Populism seems to have gained some ground in recent years. Yet many economists and political scientists argue that there is no such thing as “the people” except as a collection of distinct individuals, with their own preferences and values. In this publication, author Pierre Lemieux shows that this reasoning has important practical implications for democracy.

If we want to sell people on our ideas, we must sell them on classical liberalism as a philosophical tradition that rests on some genuinely valuable ethical foundations, and not just on a narrow or caricatured vision of economic growth. Hence the impetus of this essay.

People shouldn’t be fooled by the visions of Klaus Schwab and others who dream of a better, greener, and more equal “stakeholder” capitalism.

The state can potentially be a helpful servant, when controlled by proper institutions and traditions, but can also be a terrible master.

Interview with Maria Lily Shaw, Economist at the Montreal Economic Institute, about the collateral economic harm associated with limits to free speech. Broadcast on January 18, 2021, on CTV News at Noon – Montreal.

While Canada is a relatively free country, the pandemic has exacerbated our pre-existing shortcomings in terms of freedom of expression.

Au cours des dernières années, un mouvement important de censure s’est établi au sein des médias, du milieu académique et de la population en général. Pourquoi doit-on s’inquiéter de ce mouvement?

A climate of censorship seems to be taking hold on our university campuses, within our cultural institutions, and even among the general public. This new puritanism hurts the economy and makes Quebecers poorer. Indeed, this publication shows that we would be richer if we had even more freedom of expression.

Les débats d’idées, ainsi que l’économie de marché en général, sont menacés par ces tendances et il faut en prendre conscience.

In his 1946 book Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt observed that “government ‘encouragement’ to business is sometimes as much to be feared as government hostility.”