mason University economics department is known for developing new ideas into influential ideas. The Virginia-based bastion of free market thought has been producing groundbreaking scholarly work for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. Last month, GMU PhD Candidate Mark Lutter defended his thesis, “Three Essays on Proprietary Cities.” His committee included Donald Boudreaux, Tyler Cowen, and Richard Wagner. Lutter’s academic interest in proprietary, or free cities is part of a trend among scholars and thought leaders studying the incentives that drive government decision-makers. If politicians respond to rewards and punishments just like you and I do, shouldn’t we consider giving them a larger stake in the profits and losses of the underlying jurisdiction? A proprietary city, Lutter argues, could achieve this, with tremendous benefits for both the developing and the developed world. He makes a convincing case on his blog, FreeCitiesInitiative.com, and joins Bob to defend the idea that the time for free cities has come. 

Dr. Jeffrey Singer on Gary Johnson vs. The Lesser of Two Evils

With just three months to the general election, voters must now come to grips with the grim reality of their choice between the major parties’ presidential candidates. Naturally, the conversations around the “lesser of two evils” have begun, along with the ensuing mental gymnastics by those looking to justify their preference for either Trump or Clinton. There may be a silver lining, however. While former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson may not be the political savior many are hoping for, he is getting a hearing from a large swath of the electorate who otherwise would never have considered backing a third party candidate – let alone a libertarian. Jeff Singer, a general surgeon and libertarian from Arizona, has voted for the lesser of two evils for most of his life – but now he's had enough, and is casting his lot in with Johnson. Is it true that a vote for Johnson is a throwaway, or that it makes a victory of the greater of two evils more likely? Bob and Jeff spend the hour on the intricate question of how one can still vote smart, and on principle, in the unusual times we find ourselves in.