Search results

The American understanding of the causes of poverty has changed significantly since the War on Poverty was launched in 1964. It was then commonly believed that jobs were unavailable to the poor and that poverty should be reduced by doles. Today most observers contend that jobs are available for the poor, and that poverty stems from self‐defeating behaviours that doles exacerbate.

Most people associate air pollution with automobiles and factories. But air pollution has been a part of human existence for thousands of years, and accounts of noxious urban air go back to ancient times. The Roman statesman Seneca bemoaned, "the stink, soot, and heavy air" of Rome in 61 AD.1 London has suffered from air pollution since the Middle Ages, when coal became a common fuel in smithies and lime burners. The problem was bad enough that King Edward I in 1285 created a commission to improve the city's air quality.2 Today, despite vast increases in energy production, motorized transportation, and economic activity in general, American cities enjoy cleaner air than at any time in the last century. Monitoring data show air pollution had already been declining for decades before the Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970 and air quality has continued to improve during the last few decades. Existing requirements for motor vehicles, factories, and consumer products ensure that air quality will continue to improve for decades to come. The health effects literature indicates that air pollution has become a minor factor in people's health and welfare. Despite America's extraordinary success in mitigating air pollution, surveys show great and increasing public concern over air quality. Many people mistakenly believe air pollution has been getting worse and will continue to worsen in the future, and that air pollution is still a serious threat to public health. Americans receive most of their information about air pollution from journalists, government regulators, environmental activists, and scientists. Unfortunately, much of this information exaggerates air pollution levels and health risks, and obscures or ignores positive trends. As a result, much of what Americans "know" about air pollution is false. Exaggerating harm from air pollution makes us worse off overall. The public's interest is best served by an accurate portrayal of risk. Environmental regulations are not free. People ultimately bear regulatory costs, because those costs are passed along in the form of higher prices for useful goods and services, lower wages, and lower returns on investments. We have many needs and aspirations and scarce resources with which to fulfill them. When we devote resources to an exaggerated risk, we give up opportunities to address other real and substantial risks, or to pursue other improvements to our health and quality of life. Air pollution alarmism also foments unnecessary public fear. People can make informed decisions about air pollution policy only if they have accurate information on the risks they face, the costs and benefits of further reductions in pollution emissions, and the benefits of devoting scarce resources to air pollution control versus other public and private priorities. The question isn't whether we would prefer less air pollution, of course we would. But in the real world, we have to make tradeoffs among competing goals and aspirations. If risks from air pollution are exaggerated, we will make these tradeoffs poorly, to the detriment of our overall health and welfare. This paper explores air pollution trends and health effects and their portrayal in the media and other popular sources of information.

It is argued that the Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is theoretically important both because it fosters human virtue & because its enforcement indicates that our ability to foster it is constrained. It is contended that PRWORA justifiably strives, with some effectiveness, to promote the virtues that accord with work, & that it can & will do little to promote the virtues that constitute spouses & parents. PRWORA's triumphs & shortcomings are alike resonant for our grasp of the appropriate scope of American liberal democratic government. References. K. Coddon

In this essay I develop a psychoanalytic defense of freedom of speech that is implicit in Freud's works, principally in his discussions of verbal slips and jokes. Freud argues that freedom of speech benefits people by providing a harmless outlet for aggression, suggesting that it is better to express aggression in words than in violent deeds or to repress it altogether. The psychoanalytic defense of free speech has affinities with various liberal defenses, but it is partial because apolitical; it emphasizes the emotional self-expression of speakers as opposed to the rational persuasion of listeners. The intellectual roots of the contemporary concern with "freedom of expression" (as opposed to "freedom of speech") can be found in Freud: to focus on freedom of expression is to ignore the qualitative differences among forms of self-expression and to neglect the specifically political character of speech.