Podcast appearances and mentions of Laurence A Tisch

Richard Epstein is our returning guest. Richard is an American legal scholar known for his writings on torts, contracts, property rights, law and economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism. He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution In this episode we talked about: Richard's View on Lockdown Moratoriums on Evictions Policy Responses to Covid Pandemic Check here the previous show with Richard: https://workingcapitalpodcast.com/the-impact-of-rent-control-and-eviction-moratoriums-with-richard-epsteinep52/ Transcriptions: Speaker 1 (0s): Low everybody. Okay. So this week, and next we're going to do something a little bit different and we're having on returning guests, Richard a Epstein. If you saw his old episode, we talked quite a bit of boat, eviction, moratoriums, and a bit of a history of rent control. And I thought this week, and next we would talk a little bit more about the actual pandemic and COVID-19 in general, talk a little bit about its impact vaccine mandates and kind of the political landscape in Canada and the U S so I thought Richard would be a perfect guest for that. He's practiced law for over 40 years. He's a legal scholar, and I believe still working with the Hoover Institute and New York university. So without further ado, check this episode out. And I should just note, if you liked this episode, feel free to go to working capital podcast.com. You can also download our financial model at that address. Okay. Check it out. All right, ladies and gentlemen, my name's Jess for galleon, you're listening to working capital. We have a returning guest on the show. Richard Epstein. Richard is an American legal scholar known for his works on contracts, property rights, law, and economics towards classical liberalism and more. He is the Lawrence eight-ish professor of law and director of the classical liberal Institute at NYU and Peter and Kirsten Bedford senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. Richard. Good to have you back. How are you doing, Speaker 2 (1m 27s): Thank you. I'm in given the set of the circumstances in the larger world. Speaker 1 (1m 31s): Yeah, it is a, a lot has happened since we last spoke. We currently in, in the city of Toronto are back in a modified lockdown, which fingers crossed is going to be something that opens up on the 26th. I think today we had teachers going back to school, but then it was a snow day. So can't get more Canadian than that. Speaker 2 (1m 50s): Well, snow is no surprise. Look, the, the good news is, and this is a result largely and natural forces is one of the rules about viruses is what goes up, must come down. And it turns out the Alma chronic virus now seems to be on its downward slope a little bit earlier than some people expected. My view about this, is that the way in which we have handled the entire COVID situation? It means we're not talking about pandemics that in cleanly, we're talking about cyclical arrangements or endemics, and it's just going to be very difficult to predict aid the length of the cycle, be this intensity of the cycle and three, the severity of the disease that comes with the intensity of the cycle. And so, I mean, if we are going to continue to have a kind of a lockdown mode mentality as the first alternative, it's likely we will be continuing to face this with COVID for the indefinite future. I mean, the notion that people had when they postponed their admissions to college or to law school in 2020, we'll be out of this by 2021, nobody postpones today because they think they're going to be out of it next year, or what's also happened. And I think quite justifiably is nobody has any competence whatsoever in today's experts who believe in only the science and all the science that nobody seems to think that that's true, or if it is true, then science is very, very bad. So there's going to be an increasing level of popular discontent that's likely to spill over. And I know in the United States, one of the things that will lead the Democrats into serious difficulties was that Joe Biden overclaim when he says, I know the cure to cancer at the cancer at the COVID and made the silliest recommendation imaginable where a mask outside, where they don't do any good for a hundred days, and this thing will stop. Nobody's going to believe that. And when you overclaim and under produce, your credibility is shot not only in the field that you bungle, but everywhere throughout. So the COVID performance ratios will influence not only the COVID issues, but the general coloration of the political economy. Speaker 1 (3m 51s): So on that point, I think when we last spoke, we talked a little bit about the history of rent stabilization. We talked a bit about how the COVID policies affected the real estate development community as a result of the moratoriums on, on evictions. How do you see from the, you know, the time we last spoke to the cases that have now come forward in, in your Supreme court with, with mandates, how have you seen this thing evolve from when we last spoke to now with this latest variant kind of coming through both the states and Canada? Well, Speaker 2 (4m 25s): It turns out there's a twofold issues are that you have to contend with one, there are the various sort of legal arguments associated chiefly with administrative and constitutional, or that people bring to bear in the discussions about the COVID mandates talking largely in terms that are independent of the substantive merits of the program. And then there's the other way where it says, let me just look at this vaccine, let me look at the underlying disease. Let me look at the available treatments and so forth, which take a much more medicalized view or the way in which it's commonly dealt with. And it was the way it was dealt with in the Supreme court is they did it in the first way. They were straight administrative lawyers. And with respect to the grand mandate, what they discovered was that the key issue was what sort of presumptions do you set in favor of or against government action, or there was an interesting conflict of authority with respect to this mandate. The general rule with respect to ocean mandates is there's a lot of administrative deference for, but the general rule with respect to these emergency situations that apply only in grave times is that the presumption is set against them in the two decisions down below in the fifth and the sixth circuit, one of them is centered in Texas, the other and Ohio, the fifth circuit basically said, oh, this is the narrow COVID emergency problem. The presumptions are against you. You lose, you get up to the sixth circuit and they say, oh, this is a general administrative law problem. The presumptions of seven, your favor, you win. When it got to the Supreme court, what they essentially did, they decided to stay with the skeptics on this issue. So they required very strong proof on this particular issue. And what they then found is that for something which was of this importance, it could not be done by an administrative fee that it required something that looked more like congressional authorization. Now notice when I said that, I did not tell you whether the COVID thing was a good or a bad or in different ideally a mile understanding about most academic lawyers is that they are extremely skiddish in dealing with the underlying science. And so what they do is they tend to move their cases sharply in the other direction. I'm not a constitutional lawyer by initial training. I was changed in the English system. I started off as an Oxford lawyer and my torts casebook was actually prepared by a Canadian law professor named sessile, right? So I mean, it wasn't as though I was a stranger to all of this. And so we tend to not to start with administrative law. We started with Commonwealth when I came back to the United States. What I discovered quickly is that while the paradigmatic towards case of 1964 was one that involved an automobile collision at an intersection, you had to figure out who had the right of way. You can see what the rise of product liability law. We are now painting on a much wider canvas. We had starting to talk about medical injuries associated with Des and similar quantities. And I was told by some very smart lawyers, they said, young man. And I was young at the time. They said, if you want to understand how to defend or deal with any one of these cases, you must master the science. Now they didn't say you had to do the signs because you can't do that. But they said, it's like punching in the air. If you don't know what's going on. If you're talking about Des you're talking about asbestos and so forth, and I basically drank the Kool-Aid, I had a reasonably good, not spectacular science background. And so I've always made it a point to start in the opposite direction. And so I keep up regularly on that literature. I do it with respect to global warming. I do it with respect to the various kinds of health conditions of which COVID is only one. And at that particular point, you start thinking about this case, Jesse, in a very different way, you say, well, the first thing you want to know is what's the upside and the downside with respect to the various kinds of programs and the insight that I started with a long time ago in which I made a spectacularly wrong prediction under a thoroughly, right analysis, was that you look at this stuff and you start with 1918 and the Spanish flu, it killed 675,000 people, usually in a one day spurt. And then you always ask people, how long did this last? And do you know how long it lasts? I bet you, it was nine weeks, nine weeks, nine weeks. And virtually everybody who died was in the prime of life. And they died ultimately of pneumonia because of what they call a cytokine rush, which is healthy. B people, seeing the virus try to set out the killer fluids, do it. And what they did is they drowned. You might literally, and we know much more about it today. We could a control for these things, but virtually the entire new movement is completely different from the old one. This is something that affects people who are relatively old with serious comorbidities and anybody under 60 has only a meniscal chance of dying, unless they also have some very serious kind of comorbidity. So it's a completely different kind of profile. And so what you kind of guessed it, looking at this sort of thing is if you sort of let it run, its course, it would go up and it would come down Shaw. But since it didn't have the potency associated with the Spanish flu or the death rates would be very much slow, then that's the way I thought about it. I looked in the New York times and I looked also with respect to the Imperial college situation. And they have the following projections that they set up by the media, by July 15th, 2020, we will have 10 million active COVID cases in the United States and a similar proportion in Canada and in great Britain. And if you talk that the chart, it said as of July 1st, it would be relatively modest. And I said to myself, this has to be crazy because of everybody knows that this isn't just going to come at that particular level and they're going to take precautions much earlier on and they will be holy without regard to government action. A lot of the adaptive behavior. There's no point in engaging in strategic games. The bluff of your own life is at stake. And what you saw on March 9th, the day before this thing, and you know, everyone, transportation was down by 78%. Now people are taking all sorts of strange. I had that patients when they went to restaurants, this bumps and all the rest of that stuff. And you realize that these adaptions were going to take place. The government comes in and makes it more dramatic. But the projections that you actually had was the first peak that not come on, July 15th, 2020, it came on April 9th or 10th in 2020. And it was follower than anything that anybody had predicted what the predictions were extremely dangerous at that high level, because people tried to gear up for something that was going to be just absolutely enormous. And so one of the things they did in New York city and several other major metropolitan areas, they said, we're going to have such an onslaught of people in the hospitals. We have to take people who are COVID positive and move them out. So they moved them back into nursing homes where they probably cause an extra 30,000 best simply because you took a very potent person and put them into an environment where there were a lot of variable honorable people. And what they then did is they opened up in New York city. The jab had sent the, you know, thousands of beds. The Trump administration sent a bunch of hospitals, ships, and none of it was ever used. Right? And all the people who made those projections 16 months later, essentially apologized for the fact that they were very, very wrong, but the interim damage had been done. And once you start to intervene, the natural cycle that you had in 1918 is not likely to continue. What you're going to do is when you create an artificial foreign team, you slow down herb immune. So I did some calculations. If you're curious, tell me if you're not well, it's 675,000 deaths. And that was essentially a two and a half percent death rate out of people who got the disease, which was putting it around 20 odd million people coming out of this stuff that doesn't get you to herb immune gossip, because you need to get the 60%. Well, we got there because it was a pretty rapid prop and some of my guests, and I'm not assigned this, but I am a structuralist is that there were a lot of asymptomatic transitions, which created an immunity, even though it didn't create a disease. And this is consistent with something you have to understand in dealing with COVID, which is you just don't talk about medians. You have to talk about the bearings. And that means in effect that disease like the deadly Spanish flu is relatively innocuous for say 95% of the population that gets it. There may be some people don't die, but get very sick and so forth. And the herd immunity took effect and it slows things down. We don't have her. So I remember waking up one day in about may or June. And I said, oh my God. So long as we protect a large portion of the population, it means that we're not going to get the herb immunity. And the next time a new variant comes along, it's going to have a highly vulnerable population because it turns out, and this is, I think a point that's been well-established, but systematically ignored is that natural immunities are extremely effective in terms of dealing with the condition of my friend, Jay bought the Charia who's collected and read all of these studies. I have not, you know, it says there's not a single identification of a breakthrough case in either direction. And nobody who has natural immunity has ever been seen to give the virus to anybody else. And nobody who has natural immunities has been seen to get the virus from anybody else. So you get a perfect wall. Well, at that point, what you want to do is when you start seeing natural immunities is you'll let them ride. But when I made my terrible predictions very low and then try to correct them, what everybody said is you have to understand that people who are asymptomatic and give you COVID. But again, the key thing to understand is the distribution. And so you have to do it in, let's just do it in discrete terms because the continuity's don't matter for the well, so now you have either very high resistant people or very low resistant people. Okay? And you have you the very powerful, very weak viruses. And so you start looking at the parents and if you have essentially a very high resistance rate, you can carry in you a very high dosage of stuff and not get sick. And then when you transfer that some to somebody who has a low resistance state, you can actually give them the disease, the question your then have to ask what's the probability of that happening, as opposed to the other distribution, which has people have ordinary levels, they get the week COVID stuff. And then they transfer the week COVID stuff, all of the people who condemn asymptomatic transplant at the high high to the low load person, that was probably 2% of the case. That means that 98% of the cases are doing what they did in 1918. I used spreading the immunity asymptomatic so that you come to a conclusion much more quickly. If you would ignore the second tab and only worry about the 2% you are going to ban the transfers. If you take the whole hundred percent of the distribution into account, you're not going to do that. What you'll try to do is isolate two kinds of specialized cases. If by some miracle you could figure out who is a very high resistant high transmitter type. You try to keep them out of circulation. And if you could certainly identify vulnerable populations, which you can, you try to keep them out of circulation. So they appointed a COVID test would not be the test that driver coming from Canada to the United States will reverse something. You mentioned happened to me before the show. It would be that you will not let the grandkids visit the grandmother. If it turns out that she was in the COVID vulnerable portion. And so you'd get private administration of the cases in an effort to enforce this policy. And I'm all in favor of that. But when we do it, the other way, what we say is we forget the probabilities. We forget the benefits side. So we systematically overregulate as far as I'm concerned. And I think that the folks who did the great Barrington declaration, Jay and one called door, what probably not, probably pretty surely write about all that stuff. Although interestingly enough, they didn't do the probabilistic analysis either. Right? What they did is they just said, this stuff generally works. And what I try to do, knowing a little bit about games, theory and so forth was to figure out why they were right. Not to figure out why they were wrong. And I think they are right with respect to their general conclusion, but then you get everybody up. So that's the first mistake they made. Second mistake is X. And they post, you can try to attack these things in two ways. One is you can try to stop it from happening until you can try and cure it after it happened. Right? And it turns out there's no dominant solution that is you're not going to do only one or only the other. You want to get the optimal mix. So what's the advantage of doing it. Soon. You can spare people. The illness what's the danger is you have wild over breath, because if you're talking about protecting 0.1% of the general population and so forth, you stop Miami. But the ex post situation says this. If you get sick, we're going to treat you. And the advantage of that is if you get it in time and know how to do the treatments, what you do is you have to now tackle 1% of the population instead of a hundred percent of the population you don't need to quarantine. You certainly don't want to give any medication to people whom you think is going to be asymptomatic. What slide, which means that virtually everybody under 40, probably 50 or even 60 doesn't get any kind of treatment except maybe some HCQ ivermectin and kind of stops it. The question you have to ask is safety. You have to ask effectiveness, okay, Jessie, on the safety stuff, it doesn't matter what you use a drug for both of these drugs have been out there for a very long time with billions of usages. There's a kind of an epic, epidemiological and FDA and drug type situation, which says the acid test for any drug is, do you give it to a pregnant woman? And the reason is during the first trimester of pregnancy, the rapid levels of cell differentiation can be easily interfered with, by some foreign substance resulting in something like the food over the mind flips, right? And it, both of these drugs have been recommended and found safe for women who are pregnant, chances are there's going to be no subgroup of the population for whom they're going to be especially vulnerable. And we don't have clinical studies of a hundred or 200 people. There have been hundreds of millions in the case of ivermectin billions upon applications, but which the safety has never been questioned. So what's the downside. Well, it turns out Mr. Fallacy, who I think is a terrible master on this particular study. He says, well, you may get some kind of hard complications, but he's talking about extremely low numbers, one in 10,000 or so for the relatively minor conditions. But the overall profile on the safety is long use establishes general say, well, what about effectiveness? And I'm here. I like the Pope Rhett Butler, frankly. My idea, I don't know, but I don't give a damn. And what do I mean by that? Well, let's suppose the thing is effective. What will happen is people will quickly use it. And when you measure effectiveness, it's a completely different inquiry from measuring safety, with safety. You're worried about, you know, that kind of, oh my God, this is going to take you from 0.1 to 1.4, 1.0 adverse effects. You make, take a drug off the market when you get things like that. But if you can sell a drug, that's going to have a 1% effectiveness and nobody's going to buy, I possibly going to buy a drug, which can take you from a 2% cure rate to a 3% cure rate. So the effectiveness stuff has to be much larger to make it worthwhile. And then when it's much larger, it's much more easily detectable, right? Because we have 40% rate you can do. So the key thing is to let this stuff out there and then to get essentially a quantitative assessment. Well, what did we do? Well, first we have the phony subjects that were done in Lancet, right? Edited. It should have been filed five because of the recklessness moves. You'd put his vote, but since he was anti-Trump, he was perfectly okay. And they had to retract that and they did. And then there was a Ford study in the news, and then the journal of medicine, they had to retract that because it turns out clinical studies are extremely difficult to do with viruses because essentially the theory of both ivermectin and HCQ is you have to catch it at a very early stage that prevent the things from breaking through. Once they broken through, it's useless to give the drug and it may have a slight negative effect. So if you don't get the right controls on this, you can't do it most critical studies. You know, people in a third degree, third stage cancers or something, you can begin everybody on April 15th and this drug, you have to do it on very different dates. And you have to have a physician who can record the accuracy. Well, this is extremely difficult to do through an organized clinical trial. And so what happens is people start to put together these various kinds of indices recording, all the cases that have come through my all sorts of people, this, by the way, in the United States and it's worldwide is the common way. Nobody trusts formal government warnings. They're too rigid, too stiff, too out of date. So they do is they form voluntary associations and they collect the information and then they organize it and update it and give you recommendations as to which drugs and what combinations at what sequence at what those images at what time. And self-worth in an effort to do that. And so what you need to do is to encourage that ex-post collection rather than to rely on clinical trials. And then it's also, if this is a game of trying to get advantages, you have to have a theory. And what happens is it turns out there is a general theory that says, zinc is a very powerful agent for doing this, but if you give it alone, it's not going to work. And so I have to do is you have to give them some other drug as this role might as soon as something which prevents in probation, and then you have to give them something else. The HCQ in order to make sure that you can find a way to protect those zinc from being wiped out. So they're kind of tripartite situation. You're not going to ask me to tell you everything about it. I don't know enough about, but what you do know is the way in which this stuff ex-post works is it does not depend simply on trial and error because trial and error, cherish Jeffries, Jesse is too slow. What it does is you got a theory that zinc in this combination has worked in other cases, and then you carry it over. Now, is this something which is just done for this, you know, or there is a wide class understanding of what we call off-label drug uses. I don't know if you're familiar with the term, but essentially it gets approved by a government agency. And then once it's on the market, a doctor could use it for any other condition that he or she wants to do it. And in the United States where the numbers are pretty good, for many cancers, off-label uses are dominate. On-label uses by five to one 10 to one ratio or whatever it is. And all of this is outside the formal system. It becomes the standard of care for malpractice, the standard of care for insureability and forth. So you get this back culture what's happened here is they're killing this off with respect to this drug. And they're saying, if you go through the clinical trials or we're going to go after you. And so, you know, the last blog that I read said, you can only get ivermectin in the United States. If you get a court order, they're killing the off-label mark, right? So now you kill off the ex post market. It puts greater pressure on the ex-ante market and you start getting these quarantines. But if you understood what was going on, it turns out that some people might be good targets for HQ, some not, but by having this thing on the wraps for the last 18 or 19 months, it means that you don't get the aggregate data, which will start to tell you whether or not there are subpopulations that are especially prone to damages with this or 72 real advantages for trying to use it. What we do now is the same point I said before, everything is a matter of Marion's right? Same block won't have the same effect on more people and the larger, the samples that you get, you can do it, and you're reasonably happy to do this because you know that for all of these subsets, the negative side has been ruled out by the extensive use that has happened before. So this is the perfect case for running that situation. Then what we do is everybody wants to do basically become German autocrats. You know, the famous Maxim in German, I will say it in English because my German is terrible. At least today, all of that is not required as forbid or all that is not forbid and as required required, there's nothing left the choice. What this means is once we decide, this is a very good vaccine, everybody's got a tick. Yep. But again, what have they done? They've ignored the variants, which is the key. Speaker 1 (25m 31s): I want to ask you about that. So we've been kind of going through this process back to the extreme again, I think we talked before about us in Ontario, Canada being in lockdown again. Now what we have seen from businesses, chamber of comments, commerce, I think announced today that the biggest thing that's killing us right now from a business standpoint that can be in real estate or business in general is the uncertainty of what the government is doing when we're supposed to come back in any clarity. Originally, the vaccines, my understanding was that, you know, it was the target was to actually stop, you know, flatten the curve and then it had shifted. And now the conventional wisdom we're told is that it is you're, you're far, far more likely to end up into the, in the ICU or the hospital, if you are not vaccinated. Now in Canada, I believe double vaccination is at 82% as of right now. So I think Mo majority of Canadians do want to get vaccines. However, just to your point, natural immunity was, was almost a word you couldn't use words you can say a year ago. And it's interesting to me that I had COVID over the Christmas break and mail, like, God, Speaker 2 (26m 44s): Yeah, there you go. Giving it Speaker 1 (26m 46s): To each other. We might have. And what I find funny is that you have the congressional hearings in your country that just happened in the Supreme court cases. You have policymakers saying one thing, but I called the U S embassy about cause I'm flying to Florida next week. And basically they they've said just like Canada has, as long as I give them a positive test. I think the us needs a physician to show that you have recovered. Now you can cross without a molecular test. So to me that says that it's admitting natural immunity from a policy standpoint. So it, maybe you could talk a little bit about the, the kind of moving target and just as a footnote, one thing we do know in Canada, the last lockdown, what they said was no, no. The difference now is cases don't matter anymore. It's about hospitalizations. And I do think Canada is probably, I think it is the worst in the , if not one of the worst four per capita ICU beds. And one of the issues just to aggravate this even more is the fact that because of our policies, when it comes to testing, we have a bunch of nurses that have tested positive for this new variant. So we're even understaffed to a greater degree. So maybe talk a little bit about how this target has shifted and you know, where do you, where do you see this going? Because it is certainly impacting not just individuals but businesses, the at large, in, in both of our countries. Speaker 2 (28m 7s): Okay, look, I mean, let's just state this, first of all, it is true as a statistic that there are relatively few vaccinated people who end up in ICU, a similar place as relative, do they own vaccinate, which is an argument in favor of vaccination. So it doesn't want to be, but you have to break the unvaccinated populations down into two plots unvaccinated with natural immunities and unvaccinated without natural moon. And if it turns out that the, all of the situations, all with unvaccinated people with no natural amenities, then the number is actually higher than it might otherwise appear. And if you were somebody like that, you should think very seriously about the vaccine or getting yourself a natural immunity. So there are a couple of papers that have been written recently, which says, now that everybody gets this thing, if they're under a certain age, because they're going to survive that, and it's better than the vaccine. And there's a lot to be said for that position, but it's certainly wrong to treat that statement as though it carries with it, an implication that natural immunities are no good or uncertain. And one of the lasting disgraces of the CDC is just kind of throws up his hands and says, we don't really know very much about the door ability of the natural amenities or the backseat. Now, one of the things we do know about is that some of the immunities that we're talking about in these cases that come from natural sources and date from previous epidemics 10 years ago, even 50 years ago, if you were old enough for it. So we used to have something on durability with the vaccines. We have no information whatsoever. And so, so then the question is, well, what do you look at? You look at the past numbers and I'm just going to make a two comparison, and then I'm going to extrapolate from it. It turns out that the more potent vaccine is the maternal, but less potent is the Pfizer. The more journal last longer, it gives a greater penetration than does the fine. But if you start looking to adverse side effects, the other side of that, it turns out that the Moderna vaccine is associated with more adverse events than is the Feisal, which is exactly what you would expect, right? The good and the bad are both simulated bias all above. So the question that you then have to ask as well, what is this situation? And the numbers in my view, keep changing that is what's really happened in this case, is that people have to understand MRN. A vaccine is not a vaccine. It's a drug because if you look, but the CDC did was to change its definitions in the United States. So it's no longer kind of a diluted version of the original stuff. It can be totally fabricated the way in which the MRR and a vaccine. Well, the natural immunities are like a bore spectrum antibiotic, but the MRI is a specific situation. And the way to understand that is you have a large number of links in this particular chain, and they take advantage of a principle known in a railroad, which is you take out 10 feet of a railroad. You can't go from one end of the country to the other, right. What they forgot to say is you take out 10 feet of a railroad. It turns out you can build a bypass around it at 40 feet and fix it back up again. And so what's happening is that my guests and I would want, you know, I'm not a biologist, but I am a strategic game player. And I think is that you see the part of the track is broken and you're a virus. You don't do this by deep connotation, right? But you have so many mutations that are thrown up at a very rapid rate. All of a sudden, one of the managers, the go around the particular break and all of a sudden, the vaccine turns out to be worthless because it's been circumvented or compromised in some way. And that you have to really know what the composition is of subclasses Alma viruses. But the point I'm making is the prediction you would make from this theory is that it will turn out that the vaccines will be progressively more on ineffective because there'll be more workarounds that the virus is able to do in order to defeat it. So the prediction that you're going to get is that it's going to be less effective and it's going to be less effective with each future innovation. That's why Robert Malone, the guy who invented this stuff. I mean, he's out there freaking out in public, right? Essentially an answer. I, you know, I may have created a deaf machine in some sense. Now he was right. I mean, early on the first round, possibly the cost benefits were very enormous, but the law marginal rates of return applied to everything, including vaccine usage. And so if this thing is evolving in the way in which I suspect it is, then what would you would suggest is that the immunities that you get from the backseat will be a flow with durations. And in fact, the breakthroughs in both directions giving and getting will become watcher. And so the ratio of success between the natural immunities and the artificial immunities very heavily in favor of doing the natural immunities rather than this. And so this constant re vaccination program that'd be terrible. So that's the first part. Second part is what are the adverse events? When they did the swine flu thing, it turned out they were a real rush. They got the numbers completely wrong, and they gave all sorts of people. The vaccine, they didn't give sufficient warnings, particularly for pregnant women. And the government had assumed all liability for bad warning. They ended up paying $4 billion in 1970s and 1980s for the bad vaccines that they put out on the market. Well, there is no government liability today, as far as I can tell. And under the emergency use authorization, I don't think there's one either for the companies or I'd have to check that, but I'm going to check it very soon because it's something worth writing about. And so what you're going to see is diminished the effectiveness of this and the rising adverse side effect. So right now, I mean, I've seen at least one publication, which just simply collected a hundred articles, all of which pointed to some adverse events associated with Mr and a vaccine. Now you look at the studies and I did with a couple of handfuls, and they're exactly what you'd expect in conclusive that somebody reports six cases of this three cases of that one case of that, somebody that clinical studies very hard to get broad spectrum stuff. But if you then start to aggregate them and try to figure out, well, we've got 50 of these studies, which have three cases of death after taking a certain kind of vaccine. Now you've got 150. You have to make sure that you don't have double counting a lot of other stuff, but you then become more cautious. And the same thing with respect to administration, just in the last several days, people said, Hey, this seems to lengthen the menstrual cycle. You do this to a woman who's 35 years old, right. Who's trying to get pregnant and this could be just devastating kind of stuff. And do we know how long it lasts? Of course now, do we know how serious it is? Of course not. Right. Well, what's the rule you take with respect to major conditions in essentially the population that's right in the core of the distribution 20 to 40. Well, my view is you say the cost of COVID is very well. You say in effect the effectiveness of the various kinds of remedies, like ivermectin and ACQ is doubted, but certainly possible. Oh, last thing you want to do is to give people other conditions for which there is no known cure. And so you do is you back off in the middle generation. So what are universities doing? They have undergraduates in their late teens. They have graduate students, postdocs in the twenties and thirties, and they impose the vaccine mandate and all of that. But me, I took it as it were under protest. Not that anybody care, but when you understand is when you're 78, as I am, you're not worried about reproductive success. You're not worried about, you know, going out and playing competitive sports in the Olympics and things like that. You all worried about something that might happen. And so the cost benefit analysis tends to shift by age a little bit more in favor of doing it. But rather than that, what you do is you look at these things and what are they counting? They shameful. What they say is, everybody knows it. This is not a question of individual Liberty. This is a question of collective responsibility, and everybody's doing this to serve the common. Good. Have you ever heard that expression? The promise. They don't know how prisoner dilemma game place. And so I'm going to be just a little bit technical for a second, but the traditional prisoner's dilemma game was that you get two people going into jail. And if each of them keep silent, then neither one gets convicted. But if one of them starts to Blab and the other one does and Blab, the guy who blabs gets the lightest sentence, and then a guy who doesn't want to get so much heavier sentence. So some say, I don't know what that other guy's going to do. I can't talk to him. So they both Blab and they're both worth or worse off than they would have been. If not the report. Now, the way this works is you now have a need for a public facility. It's perfectly homogenous. It turns out, let's say it's a road on which there are houses on both sides and you impose the special assessment by majority vote. And every unit has to paint Penn dollars into it. And every unit gets $15 worth of benefit. If you did it by voluntary agreement, instead of all one, everybody would sit, let the other people build the road and it never gets built at all. Right. So why is that not work? You don't have how much in aid, right? And it also turns out that not only do you get differential effectiveness, but you get differential worse off. So you don't have a prisoner's dilemma game. If you turn out Jessie to be better off not taking the vaccine, no matter what anybody else does. Right. And if the same tools or somebody out, or what happens is under these circumstances, you now have the ability for self protection by isolation or by taking a vaccine or by teaching HCQ. So you can get several solutions, which you can't do when you're building a road down the middle of the situation. So what happens is all of the collective action systems, all wildly optimistic because you can't get the initial homogeneity on either the cost side or on the benefit side to make this thing work. So you have to just chill that particular language. This is not the kind of case where to apply. That doesn't mean it doesn't work like that with all diseases. And so it turns out smallpox is a very rigid virus. It doesn't change virtually at all. It also turns out that Cal parks is relatively innocent and we give everybody count pops. It's an actual immunity against smallpox, and you do it individually and you do it collectible. But what happens to people look at this and they come to the following conclusion. I don't care whether anybody else wants to take the stand backseat. I'm going to take it anyhow, because I'm better off. So it's not a prisoner's dilemma, gamma. And when you know the polio vaccine, you're not old enough to remember this, but the polo polio vaccine came at the Joan speech and a mother place. It got shut down every summer because of polio. And then the Salk vaccine comes out. And I mean, I was 11 at that time. And my father was adopted. You see people lining up around the block to take the shot, because essentially they were reasonably confident that it would prevent this forge. And they were reasonably confident that they didn't seem to be any kind of potent side effects because it was done in the attenuation method, right? Like the small, like the other thing. And then there was a huge fight between him and save it whether you use the live virus or the dead virus, right? Because the dead virus turns out to be as effective, but less, she was side effects, whatever. And they fought over this for 15 years, but this is just not what we are today. And if you would see people lined up around the block in order to get it, and the fact that you don't see them lined up, suggest that maybe they know something that the other guys don't, but the people who run me, Mr. Bouncy may have been a great firewall, just in some sense. But you know, now all of a sudden it becomes a social commentator talking about epidemiology, public health and game theory about what she knows less than nothing. And ironically, he doesn't learn those things. Right. When I said is, I'm sitting down there and I read the scientific reports. I don't try to perform them. I don't check the calculations on the this on, but I look at the abstracts and the major discussions on this stuff and try to figure out something from the methodology. And as I said, at the beginning of the show, that was the way I was told you had to do law at the beginning with the sire. And I think it's, it's the correct approach. So this has become an international travesty and the quarantines prolong the situation and expose you to something else. And as far as I can see, I have not seen a single serious public official in out. I didn't say commentator, who's actually got this right. And I've seen many commentators who seem to get it right, or at least on some of it. And there's some people who are really smart and they get much of it. Right? Some of it won't, your job is in my case, it is not to essentially reproduce the date. I can't do that, but I've been trained in, you know, I'm just old lawyer, right. But no, I mean, I've been trained in the science. I, you know, I had to learn some games. I'm not a game theorist, but I had to learn it. It turns out from a very long time, I did sociobiology and evolutionary theory and inclusive fitness and all that stuff, which is absolutely critical for understanding how these things start to go in one way or another. And so having done the sociobiology and the games theory, and then all this other stuff, what happens is lawyers have the following set of tax advantages over specialists. I worked in five or six different areas that are relevant to this thing. And, you know, I spent my entire life learning everything one-on-one, but the point is knowing one-on-one about a lot of stuff is extremely important. And many other people come in and they know 5 0 5 about one thing and 0.0 on other things, right. They had it, it turns out the person who has my kind of intellectual profile is probably better suited for figuring out what the systematic response would be on one condition. They don't run ahead of the evidence in substance and barriers. Why always talking to people who know more than they do about any one of these particular things. So your job is to synthesize the best rather than to make it up yourself. So, I mean, I do a lot of work on science cases have been for many, many years, starting in the early eighties with Des and the specialists and agent orange and the whole thing. And you don't go near one of these cases unless there's a specialist who's worked in the area for years, it yourself. Speaker 1 (42m 55s): So that was part one of two with Richard Epstein. And we're going to cap off the second half of that conversation next week. So I hope you enjoyed it. And I hope you tune in next week. And if you want to download our financial model or check out other episodes, go to working capital podcast.com, hope to see you there.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364. This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. Transcript and postmortem episode to follow. My notes are below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys From Reason: Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? Patent lawyer Stephan Kinsella debates Law Professor Richard Epstein GENE EPSTEIN | 11.24.2021 1:00 PM Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists? That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City. Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished." He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity. Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly. The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney. In 2018, Gene Epstein retired from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor at Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He's director of the Soho Forum, which he co-founded in 2016, a monthly debate series that receives fiscal sponsorship from the Reason Foundation. ❧ —✦— Kinsella Notes —✦— Resolved: All patent and copyright law should be abolished. A Soho Forum Debate Stephan Kinsella vs. Richard Epstein Nov. 15, 2021 Caveat, 21 A Clinton St. New York, NY 10002 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES Resolution: All patent and copyright law should be abolished Why? because these laws violate property rights, they violate freedom of speech and the press, they distort culture, they impede innovation, they literally kill people, and they impoverish the human race. There is nothing good about patent and copyright law. They are total abominations and harm humanity. They are a mistake. [No, you don't have to be an anarchist, anti-legislation, a Rothbardian, Austrian, or even a libertarian to oppose IP law] (By the way I've been practicing patent and IP law for 28 years, representing clients such as Intel, General Electric, and so on. So I have some rough idea of how the actual system works.) What are the laws in question? Copyright protects the right to copy of make “derivative works” of “original works of authorship” for the life of the author plus 70 years = 120–150 years. This is enforced by injunctions and legal protections, such as statutory damages of $150k per act of infringement Patents protect the right of inventors to their inventions for 17 or so years. Also can be enforced by injunctions, unless the government grants a compulsory license There are obvious objections to these laws: they violate natural prop...

What we are doing in this volume is blurring the boundaries between this older conception of top-down mobilized movements and this newer conception of bottom-up organic, spontaneous civil society propelled movements and discovering that there's an awful lot in the middle there.Elizabeth PerryA full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com or a short review of Ruling by Other Means: State-Mobilized Movements here.Elizabeth Perry and Grzegorz Ekiert join the podcast to discuss their new book Ruling by Other Means: State-Mobilized Movements (coedited with Xiaojun Yan). Elizabeth is the Henry Rosovsky Professor of Government at Harvard University and Director of the Harvard-Yenching Institute. Grzegorz is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Government at Harvard University and Director of Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies.Key HighlightsWhat are state-mobilized movements?Why do authoritarian regimes mobilize supporters?The role of violence in state-mobilized movementsWhy do people mobilize to support dictators?What does it teach us about civil society? Key LinksRuling by Other Means: State-Mobilized Movements edited by Grzegorz Ekiert, Elizabeth J. Perry, and Yan XiaojunMinda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies Harvard-Yenching Institute Related ContentErica Chenoweth on Civil ResistanceJonathan Pinckney on Civil Resistance TransitionsMore from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadoxFollow on Instagram @democracyparadoxpodcast100 Books on Democracy

"We need to come to terms with the randomness and unpredictability of disaster." Support Talking Beats with Daniel Lelchuk. The great writer and historian Niall Ferguson is on the show for the 100th episode. His most recent book, Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe, seeks to bring many different catastrophes of history under one umbrella and ask questions about what we as a society can do better. Hardly a history of disaster, the book offers a theory of disasters. Often times, as Niall explains, it is not the boss at the top who is responsible for failure, but a middleman. What nuances do we miss when we evaluate disaster and oversimplify? Are we getting better or worse and handling disaster? Daniel and Niall also cover a fascinating segment on music, and its potential dangerous intersection with politics. Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History. He is also a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing. He is the author of fifteen books. His first, Paper and Iron: Hamburg Business and German Politics in the Era of Inflation 1897-1927, was short-listed for the History Today Book of the Year award, while the collection of essays he edited, Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals, was a UK bestseller. In 1998 he published to international critical acclaim The Pity of War: Explaining World War One and The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. The latter won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History and was also short-listed for the Jewish Quarterly/Wingate Literary Award and the American National Jewish Book Award. In 2001, after a year as a Houblon-Norman Fellow at the Bank of England, he published The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000. Ferguson was the Philippe Roman Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics in 2010-11. His many prizes and awards include the GetAbstract International Book Award (2009), the Benjamin Franklin Prize for Public Service (2010), the Hayek Prize for Lifetime Achievement (2012), the Ludwig Erhard Prize for Economic Journalism (2013), the Estoril Global Issues Distinguished Book Prize (2013), the Philip Merrill Award of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Arts Education (2016); and Columnist of the Year at the 2018 British Press Awards. He has received honorary degrees from the University of Buckingham (UK), Macquarie University (Australia), and the Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez (Chile). In addition to writing a regular column for Bloomberg Opinion, he is the founder and managing director of Greenmantle LLC, an advisory firm, and a co-founding board member of Ualá, a Latin American bank. He also serves on the board of Affiliated Managers Group and is a trustee of the New York Historical Society and the London-based Centre for Policy Studies. Niall Ferguson is married to the author and women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He has five children.

Richard Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, at New York University, the Peter and Kirstin Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution , and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Senior Lecturer in the University of Chicago. In this episode we talked about:   Richard’s background Eviction moratoriums Covid, dealing with crisis Rent control Richard’s book “Simple rules of a complex world”

Wednesday, April 28, 2021 Hoover Institution, Stanford University Senator Rick Scott in conversation with Niall Ferguson on Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:00 PM ET. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Niall Ferguson MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies, Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History. He is also a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and the Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. His next book Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe, will be released on May 4, 2021. Rick Scott was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2018 and is currently serving his first term representing the state of Florida. Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Rick Scott served two terms as the 45th Governor of Florida, working every day to turn around Florida’s economy and secure the state’s future as the best place for families and businesses to succeed. For more information go to: https://www.hoover.org/publications/capital-conversations 

February 6, 2012 - A conversation with: Peter Thiel, founding CEO of PayPal; Member, Board of Directors, Facebook; entrepreneur; and venture capitalist and Niall Ferguson, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School. --- Thiel Talks is an audio archive of Peter Thiel's ideas. New audio every Saturday. Inquiries to peterthielaudio@gmail.com

Recently, Big Tech companies have come under fire from all sides for their content moderation decisions. Some argue Big Tech companies are not doing enough to stem the spread of harmful content and misinformation. Others contend Big Tech companies' selective approaches to moderation belies partisan preferences — silencing only certain voices and threatening to undermine democratic values. The recent actions by Big Tech companies regarding President Trump have brought these concerns to a head.Many different solutions have been proposed during the uproar surrounding the debate. Among these options, some have posited that historical regulation of common carriers can provide a road map for appropriate and effective big tech regulation. Do the market positions of modern giants like Twitter and Facebook generate common-carrier obligations? Should they? Experts discuss these issues, exploring the relevant legal contours and the desirability of the proposed common carrier solution to curb Big Tech power, as well as other issues surrounding the debate.Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University- [Moderator] Elyse Dorsey, Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Intellectual Property Rights and the Rule of Law."The world’s first democratized intellectual-property legal system, initiated by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is intended, per Federalist #43, to: provide uniformity for the protection of IP rights; secure those rights for the individual rather than the state; and incentivize innovation and creative aspirations. Predictability, rooted in uniform application of the rule of law, is essential for property rights and economically sustainable growth. This is especially true in the context of intellectual property and the tremendous investments required for innovation and creative expression. These intended goals can be jeopardized in times of crisis if they are seen as being pitted against health, safety, security, and humanitarian needs that arise during actual or perceived crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.How can private IP rights be achieved and maintained in a manner that genuinely promotes public good without capture issues? Does a crisis necessitate a suspension or weakening of intellectual and/or other property rights –– or is it in times of crisis that rule of law and its attendant stability/predictability are most crucially needed? What we can learn for IP from how the rule of law has been affected by national crises in the past? This panel will discuss IP law in the 21st century and especially in 2020, considering court decisions, public advocacy, and data-driven lessons of history and how they should be applied to ideas for reforms that would weaken IP and rule of law versus those that may construct and restore predictable rights in support of vibrant and productive innovation and creative output.Featuring:Prof. Jorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah School of LawProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionMr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy and Policy Consulting; Former, Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & JohnsonHon. Karyn A. Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel, Motion Picture Association; Former Register of Copyrights, United States Copyright OfficeModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Thursday, October 1, 2020 Hoover InstitutionThe Hoover Institution presents an online virtual speaker series based on the scholarly research and commentary written by Hoover fellows participating in the Human Prosperity Project on Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism. This project objectively investigates the historical record to assess the consequences for human welfare, individual liberty, and interactions between nations of various economic systems ranging from pure socialism to free-market capitalism. Each session will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars.FEATURING Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies, Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History.Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution; his focus is classics and military history.For more information on this initiative, click here - https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/human-prosperity-project-socialism-and-free-market-capitalismTo view the upcoming events, click here - https://www.hoover.org/research/human-prosperity-project-socialism-and-free-market-capitalism-speaker-series 

Environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act allow private plaintiffs and environmental advocacy groups to file citizen suits alongside the government's environmental enforcement actions against polluters. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is now pushing to end the practice in a federal case involving DTE Energy, Michigan's largest electrical utility and a major operator of natural gas pipelines. The Sierra Club intervened on the government's side and is seeking court approval of a side agreement in which DTE would close three coal plants, in addition to the penalties and mitigation secured by the Justice Department.Such Supplemental Environmental Projects (or SEPs) are supposed to supplement the government's enforcement actions. But critics - and now DOJ - argue that SEPs often supplant the penalty that the government has sought in its enforcement action. Such provisions, critics say, amount to a delegation of a core executive function that the Constitution vests in the president. It allows private advocacy groups to override the government's enforcement priorities with their own, and then profit from coercive use of penalties that arise under environmental protection laws, the faithful execution of which is entrusted to the president and to the officials under his control. Critics say that any citizen suit claims arising under federal environmental laws that also give rise to enforcement actions should be extinguished when the enforcement action is resolved.To the extent advocacy groups induce private companies to agree to such SEPs by promising to give up on claims arising under federal environmental laws subject to federal enforcement, should the practice of SEPs be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on a core executive function? Should the government's ability to extinguish such private claims be viewed as a taking?Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Eric Groten, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP- Joel Mintz, Professor Emeritus of Law and C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University- [Moderator] Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act allow private plaintiffs and environmental advocacy groups to file citizen suits alongside the government's environmental enforcement actions against polluters. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is now pushing to end the practice in a federal case involving DTE Energy, Michigan's largest electrical utility and a major operator of natural gas pipelines. The Sierra Club intervened on the government's side and is seeking court approval of a side agreement in which DTE would close three coal plants, in addition to the penalties and mitigation secured by the Justice Department.Such Supplemental Environmental Projects (or SEPs) are supposed to supplement the government's enforcement actions. But critics - and now DOJ - argue that SEPs often supplant the penalty that the government has sought in its enforcement action. Such provisions, critics say, amount to a delegation of a core executive function that the Constitution vests in the president. It allows private advocacy groups to override the government's enforcement priorities with their own, and then profit from coercive use of penalties that arise under environmental protection laws, the faithful execution of which is entrusted to the president and to the officials under his control. Critics say that any citizen suit claims arising under federal environmental laws that also give rise to enforcement actions should be extinguished when the enforcement action is resolved.To the extent advocacy groups induce private companies to agree to such SEPs by promising to give up on claims arising under federal environmental laws subject to federal enforcement, should the practice of SEPs be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on a core executive function? Should the government's ability to extinguish such private claims be viewed as a taking?Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Eric Groten, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP- Joel Mintz, Professor Emeritus of Law and C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University- [Moderator] Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Join us as Richard Epstein and Michael Toth discuss how digital innovation is changing the way U.S. consumers buy and sell homes. Amid a V shaped recovery in housing, that has led to a surge in mobility and home prices across the U.S., Epstein and Toth will review emerging real estate marketplaces and how these platforms compare with other efforts to disrupt traditional industries through exchanges. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, at New York University, the Peter and Kirstin Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution , and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Senior Lecturer, the University of Chicago. Toth is SVP of REX, an Austin-based real estate technology company delivering a full-service online platform for residential real estate buyers and sellers. Featuring:-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Michael Toth, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Special Counsel, REX

Join us as Richard Epstein and Michael Toth discuss how digital innovation is changing the way U.S. consumers buy and sell homes. Amid a V shaped recovery in housing, that has led to a surge in mobility and home prices across the U.S., Epstein and Toth will review emerging real estate marketplaces and how these platforms compare with other efforts to disrupt traditional industries through exchanges. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, at New York University, the Peter and Kirstin Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution , and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Senior Lecturer, the University of Chicago. Toth is SVP of REX, an Austin-based real estate technology company delivering a full-service online platform for residential real estate buyers and sellers. Featuring:-- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Michael Toth, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Special Counsel, REX

Richard Epstein is the Inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor at NYU School of Law. He has served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. His newest book, The Dubious Morality of the Modern Administrative State, was published by the Manhattan Institute in November 2019. Today, he will discuss the impact of COVID-19 on higher education and the questionable assumptions that have been drawn from many COVID-19 models.Professor Epstein believes Americans have largely been given a false choise between either entirely shutting down our economy or letting COVID-19 run rampant through the population. He believes there is a much wider array of outcomes depdendent on variables we don’t yet fully understand. But overall, he believes the country should have a bias toward trying to safely reopen as fast as possible.Go to NoLabels.org to learn more about how we are bringing together a bipartisan group of public and private leaders working to solve America’s toughest problems. Follow No Labels and Gridlock Break Twitter • Facebook • Instagram

Recorded March 31, 2020, 11AM PST Hoover Institution Fellow Niall Ferguson provides a briefing on COVID-19 In The Light Of History And Network Science. The Hoover Institution presents an online virtual briefing series on pressing policy issues, including health care, the economy, democratic governance, and national security. Briefings will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars. ABOUT THE FELLOW Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies, Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History. He is also a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and the Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. To receive notifications about upcoming briefings, please sign up by clicking here: http://eepurl.com/gXjSSb.

On January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations for forty years. Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved. The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal, if adopted, would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action. This 90-minute teleforum discussion is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and contrasting views on the White House’s proposed NEPA reform and modernization. Featuring:Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University; Senior Fellow, Hoover InstituteProf. Robert Glicksman, The J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School.Mr. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental QualityDr. Tim Male, Executive Director, Environmental Policy Innovation Center; Former Associate Director for Conservation, White House Council on Environmental Quality.Moderator: Mr. Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

On January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations for forty years. Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved. The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal, if adopted, would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action. This 90-minute teleforum discussion is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and contrasting views on the White House’s proposed NEPA reform and modernization. Featuring:-- Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute-- Prof. Robert Glicksman, The J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School.-- Mr. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality-- Dr. Tim Male, Executive Director, Environmental Policy Innovation Center; Former Associate Director for Conservation, White House Council on Environmental Quality.-- Moderator: Mr. Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year declaration of a housing “emergency.” The law does not merely regulate rent levels, it also limits a property owner’s right to determine who uses an apartment, to convert the property to new uses, and to occupy the property for use by the owner and his or her family.A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action.Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.Featuring:- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year declaration of a housing “emergency.” The law does not merely regulate rent levels, it also limits a property owner’s right to determine who uses an apartment, to convert the property to new uses, and to occupy the property for use by the owner and his or her family.A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action.Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.Featuring:- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year declaration of a housing “emergency.” The law does not merely regulate rent levels, it also limits a property owner’s right to determine who uses an apartment, to convert the property to new uses, and to occupy the property for use by the owner and his or her family.A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action. Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.Featuring: -- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP-- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year declaration of a housing “emergency.” The law does not merely regulate rent levels, it also limits a property owner’s right to determine who uses an apartment, to convert the property to new uses, and to occupy the property for use by the owner and his or her family.A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action. Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.Featuring: -- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP-- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law

On January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations for forty years. Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming and extends far beyond what Congress originally intended. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The purpose of NEPA is essential to sound governments. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved. The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action. This teleforum is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and discuss caselaw that has resulted in calls for NEPA reform and modernization. Comments on CEQ’s proposal are due March 10. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University, and Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute -- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute and former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental Quality-- Moderator: Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica

On January 10, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed revisions to its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970. CEQ has not comprehensively updated these regulations for forty years. Since its enactment, the NEPA environmental review and permitting process has become increasingly complex and time-consuming and extends far beyond what Congress originally intended. Importantly, NEPA is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions. The purpose of NEPA is essential to sound governments. The chosen means is a “procedural” statute that requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on environmental impacts from a proposed Federal action, alternatives to the proposed action, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved. The average length of an environmental impact statement is over 600 pages and the average time to complete a NEPA review of major projects is four and a half years. NEPA analyses are frequently challenged in the courts, which delays and increases the costs for transportation, water, pipelines and other infrastructure that benefit States, Tribes, and local communities. CEQ’s proposal would modernize and clarify the regulations to facilitate timely NEPA reviews by Federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action. This teleforum is co-hosted by the Federalist Society and ConservAmerica and will offer background on CEQ’s proposal and discuss caselaw that has resulted in calls for NEPA reform and modernization. Comments on CEQ’s proposal are due March 10. Please click here for a Summary of Key Issues and Select Cases.Featuring: Prof. Richard Esptein, The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University, and Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute and former Associate Director for Regulatory Reform, White House Council on Environmental QualityModerator: Brent Fewell, General Counsel, ConservAmerica Please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

This podcast features audio from a recent event held at the University of California, Berkeley, featuring the insights of Richard Epstein and Daniel Farber. Epstein and Farber go to the philosophical roots of administrative law in order to get to the heart of present-day debates.Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Law, Energy &, California-Berkeley LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This podcast features audio from a recent event held at the University of California, Berkeley, featuring the insights of Richard Epstein and Daniel Farber. Epstein and Farber go to the philosophical roots of administrative law in order to get to the heart of present-day debates.Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Law, Energy &, California-Berkeley LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

34 Minutes Suitable for All Audiences Pete welcomes Professor Richard Epstein to the show. Prof. Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. Professor Epstein comes on the show to take apart the proposed "Green New Deal," as well as comment on other programs pushed by Progressives such as the $15 minimum wage and Medicare for all. Professor Epstein at the Hoover Institute Wikipedia Page Pete's Patreon Pete's Bitbacker Pete's Books on Amazon Pete's Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter  

The vast web of federal and state laws protecting employees stands or falls on a single concept: Is there an employment relationship? Payment of overtime, responsibility for employment taxes, union obligations, responsibility for workplace discrimination, workers compensation – every employment law obligation depends on the existence of an employment relationship. Thus, it may be surprising to some that most employment laws do not define who is an employer or who is an employee. The Fair Labor Standards Act, for example, defines an “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” and an “employee” is “any individual employed by an employer.” The National Labor Relations Act also makes us dizzy with circular definitions: an “employer” is “any person acting as an agent of the employer, directly or indirectly” and an “employee” is “any employee.” The result: Whether an employment relationship exists has been left to the vagaries of agency guidance and decisions. In its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, the NLRB expanded the definition of “joint employment” to include employers who share direct, indirect, potential or even “ultimate” control over a worker. In a 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, the Labor Department similarly expanded the definition of joint employment, declaring that “employment generally should be defined expansively” under the FLSA, unrestrained by the concept of control found in the common law concepts of employment. Suddenly, many businesses faced investigations regarding activities of subcontractors, and franchisors were named as defendants for alleged violations by franchisees. DOL has withdrawn its 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, but has yet issued no replacement guidance. Browning-Ferris still stands, although the NLRB has announced its intention to issue regulations regarding joint employment. This panel will explore whether and how the key concepts of employment, employer and employee should be defined under our nation’s employment laws: By Congress, the Courts, or agencies? Adopting one definition or many? Based on statutory definitions or the common law?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law SchoolMr. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & LewisModerator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

The vast web of federal and state laws protecting employees stands or falls on a single concept: Is there an employment relationship? Payment of overtime, responsibility for employment taxes, union obligations, responsibility for workplace discrimination, workers compensation – every employment law obligation depends on the existence of an employment relationship. Thus, it may be surprising to some that most employment laws do not define who is an employer or who is an employee. The Fair Labor Standards Act, for example, defines an “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” and an “employee” is “any individual employed by an employer.” The National Labor Relations Act also makes us dizzy with circular definitions: an “employer” is “any person acting as an agent of the employer, directly or indirectly” and an “employee” is “any employee.” The result: Whether an employment relationship exists has been left to the vagaries of agency guidance and decisions. In its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, the NLRB expanded the definition of “joint employment” to include employers who share direct, indirect, potential or even “ultimate” control over a worker. In a 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, the Labor Department similarly expanded the definition of joint employment, declaring that “employment generally should be defined expansively” under the FLSA, unrestrained by the concept of control found in the common law concepts of employment. Suddenly, many businesses faced investigations regarding activities of subcontractors, and franchisors were named as defendants for alleged violations by franchisees. DOL has withdrawn its 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, but has yet issued no replacement guidance. Browning-Ferris still stands, although the NLRB has announced its intention to issue regulations regarding joint employment. This panel will explore whether and how the key concepts of employment, employer and employee should be defined under our nation’s employment laws: By Congress, the Courts, or agencies? Adopting one definition or many? Based on statutory definitions or the common law?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law SchoolMr. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & LewisModerator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Professor Richard Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. He previously served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. Professor Epstein is also the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago where he taught for 38 years. He is a prolific writer who has authored more than a dozen books on topics ranging from private property to torts, and anti-discrimination law to antitrust, a frequent podcaster and one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century. I had Professor Epstein, one of the preeminent classical liberal thinkers in modern American history on the podcast to discuss a variety of topics including private property rights and eminent domain, why classical liberalism is the most sound of philosophies and minimal regulation the most prudent of policies, whether America should abolish the administrative state, attacks on free speech, the wisdom or lack thereof in regulation of social media companies and much more. What We Discussed The role that Professor Epstein's famous book, Takings played in Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing -- and then-Senator Joe Biden's hectoring Professor Epstein's groundbreaking theories on private property rights, eminent domain and the Takings and Commerce Clauses The practical argument against progressivism Whether we should deconstruct the administrative state, and if so how to do it The danger to free speech emanating from college campuses in a world of microaggressions, trigger warnings, de-platforming The folly of regulating Silicon Valley social media companies Classical liberalism versus socialism and libertarianism  Check out other episodes, show notes and transcripts at benweingarten.com/bigideas. Subscribe, rate and review: iTunes | Stitcher | Google | YouTube Follow Ben: Web | Newsletter | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn Advertising & Sponsorship Inquiries: E-mail us. ___________ Backed Vibes (clean) Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Niall Ferguson (@nfergus), Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University, and author of “Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist,” sits down with Aroop Mukharji (@aroopmukharji) to talk about everything from Kissinger, the “secret swinger,” to why ISIS is like the Bolsheviks. Watch the series on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QezWCcPFaU&index=2&list=PLp1QSxtgPnf5jtL09yzdIlpSuNMOijtm9 More about Niall Ferguson: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1420/niall_ferguson.html Original Release Date: January 19, 2016

Professor Richard Epstein delivered the keynote address titled "A common lawyer looks at the constitutional protection for freedom of speech" during the 2017 National Student Symposium at Columbia Law School on Saturday, March 4, 2017. -- The theme of this talk is what happens if we think about freedom of speech as an ideal, without any of the standard constitutional glosses—strict scrutiny, purposive interpretations—and then how does it play out. It does differ from the current law, quite radically on some key question that lie at the border line between tortious actions and free speech: offensive behavior, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, deceit, coercion and the like. The answers sometimes overlap and sometimes differ, and I hope to explain why the common law approach is superior. -- Keynote: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Shiva H. Logarajah, Symposium Chair, Columbia Law School Student Chapter.

The Internet has made information not only much more accessible, it has allowed almost anyone to be a provider of such information. -- This has not been without consequence: the refusal to take down an obscene video led to an eye-popping $140 million jury verdict and the subsequent collapse of Gawker Media. Personal e-mails or national secrets can quickly turn into political ammunition through the amplification of Wikileaks. A wide range of individuals, from Dan Rather to former President Barack Obama, have criticized the spread of misinformation. They claim false information is being dressed up as legitimate online journalism with the intent to deceive and misinform. Technology CEOs have felt the pressure. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is devoting considerable resources to developing methods to regulate speech on his platform— probably the most significant in the world. But, as Zuckerberg himself said, “identifying 'the truth' is complicated." -- This panel will explore this new reality and whether it necessitates new regulation. Will any effort be imprecise, such that protected speech will necessarily be silenced? Does such regulation go against the principles enshrined in the First Amendment? -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Friday, March 3, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Irina Manta, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University; Mr. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; and Prof. Steve Coll, Dean & Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School; Staff Writer, The New Yorker. Moderator: Hon. Reena Raggi, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Opening: Dean Gillian Lester, Dean and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law, Columbia Law School.

Our nation's private sector labor law is a product of the New Deal and the industrial age. In its first edition, the 1935 Wagner Act, employee rights to organize were recognized and employer unfair labor practices were defined. Twelve years later, the pendulum swung and union unfair labor practices were added to the Act. To address corruption, the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act was enacted to require labor organizations, employers, and labor relations consultants to file annual reports, and union members were granted a Bill of Rights. The NLRA was last amended in 1974, addressing the health care industry. -- Over the past 80 years, our nation's economy, indeed, the global economy, has changed significantly. While some efforts have been made over the last four decades to amend federal labor law, none have succeeded. To fill the vacuum, the National Labor Relations Board has stepped in as what some would describe as a quasi-legislature, issuing decisions and rules reflecting the Board's political majority's bias to circumvent Congressional deadlock. -- Should labor law be viewed as a vehicle to restore organized labor's density of 60+ years ago or to ensure employee rights to join or not join a labor union? Or, should labor law be overhauled to ensure labor unions' presence globally and to empower organized labor to affect or determine global work standards and business models generally? And, should labor law be politically aligned with one party? Is labor law about the American citizen/worker or about organized labor's institutional survival? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law. Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law; Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Mark Schneider, General Counsel, Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan.

At this ESMT Open Lecture, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson discussed and debated issues raised in his latest book Civilization: The West and the Rest. About the book: If in the year 1411 you had been able to circumnavigate the globe, you would have been most impressed by the dazzling civilizations of the Orient. The Forbidden City was under construction in Ming Beijing; in the Near East, the Ottomans were closing in on Constantinople. By contrast, England would have struck you as a miserable backwater ravaged by plague, bad sanitation and incessant war. The other quarrelsome kingdoms of Western Europe - Aragon, Castile, France, Portugal and Scotland - would have seemed little better. As for fifteenth-century North America, it was an anarchic wilderness compared with the realms of the Aztecs and Incas. The idea that the West would come to dominate the Rest for most of the next half millennium would have struck you as wildly fanciful. And yet it happened. What was it about the civilization of Western Europe that allowed it to trump the outwardly superior empires of the Orient? The answer, Niall Ferguson argues, was that the West developed six "killer applications" that the Rest lacked: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. The key question today is whether or not the West has lost its monopoly on these six things. If so, Ferguson warns, we may be living through the end of Western ascendancy. Civilization takes readers on their own extraordinary journey around the world - from the Grand Canal at Nanjing to the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul; from Machu Picchu in the Andes to Shark Island, Namibia; from the proud towers of Prague to the secret churches of Wenzhou. It is the story of sailboats, missiles, land deeds, vaccines, blue jeans and Chinese Bibles. It is the defining narrative of modern world history. About the speaker: Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Born in Glasgow in 1964, Niall Ferguson graduated from Magdalen College with First Class Honors in 1985. After two years as a Hanseatic Scholar in Hamburg and Berlin, he took up a research fellowship at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1989, subsequently returning to Oxford where he was appointed professor of Political and Financial History in 2000. Two years later he left for the US where he took up the Herzog Chair in Financial History at the Stern Business School, New York University, before moving to Harvard in 2004. Niall Ferguson is a regular contributor to press, television, and radio on both sides of the Atlantic and a prolific commentator on contemporary politics and economics.

Speakers: Jared Diamond, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles; Pulitzer Prize winner, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Niall Ferguson, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. James Robinson, David Florence Professor of Government, Harvard University. Moderator: William Bennett, Former U.S. Secretary of Education; Author, "Is College Worth It?" Do nations, like a good drama, have a beginning, middle and end? Why do civilizations succeed, why do they fail? Is it culture, economics, geography, climate, or an interaction among them? Is reinvention and rejuvenation possible? Our panel of celebrated scholars will examine the forces that propel the lifecycles of empires and how they may apply in today's world. Many are asking whether the U.S. is past its peak and China will inevitably reclaim the preeminence it enjoyed centuries ago. More broadly, is the global center of gravity moving from West to East? This event may also yield insights for businesses - they don't live forever either.