The Bob Zadek Show

When the population of a tiny fish called the Delta smelt started to dwindle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife kicked into high gear to save them from going to extinct. They used their authority to divert federal water from the smelt’s habitat in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta — away from farming and other habitats in the San Joaquin Valley. Endangered species have no way to communicate to the regulators charged with keeping them alive, but if they could, they might echo Ronald Reagan in saying:

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The more fresh water retained in the Delta region, the thinking went, the more smelt there would be. Unfortunately, “preserving” freshwater (and essentially flushing it into the ocean) seems to have done nothing to revive smelt stocks. They are still dying. Making matters worse, other endangered species in the Valley are now being deprived of water from the San Joaquin.

Tony Francois is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation — a public interest law firm that litigates on behalf of vulnerable individuals and small businesses whose rights are threatened by overreaching legislative and executive power. Francois notes that property owners (farmers, etc.) are not the only ones with a stake in this issue, but also people who value biodiversity and sanity in government. He frames this as a moral issue, with the regulators to blame. However, he also puts some responsibility on citizens of various stripes to assert our power against an unaccountable agency run amok.

Tony joins the show to explain the disastrous unintended consequences of federal bureaucratic management of state resources and discuss other pending Supreme Court cases in which endangered species regulations are threatening people’s liberties (and often the environment). Finally, Bob and Tony discuss Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and his track record on cases involving the environment.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Progressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a disaster for unions and

working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it’s a bad

decision, but won’t change much.

Progressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a disaster for unions and working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it’s a bad decision, but won’t change much.
The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and end of conflicts — one face looked rearward, to the past, while the other looked ahead to the future. With the end of the Supreme Court’s latest session and looming end to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s career, we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of jurisprudence.

Two years ago, the court decided not to hear the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, suspending the conflict between public sector unions and their opponents in the “right work” camp. Rebecca Friedrichs was a school teacher who resented paying dues, or even the less substantial non-member “agency fees” to her union. As a major political faction, public sector unions often push legislation in the interest of their members, such as increased funding for public school teachers’ salaries. Friedrichs, however, was not a typical union member. A rare anti-teacher’s union teacher, Friedrichs was recruited as an ideal plaintiff to go to court on behalf of the entire “right to work” movement — largely funded by conservative and libertarian interest groups — to argue that her free speech rights were being violated by the requirement to contribute financially to her union.

Many thought that the Friedrichs case was doomed when Justice Scalia suddenly passed away in 2016, until Trump’s election ushered in Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. The issue of public sector union dues returned to the docket in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. While the details were different, the essentials of the case was the same: do forced dues to a union constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as an instance of “compelled speech?”

A Precedent Overturned
Janus, a child protection specialist, contested the fees his union required him to pay. Since unions often function as a wing of the Democratic party, this seems like a reasonable complaint for public sector workers who broadly oppose the Democrats’ agenda. Indeed the court had found in a previous case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1970), which determined that dues collected from non-members were constitutional as long as they were only used for the union’s purposes of collective bargaining — separated from political activism funded by member dues.

Allowing employees to opt out of union fees entirely, however, creates a “free rider” problem, in which the non-members receive the benefits of the union’s negotiations at the expense of members. Thus, the decision in Janus — in favor of the plaintiff’s right to not pay any fees — deals a hard blow to public sector unions — one of the last organized supporting wings of the Democratic Party.

To understand why the case was so charged, one needs to understand the shifting political landscape — specifically, the shrinking power of unions as a check on business interests. Certain subgroups of the GOP have made it their goal to “defund and defang” public sector unions — the last bastion of organized labor — so that a free market agenda can advance with less opposition. As union membership has declined, we have seen a nearly inverted relationship with the share of income going to the top 10%. Whether the relationship is causal is hard to say, but the graphical evidence is compelling.

Subscribe to Jonathan’s podcast for a progressive perspective on issues related to organized labor and inequality.

Jonathan Tasini, host of the progressive “Working Life” podcast, sees this outcome as the result of a highly effective coalition of right-wing interest groups — including the Koch Foundation and the Uihlein Foundation — and the network of think tanks and organizations they support. Tasini links the decline in union influence over politics with the rise in inequality, and expects the Janus decision to further erode the fabric of working-class America.

However, it is not only progressives using partisan arguments for unions who are arguing against the 5–4 majority in Janus.

Was the Court Wrong?
Eugene Volokh, a noted libertarian legal scholar and lead blogger at Reason.com’s The Volokh Conspiracy, co-authored an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in support of a government union’s constitutional right to levy fees.In her dissent, Justice Kagan quotes Volokh’s brief, which offers “many examples to show that the First Amendment ‘simply do[es] not guarantee that one’s hard-earned dollars will never be spent on speech one disapproves of.’”

For example, when the government taxes, it often spends the money on campaigns to promote the ideology behind a given program. In a simpler case, government grants often fund causes and forms of expression that many taxpayers do not value. Kagan and Volokh suggest that we might as well think of the fee as a tax on government workers to pay for the collective bargaining that they must undertake with the union to determine fair pay and benefits.

This ultimately led Volokh to conclude, in the wake of the decision, that the new precedent won’t change much. After all, the government can just change its method of levying the fee to a tax — leaving union revenues unchanged.

Nonetheless, the Janus decision does seem to tilt the balance a bit further away from unions, which is why many libertarians are celebrating.

Bob has covered this topic several times in the past, including (most recently) his interview with Rebecca Friedrichs and her attorney. Now you can hear the other side of the debate from Jonathan Tasini.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

The governments of tomorrow may look nothing like today’s countries.

Ever since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men have dreamed of using science to advance empirical knowledge and bring relief to the human condition. But in the area of law and governance in particular, some countries have tried to apply rational principles (i.e., Marx’s supposedly scientific laws of history) with disastrous consequences. The common law tradition — with its protections of private property and individual liberty, plus stable rule of law — has proved the best system so far, despite being an emergent, system rather than the creation of an all-wise leader or bureaucracy.

Ironically, the countries that have tried the hardest to engineer social outcomes are now implementing special zones where more organically-evolved legal systems are the law of the land. China’s SEZs — free trade zones modeled on western governance — are credited with bringing close to a billion people out of poverty. This economic miracle has spawned copy-cat experiments around the world, but they are not necessarily the end-all-be-all of good governance. Newer concepts like charter cities, technological zones, and startup cities have been proposed to jumpstart growth in dysfunctional jurisdictions around the world.

A few years ago, before a series of high profile failures in places like Honduras and Madagascar, these ideas seemed to be gaining traction. There was cross-spectrum support, ranging from “crazy utopian techno-libertarians” (like the “seasteaders”) to establishment-types like former World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer.

Mark Lutter straddles these two worlds. He knows what drives libertarian aspirations for free cities, having recently received his PhD from George Mason University (under Don Boudreaux, no less). But Lutter also knows what it takes for radical ideas to get a hearing with the people with the authority to implement it. He recently founded the Center for Innovative Governance, a new think tank, to fill the vacuum in credible academic literature and guide pragmatic policy-makers who see the potential for more innovative governance.

Although it has become a cliche in some circles, governance matters — more than many realize. Writing for Jacobite Magazine, Lutter notes that a practical approach must convince the ruling elites. Our empirical knowledge of what works (rule of law, property rights, etc.) needs to be transmitted to the parts of the world where darkness, superstition, and authoritarianism still reign.

Why City States?
Nation-states have been the default configuration for governance for 400 years. Static in their geographic boundaries, and sclerotic in their administration, nation-states are like lumbering giants that frequently start wars against other countries and shackle their own citizens with one-size-fits-all laws. When it comes to economic activity, however, cities are by far the more dynamic relevant unit. They are also where most of the problems requiring government need to be solved. As Richard Florida, founder of CityLabs, recently wrote:

“Local governments tend to be less ideological and more focused on problem-solving, and they know intimately which problems actually need to be solved. They are more accountable to the people they represent, because they interact with them every day. And because people pick where they live by “voting with their feet,” constituents tend to share the same values as their leaders.”
The push for more innovative governance builds on the on-going devolution of power from dysfunctional nation-states to cities and neighborhoods. Where this devolution is stalled, we see widespread human misery: Honduras, Venezuela, and much of Africa.

This brings up the possibility of cities wresting even more autonomy from their Federal counterparts, and implementing best practices or trying out new ones in the competition for tax-paying constituents. Florida and Lutter suspect that cities that are most attractive to knowledge workers — and those that innovate — are most likely to win.

Lutter is also working on a narrative that will make it easier for policy-makers to implement the changes that will help cities evolve into hubs of next-generation governance. He returns to the show this Sunday to talk about his new organization’s work on this crucial dimension. As a think tank, the Center for Innovative Governance Research aims to provide a menu of policy options, and even more importantly, to cast these options in a compelling light that captures people’s imaginations. He and Bob discuss some of these options, and the surprising places where innovative governance is taking off.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Cato’s Director of Foreign Policy says diplomacy and trade remain the most

libertarian options for dealing with rogue states.

If we trust the media, the world seems to be constantly on the brink of nuclear destruction. Since World War II, global powers have escalated the arms race to the point “Mutually Assured Destruction,” in which it would be suicidal madness for any country to initiate a nuclear attack. Some say that this logical conclusion of nuclear war has held major conflicts at bay, but the world may be getting more dangerous as nations with less to lose unlock the technology to annihilate whole cities with a single bomb.

Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.

John Glaser is particularly focused on grand strategy and the role of prestige motivations in international politics. To read between the lines of the recent summit, he notes that we have to consider what motivates foreign dictators, and how best to defuse their feelings of insecurity. After all, they are humans with the same desire for status and respect as any of us.

Glaser’s calm and measured tone in recent TV and radio interviews has mirrored his advice to U.S. leaders and diplomats. First, he says, we have to look at historical patterns. What drives North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and aggression towards the U.S.? The evidence suggests that they mainly seek a deterrent to U.S. invasion. Given our track record in Libya and Iraq — breaking promises and toppling dictators — it’s no wonder that Kim Jong-Un seeks a stronger defense to prevent his own demise.

Second, we have to see how signals of respect — even if undeserved — may be the only way to get North Korea to make concessions in areas of human rights and nuclear de-armament. As the geniuses behind the “Bad Lip Reading” videos show, these meetings are less about specific negotiation points as they are about the surrounding theater, and the optics of a U.S. President meeting the North Korean ruler for the first time.

Despite the spin from both parties, the recent summit was neither a vindication of Trump’s tough-talk from a few months ago (as Republicans claim), nor was it a mistake. Glaser believes that the negotiations were a step in the right direction — a move towards removing some sanctions and giving North Korea some of the respect it craves on the international stage. However, he gives most of the credit to South Korean President Moon Jae-in for providing the assurances to Kim that primed him to attend the meeting.


Speaking on Fox News recently, Glaser noted that this kind of negotiation is exactly what North Korea has always wanted. President Trump hinted at reducing the join military exercises by the U.S. and South Korea, and North Korea has offered to remove long-range artillery from the border with South Korea. It’s almost as if a less aggressive stance towards countries like North Korea causes them to reciprocate and tone down their aggression.

While these are positive signs, the real progress will come in the months and years ahead, as diplomats work out the details behind closed doors. Will Trump and Kim be able to put their egos aside to continue down the path of reconciliation? Tune in to get the full picture on North Korea.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Liberty is winning at the door, one state legislature at a time.

This Sunday, 8–9am PACIFIC, find out what students are really being taught

in humanities and social science departments today. Is postmodernism really

the pernicious, nihilistic doctrine that Jordan Peterson claims it to be?

Before you answer, be sure to tune into Bob’s interview with Thaddeus

Russell, and call in with your thoughts to (424) BOB-SHOW.

Most mainstream accounts of U.S. history run something like this:

The King of England was oppressing the colonies — taxation without representation , etc. — which sparked the American Revolution and quest for self-governance. This began a long struggle for democratic freedom that would be continually redefined, first through a civil war and then through a protracted civil rights battle to extend the liberties first won for white males to all of “We the People,” including women and minorities.
At each step, it’s said to be noble reformers and moral visionaries who took the courageous stand against the oppressive forces of injustice and discrimination. This naive telling may explain how certain civil liberties were gained, such as the right to vote or to be heard in the public square, but it neglects many of the freedoms that a majority of people seem to prefer to the lofty ideals of the founders.

Consider the freedom to drink, gamble, and cavort with whomever one wishes (not to mention the freedom to take long lunch breaks and summer vacations). None of these were guaranteed in the Constitution, and if it were up to some of the influential colonial leaders, people today might be banned from even more innocuous activities like dancing and celebrating Christmas.

Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup.

When Russell tried to share his revisionist research with his students at Barnard, his career was derailed. A talk delivered to his colleagues revealed that he wasn’t “one of them.” In other words, he wasn’t afraid to express unpopular opinions that offended the sensibilities of left-wing coastal elites.

To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.

Why Do We Work?
Furthermore, in a chapter titled “The Freedom of Slavery,” he claims that slaves enjoyed pleasures that were forbidden for white people. Far from defending the institution of slavery, Russell’s point is that following the civil war, the culture among former slaves frequently provided an important source of resistance to the oppressive culture of white Americans — a culture that put labor on a pedestal, and made it the reason for living, rather the means to living.

In his own life, however, Russell values work highly. He spoke with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about his own mission of challenging the Federal process of university accreditation. He is doing so through “unregistered” courses in history and philosophy, offered through his very own Renegade University. Russell also keeps busy with the Unregistered Podcast, but he will remind you that these pursuits are all a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Is Postmodernism a Threat to Liberty?
If you’ve been following the news around freedom of expression on college campuses, you’ve probably seen stories about young, zealous “Social Justice Warriors,” who have a meltdown when confronted with a perspective that challenges their previous indoctrination, courtesy of politically correct humanities departments. Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson is perhaps the best-known opponent of this trend, for refusing to be silenced by students, administrators, or media personalities on the question of transgender pronouns (a kind of compelled speech because of Canada’s new laws).

Peterson has argued that the vaguely defined but sinister ideological movement known as postmodernism is responsible for the destruction of western norms, including free speech and even logic itself. He has described postmodernism as a unified ideology espoused incompletely by many individuals, none of whom perfectly embody or even understand the whole set of doctrines. However, collectively they a pushing a complete worldview, that is the inheritor of the Marxist system for analyzing struggles between the economic classes. Instead of looking at power relationships through an economic lens, postmodernists have shifted their focus to identity politics (perhaps in part because of the horrific failures of communism in the Soviet Union and China). While the ideas behind postmodernism cannot be written down and codified, they share some broad traits such as skepticism of all “metanarratives,” such as those that would place “enlightened man” at the center of history, as told within a story of unrelenting progress.

Russell, however, identifies post-modernism as one of the greatest achievements of academia to date, offering a course through Renegade University titled, “What is Postmodernism?”. He says that thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are being abused when their theories are applied to enforce totalitarian ideals or compelled speech. Instead, post-modernism is supposed to free humanity from alleged social constructs, including race, class, and gender, so that we can become more responsible for our own fate.

Russell believes that the real problem in academia is the cowardice on the part of tenured professors to say and research what they want, rather than what they know will be safe and acceptable to their suprisingly like-minded colleagues (recall that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 10 to 1).

---

Find out what students are really being taught in humanities and social science departments today. Is postmodernism really the pernicious, nihilistic doctrine that Jordan Peterson claims it to be? Before you answer, be sure to tune into Bob’s interview with Thaddeus Russell.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe