Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“One of the common fears regarding the concept of open borders is that as soon as it is adopted, the entire world would come to the United States. It’s an irrational fear. We have a system of open borders here within the United States. We take it for granted simply because we were born and raised under it and also because it’s been our system since the inception of our nation. … I know that this might come as a shock to Americans but not everyone considers the United States to be an attractive place to move to. In fact, there are quite a few Americans who are deciding to leave the country because they no longer find the United States an attractive place. Think of those million Americans who have decided to retire in Mexico.” (10/04/24)
“The world is not an arena in which countries compete with one another, where one nation’s gain is the others’ losses. That American manufacturers routinely buy foreign-made materials, tools, machines, and semi-finished products demonstrates this. We have a global division of labor in which capital, resources, and all kinds of goods have been able to move across national boundaries fairly freely as market forces require. As a result, world poverty has diminished unbelievably, and Americans are richer than ever. … Trump understands none of this, and he has no incentive to do so. Since entering politics, his demagogic promise has been to wreak vengeance on the world for, as he sees it, taking advantage of the United States. This is his aggrieved-nation shtick.” (10/04/24)
“Gitmo was a Devil’s Island, flawed from its inception. More than 100 years ago, the U.S. leased the land on which Gitmo is located from Cuba. When the lease ran out, the U.S. refused to leave. Bush’s lawyers advised him that if he tortured and prosecuted in Cuba, federal laws didn’t apply, the Constitution wouldn’t restrain him and, best of all, those pesky federal judges couldn’t interfere with him. In five cases, the Supreme Court rejected Bush’s arguments for evading the Constitution. Bush has visited upon all of his successors a nearly insoluble jurisprudential mess.” (10/04/24)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Kerry McDonald
“Entrepreneurs face regulatory barriers in every sector, but education entrepreneurs often encounter particularly onerous ones that can prevent them from operating at all. This is especially true for school founders like [Amanda] Lucas who are creating innovative K-12 learning models, such as microschools for homeschoolers, that don’t fit neatly into existing regulatory boxes designed for traditional schooling.” (10/04/24)
“Everyone lives in, and enjoys the myriad cultural and commercial benefits of, today’s connected world. Few think about how connectedness, which facilitates the flow of everything from information to bananas, comes with grave vulnerabilities: Computer keystrokes somewhere can cause physical damage and social chaos in distant elsewheres. World War II’s bomber fleets could not do the instantaneous damage that cyberattacks could do today by, say, opening dams’ floodgates, closing pipelines, crippling power grids or water systems, turning off electricity to hospitals, or paralyzing the financial services industry. Most hospital and airport backup power capacities are designed to suffice for only about 48 hours. Welcome to Christopher A. Wray’s world of worries.” (10/04/24)
“An old saying has it that he who takes the king’s coin becomes the king’s man. The idea is that rulers expect obedience in return for money disbursed. That has important implications in a country founded on the ideal of independence from intrusive government but whose citizens are increasingly dependent on the public teat. With taxes collected from some repurposed as transfer payments to other members of the public, a growing share of Americans are becoming the king’s men.” (10/04/24)
Source: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
by Jacob Gaba & David Volodzko
“The American people’s trust in the United States Supreme Court is low. The public increasingly sees the court’s decisions as political and the media often portrays rulings in terms of which president appointed each justice. One might expect First Amendment cases to follow suit. But they don’t — and that’s a good thing.” (10/04/24)
Source: American Institute for Economic Research
by James E Hartley
“Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth by Ingrid Robeyns is a very bad book. Writing a review of it thus presents a challenge. Who wants to read a review that is the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel of dead fish? Yet, while reading Robeyns’[s] tendentious screed, I was faced with the absolute certainty that quite a few of my colleagues and students would love this book. Chesterton’s observation thus puts the right question forward. The interesting thing about Limitarianism is not why it is so very flawed, but rather why Robeyns and others would think it was good. The thesis of the book is simple. Robeyns thinks it is wrong for anyone to have more than a million dollars in wealth, but she will agree to a compromise of a maximum wealth of ten million dollars.” (10/04/24)
“As we think about the very real possibility of a Trump II administration, the consequences for the rule of law should be foremost in our mind. As he promises retribution against his enemies through the courts, should we believe him? Yes. Trump will be able to use prosecutorial and investigative power to go after his political opponents. While frivolous charges will not lead to convictions, they will have significant harassment value. More ominously, they will further degrade norms of professionalism on which the rule of law depends. Trump has long used the threat of criminal prosecution as a political cudgel.” (10/03/24)
“The ‘cultural Christianity’ argument says that atheists might not like Christianity, but they like a culture which depends on Christianity. They like open, free, thoughtful, liberal, beautiful, virtuous societies. Unmoored from a connection to Christanity, a society will gradually have less of those goods, until even atheists are unhappy. Therefore (continues the argument), atheists should be cultural Christians. While they can continue to privately disbelieve, they should support an overall Christian society, which they can dwell contentedly on the fringes of. … the Cultural Christianity argument hinges on the proposition that all liberal societies without Christianity will eventually collapse into wokeness and postmodernism. But Christianity also eventually collapsed into wokeness and postmodernism. So if they’re both equally doomed, why not at least be truthful by advocating for the virtuous liberal society I wanted in the first place?” (10/03/24)
