Don't want to press a claim to vindicate your own rights? Never mind, a bureaucrat will decide whether the "public interest" requires a claim to be brought on your behalf. David Dieteman examines the expanding power of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
It was September 11, and panicked customers were flocking to the two gas stations Bobbie Jean Harvey owns near Midland, Mich., to top off their tanks in case the supply of gas was disrupted. It became apparent that sales on September 11 were going to be above average. In hindsight, however, Ms. Harvey wishes she had closed her stations.
Arbitration is under fire again, but it remains the best way to settle employer/employee disputes. It is more likely to protect the property rights of the parties to the lawsuit. Government courts, in contrast, principally benefit the lawyers and those who write the laws. Adam Young examines private-arbitration clauses.
What's the difference between the cultures of the private sector and the public sector? Consider the difference between Arthur Andersen, which has no future, and the U.S. Forest Service, which will live forever. The answer can be traced to property rights, and it explains why market outcomes are always held to a much higher standard than public-sector outcomes.
Poor Martha Stewart and Samuel Waksal, snared by arbitrary insider-trading laws that require information to be socialized. If one party knows more than others about a particular firm or industry, the SEC is perfectly able to rule that possessing--and acting upon--that knowledge is a crime.
The Swedes, we have been told, enjoy free medical care, generous welfare benefits, time off from work, and subsidies for just about everything. According to a recent study, however, the cat is out of the bag: relative to families in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less.
By granting parties who cannot demonstrate actual harm the legal standing to sue, we have opened the legal pasture to a veritable flood of new grazers, who do not care about the harm they inflict on others whose claims may not only be more pressing but may also have real merit. David Laband explains.
Social Security is not an insurance program. A Social Security "account" bears no legal resemblance whatsoever to a bank checking or saving account. Social Security bestows no contractual rights or any other type of property right on workers. In other words, Social Security as it is currently structured has nothing to do with legally enforceable promises or guarantees.
In this previously unpublished piece, Murray Rothbard argues that the the silliest of demagogues are a great servant of reason, even when mostly in the wrong.
One major reason people are not loyal to the principle of the right to private property is that they have a misconception of its main function. Many think only the wealthy benefit from it. And even if they do not have anything against being rich, they do have something against unfair legal advantages for those who are.
