“When a thinker publicly changes his mind on major questions, neutral observers normally interpret it as a sign of courage and maturity. Almost no one enjoys admitting they were wrong — and ‘I changed my mind’ is tantamount to ‘I was wrong.’ On reflection, however, this favorable interpretation is premature. Yes, changing your mind because you discover surprising new evidence or arguments is courageous and mature. But what if you change your mind for purely emotional reasons, like ‘The idea that murderers shouldn’t be punished started to disgust me’? Or because you have a falling out with friends who share your views? ‘My girlfriend dumped me, so I left the church.’ Neither of these intellectual paths even hints at courage or maturity. The situation only slightly shifts if you change your mind because you ‘discover’ blatantly obvious evidence or arguments.” (08/06/26)
“The ‘farm bill’ concept is 93 years old, and it’s as bad an idea now, when only 1% of Americans work in agriculture, as it was in 1933’s first round of New Deal legislation, back when that number was 25%. We keep getting better at producing more food with less labor, but apparently buried deep within the US Constitution there’s an amendment obligating American taxpayers and consumers to ensure that anyone whose great-grandfather wore overalls and drove a tractor gets to make a living and have a career doing the same thing. I can’t find it, but it must be in there somewhere, right? Otherwise, why does Congress spend more than $70 billion a year to make it so?” (08/06/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by William L Anderson
“As America’s first reality-show president, Donald Trump wants people to think he is breaking new ground and transforming America for the better. Stepping where no president before has gone, Trump has directed the US Commerce Department to take equity positions in 30 American firms, which clearly is controversial. Although the US is new to this policy, it isn’t the first country to do this, as France, Norway, Germany, China, and others have already seen governments purchase partial ownership in private firms. Supporters of this practice claim that any government infusion of cash into these businesses will expand the economy’s capital base, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose this practice, which economist Randall Holcomb has labeled ‘political capitalism.'” (08/06/26)
“When a group of neo-Nazis planned to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, home to many Holocaust survivors, it was a Jewish attorney who stood up for their right of assembly. David Goldberger, then the legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, was no self-hating Jew, and he certainly harbored no sympathy for the National Socialist Party of America. But he realized that ‘the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.’ … The smartest case for free speech has never turned on denying that some utterances are so vile that all of us would be better off if they somehow disappeared from the public sphere. Rather, it was always based on skepticism that any institution, private or public, would consistently make these determinations in a reasonable and selfless manner.” (08/06/26)
“In one sense, public backlash to data centers in the United States shouldn’t be surprising: Their construction and deployment have skyrocketed across the country, creating—not to get all goopy on you—a highly visible target for American angst about AI, Big Tech, U.S. politics, the turbulent economy, male-pattern baldness, and surely more. A recent New York Times op-ed captures the mood on the left well: These giant bricks guzzle water, gobble electricity, buzz loudly 24/7, and enrich Silicon Valley billionaires at regular folks’ expense. Opposition, however, isn’t just on the left: You’ll find similar takes from MAGA types on Facebook and NextDoor, and—as I just saw myself when driving outside Raleigh last week—big ‘NO DATA CENTER’ signs along many a rural roadside. Yet most of the common objections to data centers collapse under scrutiny.” (08/06/26)
“One day, the United States seems ready to unleash a Curtis LeMay-style devastating bombing campaign of Iran. The next, it appears trapped in endless haggling with Iranian dissimulators. Of the roughly 150 days since the first strike, about 90 have passed without major military operations. Iran believes time is on its side. The Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, gas prices are too high, and antiwar House Democrats seem poised to win the midterms and bring Trump’s war to a halt. Trump, by contrast, believes Iran can talk all it wants while sanctions, embargoes, and military pressure steadily weaken the regime. The war has become so politicized in an election year that several basic realities have gone largely unnoticed by the media. First, the cycle of bombing, pausing, negotiating, and bombing again may seem endless. But the confusion obscures the continuing effects of the embargoes, sanctions, blockade, and financial isolation imposed on Iran.” (08/06/26)
“Occasionally, President Trump takes an anti-capitalist rhetorical turn. He apparently supposes his unleashing of an Inner Mamdani will help him through a political rough patch. Or perhaps he is just momentarily confused. The president recently asserted that oil companies are making too much money right now and ‘ought to give back’ some of it to the public. This, although ‘I’m a big free enterprise guy.’ But oil companies don’t owe buyers anything more than the oil they supply. Nor, when prices are low, do buyers owe oil companies or gas stations more money than what they pay.” (08/06/26)
“With wildfires again threatening the American West this summer, Utah has become the latest state helping homeowners in high-risk areas to fortify their properties against drought-driven fire. From 2021 to 2024, the state saw the largest percentage increase in home insurance costs – a 59% hike – of any U.S. state. Yet unlike in Colorado and California, both of which recently enacted stricter rules on insurance companies and tough building codes to ‘harden’ a home from fire, Utah’s plan is more partnership than paternalism. It will first nudge homeowners with information on risks and remedies and only threaten a fee for noncompliance with new codes that aim to ensure a ‘defensible space’ from wildfire. ‘Our goal is to empower homeowners, communities, fire departments, and municipalities to act in reducing their vulnerability to wildfire by giving them the necessary tools to identify and understand their wildfire risk,’ states an official Utah website.” (08/05/26)
“There’s nothing weird or exceptional about an organization making a catastrophic mistake and hiring a liar and a fraud, nor is there anything surprising about such failures being in part due to poor or nonexistent vetting. These kinds of people’s particular skill is inspiring extreme credulousness, and then manipulating people to maintain that credulousness in the face of mountains of disconfirming evidence. They might make use of ideological or identity-based affinity to manipulate you—Bernie Madoff famously defrauded numerous Jewish organizations by playing on precisely those kinds of sentiments—but if that’s not an option they’ll use something else. It’s not a unique feature of politics or academia, nor of left-wing spaces. I mean, look who’s president. The unavoidable moment of reckoning for most organizations, though, comes when it becomes clear that their own mission is being damaged.” (08/06/26)
