But even the best-laid plans can go awry, so how optimistic are legislators that items important to taxpayers will get across the finish line this year? As an article in the Missouri Independent emphasizes, it depends on who you ask:

“I mean, I think we’ll get things done,” said Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican. “Will we get everything done that we want to do? No, we never do. But I’m an optimist.”

Democrats and Republicans share many of the same goals, O’Laughlin said, and progress can be made if people are willing to sit down and talk about how to reach those goals.

The Missouri House has generally been effective in advancing good legislation in the last few years, often only to be stifled in the Senate. The real question for whether 2024 will be “successful” hinges on how the Missouri Senate, now in an election year, handles its business. Will the majority party see itself often split, with leadership joining with the minority party to pass or stop legislation as it did in 2023? Will the majority party use Previous Question motions to scuttle filibusters from all quarters to pass its priorities? Will we see a mix of the two? Or will the chamber mostly be mired in dysfunction and nothing really gets done (again)?

How the factions in the Senate align will play an enormous role in what actually gets done in 2024. With a handful of exceptions, the last few years have been littered with missed opportunities, primarily because the Senate has alternated between watering down important measures or not passing them at all. So 2024 is a Yoda moment of sorts, especially for Missouri’s outgoing senators; lawmakers have entered “do or do not, there is no try” territory if they want to build a legacy before they leave the legislature for good. Giving lip service to good legislation isn’t going to cut it this time around.

What’s ultimately done (or not) remains to be seen, and we at the Show-Me Institute will keep you posted as the session progresses. But I hope that all Missouri legislators will set aside their squabbling and make decisions that keep the good- and limited-government promises made to their constituents. If they do, 2024 could be a banner year for the state, but if they don’t, well, this year will look a lot like last year. And that would be unfortunate.

The post As Legislature Returns, Whose Priorities Will Take Priority? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Food truck regulations
• A parents’ bill of rights
• Educational accountability
• Retail electric competition
• Social capital and small government

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s December 2021 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the sub-headline of Catherine Gewertz 2019 Education Week article states, “Through ‘action civics’ lessons, students become activists in their communities.” As Gewertz notes, “The name of this instructional model—’action civics’—signals its mission: not only to teach students how their government works but to harness that knowledge to launch them into collective action on issues they care about.”

This post is the first of three related to the topic of action civics. It is prompted, in part, by a recently released report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In their report, Thomas Lindsay and Lucy Meckler lay out important reasons for concern regarding action civics. They note:

In the course of this examination, we will come to see that, in the final count, the debate over Action Civics presents two contrasting views of democracy. Action Civics stems from a communitarian, participatory view of democracy, which finds its roots in Rousseau’s concept of the “general will.” At its philosophic roots, this agenda tends to distrust the checks on popular will offered by the representative democracy crafted by our founders and enshrined in the Constitution.

As this blog series will make clear, the proponents of action civics are clear in their intent—they hope to produce students who are more inclined toward activism. Importantly, the goal is not just to address social ills, but to address them through government action.

Many teachers throughout the country and within Missouri may have adopted an action civics pedagogy for teaching students because of the rich platitudes offered by its supporters. They may agree that students learn better by doing rather than by “sitting and getting” as is often common in social studies classrooms. The problem here, as I have alluded to in my intro, is that proponents of action civics and the teachers that implement this strategy in their classrooms were so concerned with whether they could teach students in this way that they did not stop to think whether they should.

Asking students to “become activists in their communities” or to advocate for collective government action before laying a foundation of understanding regarding political philosophy (including that of federalism and limited government) is a recipe for disaster. It leads to the types of outcomes we currently see in our political landscape where the very people advocating for the rights of one group are quick to trample on the rights of others. It drives students to see their actions as right and noble and those who oppose them as cruel and mean spirited.

Despite what proponents of action civics might say, it is not the duty of public schools to launch activists. Rather, it is the duty of public school teachers to help students understand this great American experiment in self-government. It is their duty to teach students about our institutions and their roles, as presented in our founding documents and the writings of the founding fathers. Furthermore, it is the duty of teachers to help students understand that people today have different views on the role of government and on the best policy solutions to the problems we face. If your goal is solely to create activists (and activists of a particular kind), you might skip some of these essential lessons.

The post Action Civics: Teaching Students to Become Activists (Part 1 of 3) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the Great Caffeine Shortage of 2016 (and 2015, and before) never really materialized in most of our offices. That's not because the government or some government-analog always provides the capital for coffee. Some of us make coffee ourselves and bring it to the job site in a thermos; others buy coffee on the way to work, or take a break mid-morning to get a pumpkin spice latte. (now available!) In fact, the coffee I drink at my office here on Troost is, more often than not, from my own coffee machine, which I brought to the break room and share with my coworkers.

I could demand that the Show-Me Institute provide me with "free" coffee and force everyone else to pay for it, and certainly there are office necessities and amenities that the Institute does underwrite. The point is, I wanted a certain kind of coffee, and I felt strongly enough that I didn't bother lobbying my employer for "shared sacrifice," but instead took care of that want myself—to the benefit of more than just myself. Not everything is best given from on high, including coffee. And somehow, some way, most of us have easy access to the stuff.

Of course Dave's office analogy for government has other limitations, too. First among them is that taxpayers don't work for the government. Taxpayers also cannot "switch" governments if we find ours unresponsive to our coffee demands—at least not to the extent, manner, and speed with which we can switch actual employers. Moreover, we can vote ourselves other peoples' money in government; I can't, by majority vote, requisition Patrick Tuohey's fancy-pants wallet and force him to pay for, say, a new coffee machine for the other 99% of us. 

You get my point.

Government has appropriate roles, and funding expenditures to carry out those roles is already fraught with all sorts of moral questions, because it requires taking money from people, even if it's against their will. But just because government can force other people to buy you a coffeemaker doesn't mean it should, and it is no virtue to publicly regret your good fortune as a means to force others to pay for your own priorities.

If you care about it, be an example to others and put your money where your mug is. And if you don't really care about it? Don't tell everyone else they owe you a latte.

The post On Government-Mandated Coffee Machines appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

…within two years, bring down the total amount of general revenue a city could receive from fines and fees to 10 percent, excluding smaller cities outside of populous counties like Saint Louis. The bill makes it clear that any amended traffic fines would count toward that percentage. Furthermore, fines collected on Missouri interstates in excess of 5 percent of general revenue would also not be able to be collected by municipalities. As for enforcement, the bill makes it clear that municipalities have to provide an annual addendum to the state auditor regarding its compliance with the measure. Failure to comply triggers a vote for municipal disincorporation…

As we’ve argued before, these measures will disincentivize the use of local police and courts as tax collection agencies. They will also encourage limited government and inter-city service coordination. That’s good news for Saint Louis County and the state as whole. 

The post Governor Signs SB 5 into Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With your help, we will continue to fight for limited government, individual liberty, reduced regulations, and entrepreneurial freedom.

If you enjoy reading this blog and agree with the ideas it presents for free-market based policies in Missouri, I hope that you will renew your support of our mission by making your tax-deductible contribution today!

The post Support This Blog and the Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Show-Me Institute Has Big Plans For 2014
• A Message From The Executive Director
• Show-Me Institute Launches Unique Data Tool
• Initiative Captures Passion Of Next Generation
• Sales Taxes Are Not The Way To Fix Transportation Funding In Missouri
• Robbin Peter To Pay For Paul’s Pension
• Kansas City Airport Plan Hits Turbulance
• Obamacare: Less Choice, Higher Taxes, Slower Economic Growth
• Show-Me Institute Executive Director, Others Tout Limited Government Policies

Read it all:

The post Show-Me Institute December 2013 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Supporters of higher taxes have spilled a lot of ink suggesting that Missouri House Bill 253 will decimate the state’s budget, the bill’s revenue triggers notwithstanding. Taking their figures as gospel only for the sake of argument, I wonder, do tax hike supporters recognize that all that tax money is actually the taxpayers’ money first and foremost? By sustaining the governor’s veto, tax cut opponents are actually taking every dollar it “costs” the state or a political subdivision from the private economy to grow the size of government. Put another way: Does taking more money out of taxpayers’ hands and letting the state spend it — a state that, under the present status quo, ranks 48th in the country in GDP growth since 1997 — sound like a recipe for economic success to you? Sounds like business as usual, and here in Missouri, business has been too bad for too long.

The implication at the core of the veto supporters’ argument is that the state knows how to spend that money better than we do. I disagree. If you support smaller government, you support tax cuts. If you support bigger government, you make excuses.

The post That Sucking Sound Is Your Money Being Taken From Missouri’s Private Economy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although I could cite a host of Friedman literature on the subject of taxes, I’d like to just highlight one interview he did in 2003, at the age of 90, with John Hawkins. Asked whether “the Bush tax cuts” were the “right thing” to do, Friedman replied that he was “in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.“

The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes. [Emphasis mine.]

Creep, indeed. Ten years later in Missouri, supporters of Gov. Jay Nixon’s tax cut veto have delivered a parade of horribles about what will happen if the legislature overrides the governor’s veto and Missourians get tax relief. They claim (among other things) that the state will have to leave bills unpaid and cut education, its bond rating will decline, dogs and cats will live together… in short, mass hysteria. No, public education funding won’t be eviscerated by giving the People back their money, and as to the bonds, of course it wasn’t a tax cut that imperiled Missouri’s rating earlier this year. It was … the prospect of new government spending, specifically in the Medicaid program. That’s an inconvenient fact which, in all the bluster about credit ratings, veto/Obamacare supporters hope you forget.

That’s because it’s all interconnected. Missouri’s tax cut opponents don’t want taxes cut because less tax revenue would prevent them from maintaining and growing the size of state government — whether they say it explicitly or not. It was spending, not tax cutting, that imperiled our bond rating this winter. And if I might repeat Friedman’s words here, “The only effective way I think to hold [the government’s size] down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.”

Friedman was right. If you support smaller government, you support tax cuts. And in my view, if you support bigger government but don’t want to say so, you make excuses instead. I think Missourians are tired of excuses.

The post Opposing Tax Cuts, Supporting Bigger Government, And The Wisdom Of Milton Friedman appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last night was obviously Snowmaggedon, and I hope everyone is staying safe out there as some of the roads are still nasty. The previous night, Wednesday, we hosted the second Show-Me Institute Saint Louis Book Club meeting of the year. We discussed the classic The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek. The central theme of the book is that fascism is a natural outgrowth of socialist central planning. Hayek’s desperate wish was to warn the western nations, especially England and the U.S., not to pursue the path of central planning. Hayek believed that a descent into fascism was more likely than it seemed to his audience: the citizens of non-fascist western nations in 1944.

But all that just makes the book sound like a dated warning against something no one really advocates anymore, right? Well, the book has staying power because of two timeless features which are perhaps separate sides of the same coin: Hayek explains why the price system not only works, but is the best system possible for maximizing individual welfare while also making a strong case for individual liberty and limited government, which Hayek calls (using the connotation of his time), liberalism.

It was a wonderful meeting and a rousing discussion. Book club meetings start at 7 p.m. and usually wrap up about 8:30 or 9 p.m. But Wednesday’s meeting did not end until shortly after 9:30 p.m. — we all had so much to discuss. Here are some of the topics and ideas we discussed:

• Whether a person’s concept of what is possible constrains their action.
• The important distinction between freedom and power: what it is and why it is important that they not be confused.
• This wonderful quote from Adam Smith (introduced roughly by Hayek): “[the regimentation of economic life puts governments in a position where] to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
• Where Hayek drew the line on the proper role of government and how that might undermine his overall message of liberty.
• Whether market competition is inherently violent (hint: it is not).
• Whether a legal system is necessary for competition, and David Friedman’s “the discipline of constant dealings.”
• The contradiction and ugliness of “competitive socialism.”
• An extended interlude about “Little House on the Prairie.”

The reading for next month is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, another classic. Friedman is an economics and law professor with a Ph.D. in physics, and the son of free-market titan Milton Friedman. From the Amazon description: “This book argues the case for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation, with little or no government.” I am looking forward to some excellent discussion on this one at our March meeting, so please join us if you can (date of meeting to be announced, check here).

The post February Book Club Recap – The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These are our resolutions for 2013:

1. Ask not what government can do for you; ask what you can do for yourself — without being a burden to others. Recognize, and encourage others to recognize, the grave danger that is posed by a supposedly “caring” government which is in the habit of making promises it cannot keep.
2. Do not go quietly into the dark night of buying into arguments about “fairness” and “social justice” as an excuse for the limitless expansion of government. You will be accused of being heartless, cruel, just plain stupid, or worse. But do not let others define you, or dismiss you — when they are the ones who press ahead in ignoring the lessons of history, common sense, and genuine humanity.
3. Always keep in mind that our history and form of government (unlike many other hopeful but fleeting “democracies”) were not built on the proposition of One Man, One Vote, One Time. The great debate in the U.S.A. about the size and scope of government did not end with the 2012 elections. But the proponents of big government are seeking cloture — attempting to discredit and marginalize those who continue to believe in liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility as the essential pillars of democratic self-rule and human progress.
4. Write out — and be prepared to defend — your own Declaration of Independence against the prevailing orthodoxies of the Hollywood/academic/media elite, who favor every kind of “free lunch” — whether it is universal, “free” health care or universal, “free” college education even if it means severely limiting individual choice, undermining quality, and raising the real costs of health care and higher education.
5. Do not shy away from the battle of ideas as it continues to evolve inside your own family, your circle of friends and acquaintances, your community, and the state of Missouri. Ideas have consequences, and it is time to consider the catastrophic consequences of thinking it is possible to expand government spending and mandates without destroying jobs and economic growth — and condemning young people to the bleakest of futures. You only have to look at the extraordinarily high rates of unemployment and under-employment among young people in much of Europe (the nations teetering on the brink of bankruptcy) to appreciate the magnitude of the threat.

There is solace in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who looked upon anti-federalist sentiment at the state and local levels as an important bulwark in an enduring democracy. They used the words “the states” and “the people” interchangeably. Thus, the 10th Amendment, the final element in the Bill of Rights drafted in 1789 as part of the U.S. Constitution, famously states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We the people can begin to reassert the principles of liberty and limited government by stopping the growth of crony capitalism (and crony unionism) at the local and state levels which occurs when officials award tax credits, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and other subsidies to politically favored businesses and constituencies.

Along with other states, we in Missouri can say “no” both to the expansion of Medicaid in our state and to the creation of a state-run health insurance exchange that would implement the hugely expensive, deeply flawed, and greatly unpopular Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
The battle for liberty, freedom, and responsible self-government continues. Indeed, it is never-ending.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Five New Year’s Resolutions for Enhancing Liberty – And Pulling Back from the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In retrospect, the wonder is that so many legislators from across the state rushed to support the bill. As proposed, the China Hub legislation would, over a period of years, distribute some $360 million in tax credits and other subsidies to private developers in and around the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport. To what end?

Supporters of the legislation made wildly optimistic claims. They talked about how this was a can’t-miss proposition that would create “thousands of jobs” and “jump-start” economic activity.

But where was the credible evidence to support the giddy optimism? Short answer: There was none.

Legislators of both parties were prepared to overlook the absence of serious economic analysis. Still more, they were prepared to ignore the absence of any firm statement from the government of China or leading international carriers that they would send more flights to Saint Louis if granted substantial tax credits.

An eight-page “study” by the Regional Commerce and Growth Association (RCGA) was indicative of the slipshod thinking behind the so-called “Big Idea.” The RCGA paper did not attempt to show any real link between the tax credits and increased flights. It somehow assumed that those flights would magically appear.

In response to an information request, the Show-Me Institute obtained a review from the Midwest-China Hub Commission that revealed internal doubts and inconsistencies.

First, it showed that facilities around the airport were already on the receiving end of a surprisingly large and unreported amount of government incentives — $93 million had already been authorized or expended, and another $192 million was available for future use. Second, the review conceded that “Many unknowns remain such as: catalysts for increased flights, cargo market share capture, background analysis, etc.” The commission also noted that the China Hub legislation “may incentivize facilities that have only a limited relationship to the Air Cargo facility.”

In a series of commentaries, policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute showed how the proposed legislation was likely to lead to an underwhelming result — supporting existing operations at Lambert, and contributing to the growth of still more surplus or unneeded warehousing facilities in or around the airport.

In the end, Missouri lawmakers could not agree on a comprehensive set of changes that would both sunset tax credits in other development areas and still leave room for a fresh set of new tax credits for the China Hub in Saint Louis.

The Show-Me Institute instilled a badly needed sense of reality in the whole debate.

Tax credits are not free money. Our state government is already straining to meet its current commitments. Every dollar that is given away in tax credits is a dollar that the state government must replace with cuts in current programs, or — more likely — through increased taxation. There is a long and dismal history illustrating the multiple failures of heavily subsidized commercial enterprises.

Instead of awarding more tax credits to favored individuals and industries, legislators should do something truly innovative: They should lower taxes across the board for all Missourians. That way, economic growth can occur organically, and in areas that legislators might not expect.

Any attempt to call a special session of the legislature for the purpose of resurrecting the China Hub idea should be rejected. If this idea really is a can’t-miss proposition, entrepreneurs in the private sector will find a way to make it happen. Our state lawmakers are not equipped to pick economic winners and losers.

Andrew B. Wilson is a fellow and Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Defeat of ‘China Hub’ or ‘Aerotropolis’ Bill a Significant Victory for Missouri Taxpayers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For visitors unfamiliar with the Show-Me Institute, first add us to your blog reader. Second, the Show-Me Institute is a free-market think tank based in Missouri, focused on promoting limited-government ideas. I’d check the “About Us” page for a more comprehensive explanation of the institute’s objectives, but I’ll highlight this tidbit in particular:

The work of the institute is rooted in the American tradition of free markets and individual liberty. The institute’s scholars seek to move beyond the 20th-century mindset that every problem has a government solution. Instead, they develop policies that respect the rights of the individual, encourage creativity and hard work, and nurture independence and social cooperation.

Not much to add beyond that. Like I said, bookmark us and come back often. We’d love to hear about what’s important to you and what you think of our work.

Finally, I’d like to send a quick thank you to Hot Air, a place where much of my work and research has appeared during the last couple of years. It’s one thing to explore the patterns and intersections of politics and policy in a vacuum; it’s another to pursue those interests in full view of Hot Air’s gigantic audience, gaining not only feedback from those who read the site, but also feedback from the consummate professionals who run it. To Ed, Allahpundit, and everyone that made and makes the site “go,” thank you for the invitation and opportunity to contribute at Hot Air. To Hot Air’s readers, thanks for the feedback — and for not (always) separating my head from my neck each time you disagreed with me.

So, to old friends, welcome. To new friends, glad to make your acquaintance! And I’ll see you all again soon, back here in the same space.

The post Who Am I? What Is the Show-Me Institute? And a Thank You to Hot Air appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Reducing our number of state reps will save money on legislative salaries and benefits. It will reduce the number of people who can introduce new laws to dictate how Missourians live their lives. For more information about why this change would benefit Missouri, check out these prior posts.

Affecting far fewer people — but equally exciting — is the upcoming meeting about the disincorporation of Saint George, a small suburb in Saint Louis County that has long been a speeding ticket revenue hotspot. A group of newly elected city leaders campaigned for the idea of disincorporation, and now the chickens get to come home and roost. I have long felt that disincorporation was an overlooked option for small Missouri towns and villages, especially in Saint Louis County towns like Saint George.

However, the article certainly makes it seem that the newly elected leadership has quickly started acting like politicians. They appear to have taken a liking to being in office instead of moving ahead with their campaign promises. If your real goal were to disincorporate the city, why would you appoint political allies to fill all the positions? I know that to the victor goes the spoils, but not if the city no longer exists:

[Mayor Carmen] Wilkerson nominated [Susan] Preis to be a full-time city clerk for about $40,000 a year with no benefits to replace Marilyn Schneider, who works part time and earns $14,000 with benefits.

City Treasurer Dave Pozzo was replaced with Cathy Heins. John Malec, the city’s attorney and prosecutor, resigned before the meeting and was replaced by Paul Martin, who had led Wilkerson’s steering committee to look at dissolving the city.

I hope they prove me wrong and are serious about returning to disincorporated status within the county.

The post Progress in Fight for Less Government in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By contrast, the modern State of the Union address is carefully orchestrated both by politicians and the media to instill a feeling of awe in viewers. Like a well-rehearsed religious ceremony, participants rise and show their approval at predetermined breaks in the speech as the president releases a steady stream of policy proposals, like mystic prayers that he is confident will elevate his people. This spectacle places government — especially the president — at the center of our lives, but this is as backward as the medieval idea that the sun revolved around the earth.

Last night, Obama briefly acknowledged that America’s free-market system “sparks the creativity and imagination of our people,” but quickly moved on to extol government subsidies for, among other things, high-speed rail, broadband Internet access, and renewable energy sources. All these projects stifle individual creativity and imagination by attempting to direct innovation and economic growth from on high — they are a kinder, gentler central planning and reflect what Nobel Prize–winning economist F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that politicians know better than the dispersed knowledge of the people they rule.

In fact, it is everyday people using bits of knowledge in their particular areas of expertise who keep the economy functioning and drive it forward. Not only does the president not possess the knowledge necessary to understand and successfully redirect that multitude of choices to his preferred ends, it is impossible for him to possess it. Only an entrepreneur facing the discipline of profit and loss can discover which new energy source will prove popular. Only a rural resident weighing the costs and benefits of faster Internet access can decide whether it makes sense for him. Only a commuter running late for work can decide whether high-speed rail is more efficient than driving. The economy, Hayek explained, is the product of human action but not human design, so it must be steered by the choices of individuals free from government influence and coercion.

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith wrote about the arrogance of the “man of system,” who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” But, as Smith points out, we are not chess pieces; each of us has different hopes, goals, and dreams — and different ideas about how to achieve them. We naturally resist the hand of the man of system when it tries to move us away from our chosen paths and ruin all the grand designs of politicians and their planners. People will flourish most when an equitable set of rules is enforced, but they are otherwise left to move about life’s board as they see fit.

Political rhetoric like last night’s speech may sound exquisite and offer hope for great improvements in the human condition, but, almost without exception, the improvements we know of came about not from a government plan but from individuals going about their lives and pursuing their own goals. Presidents may flatter themselves with the idea that they are the center of the universe, but as King Solomon, who knew something about the arrogance of public officials, wrote in Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”

The post A State of Arrogance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since the end of World War II, libertarians have typically been considered a part of the right, in a “fusionist” alliance with traditional conservatives. However, a number of libertarians have questioned the usefulness of this longstanding relationship in light of the dramatic growth in the size of government and restrictive social policies instituted by self-described conservatives in government.

Both Stokes and I want to see dramatic reductions in the size of government and the roles it plays, but we disagree on the strategy for achieving those goals. Stokes will argue in the affirmative that libertarians’ best hope is to ally with conservatives — the only other group he sees as trying to limit the size of government. I will take the negative, contending that, despite their rhetoric, the conservative commitment to limited government is only skin-deep.

Outside of our employment at the Show-Me Institute, I serve as the Missouri state chair of Young Americans for Liberty, and Stokes is the Republican committeeman for Clayton Township in Saint Louis County.

Join us tonight (Thursday, Sept. 30) at Dressel’s in the Central West End for food, drinks, and discussion. (Cash dining and bar.)

The post Debate Tonight! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Dispatch From the Fair appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are in Sedalia, stop by the exhibition hall between corn dogs to talk to us about free markets. For those of you who haven’t had a chance to stop by, here is a picture of our booth!

* Title quote: Lenny at the State Fair, from That Thing You Do.

The post “Oh, I’m Not Here With These Fellas; I’ve Got a Pig in Competition Over at the Livestock Pavilion, and I Am Going to Win That Blue Ribbon!”* appeared first on Show-Me Institute.