Here's a list of possible titles: What Works and What Sounds Good; The Market Works, the State Doesn’t; Good Incentives, Bad Incentives; The Silent Success of Markets; The Case for Markets, Against Politics; The Myth of Market Failure; Markets Aren’t Broken; The Overrated Case Against Capitalism; The Market Failure Fallacy; The Trouble With the Textbook Story; Markets Work, Voters Don’t; The Political Failure Problem; Why Politics Breaks Everything; The Voter Error Economy; The Irrationality Trap; From Theory to Disaster; The Slippery Slope of Good Intentions; When Regulation Goes Wrong; The Pigovian Mirage; The Ideal That Never Happens; Markets Are Better Than You Think; The Case for Radical Laissez-Faire; The Free Market Always Wins; Why We Should Trust Markets, Not Politic; The World Deserves More Capitalism.
My top choices in order of preference are (1) What Works and What Sounds Good [expresses thesis #6 and #7, the book’s conceptual center of gravity], (2) The Market Failure Fallacy [captures the “textbook complaints are wrong” theme], and (3) Markets Work; Politics Fails [captures the asymmetry driving the entire outline].
Bryan, why are universal programs "absurd"? Could you give some examples using policies that seem reasonable—such as minimum income support for people with disabilities or very poor elderly individuals without pensions; public health services for cancer treatment or vaccination; and free or similar primary education for both rich and poor?
A huge & outsized portion of tech breakthroughs come from public research. Most of the value of basic research end up as diffuse positive externalities, little of it gets captured privately.
Much of the value that is privately captured from tech innovation is only captured because government grants intellectual monopolies, but these monopolies are time limited which further reduces the private incentives for public research.
Seeing as tech progress is a huge driver of standards of living this seems like an important shortcoming of radical libertarianism.
Here's a list of possible titles: What Works and What Sounds Good; The Market Works, the State Doesn’t; Good Incentives, Bad Incentives; The Silent Success of Markets; The Case for Markets, Against Politics; The Myth of Market Failure; Markets Aren’t Broken; The Overrated Case Against Capitalism; The Market Failure Fallacy; The Trouble With the Textbook Story; Markets Work, Voters Don’t; The Political Failure Problem; Why Politics Breaks Everything; The Voter Error Economy; The Irrationality Trap; From Theory to Disaster; The Slippery Slope of Good Intentions; When Regulation Goes Wrong; The Pigovian Mirage; The Ideal That Never Happens; Markets Are Better Than You Think; The Case for Radical Laissez-Faire; The Free Market Always Wins; Why We Should Trust Markets, Not Politic; The World Deserves More Capitalism.
My top choices in order of preference are (1) What Works and What Sounds Good [expresses thesis #6 and #7, the book’s conceptual center of gravity], (2) The Market Failure Fallacy [captures the “textbook complaints are wrong” theme], and (3) Markets Work; Politics Fails [captures the asymmetry driving the entire outline].
Suggested title: 'Beneficial Liberty, a revolution against the ubiquitous coercive Impulse'
Bryan, why are universal programs "absurd"? Could you give some examples using policies that seem reasonable—such as minimum income support for people with disabilities or very poor elderly individuals without pensions; public health services for cancer treatment or vaccination; and free or similar primary education for both rich and poor?
Quibble: several of your examples are not universal programs.
How about "Deep Falses".
Discontented Intent vs. The World
The Government is Always Wrong
What about innovation?
A huge & outsized portion of tech breakthroughs come from public research. Most of the value of basic research end up as diffuse positive externalities, little of it gets captured privately.
Much of the value that is privately captured from tech innovation is only captured because government grants intellectual monopolies, but these monopolies are time limited which further reduces the private incentives for public research.
Seeing as tech progress is a huge driver of standards of living this seems like an important shortcoming of radical libertarianism.
govt funded research crowds out basic science that has traditionally been done by universities
The government is the funding source for ~all research done at universities.
Pretty Lies and Ugly Truths: insert something here
Second the opinion of Nathan!