“For most Americans—or at least most Americans with even a remedial education in civics—the phrase ‘separation of powers’ usually explains the tripartite nature of the federal government. The Founders, in their wisdom, divided that government into branches: the legislative branch, which debates and enacts laws; the executive branch, which enforces the laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets the laws and ensures that they are compliant with one another and with constitutional principles. It’s a nice, clean, simple, and, above all, effective system for limiting the power of the federal polity. … People (understandably) tend to forget that the Founders’ separation of powers referred not only to the construction of the federal government but also to the construction of the federal republic.” (05/25/26)
“Americans now experience war more as an economic abstraction than a human catastrophe. Amid endless debt-financed conflict, have we forgotten war’s tragic cost?” (05/22/26)
“One popular objection to AI concerns is to declare that LLMs can never be AGI. You need a ‘new paradigm.’ Therefore, AGI is so far in the future that it’s not worth worrying about. A common counterargument is to claim that no, LLMs can become AGI. But even without that counterargument, I think the ‘therefore’ fails on its own terms. The key question is: how much of a new paradigm do we need?” (05/22/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Joshua Mawhorter
“While not entirely consistent in every respect, the Declaration of Independence — as an act of secession — can be understood as one of the earliest major challenges to centralized, modern, sovereign authority within the emerging nation-state system. Although it created new states rather than abolishing state power itself, it decentralized and imposed limits upon British imperial sovereignty through an appeal to self-government and national self-determination. To their great credit, Locke and Jefferson both affirmed pre-political natural rights, that the only legitimate role of government is to protect those rights, and that rights remain rights and crimes remain crimes whether one is a private individual or a state elite.” (05/22/26)
“Exactly one year and six days ago, the Prospect posted a piece I’d just written about Colorado’s Jared Polis, under the headline ‘The Democrats’ One and Only Union-Busting Governor’. As of a couple weeks ago, that headline is no longer accurate. Polis is still a union-buster and even more out of sync with Colorado Democrats, who’ve just formally censured him for complying with President Trump’s demand to commute the sentence of Tina Peters …. But Polis no longer holds that ‘one and only’ status when it comes to Democratic governors who bust unions. Two weeks ago, Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger did just that by vetoing a bill that would have given Virginia’s public-sector workers the right to bargain collectively.” [editor’s note: So now she has lied to ALL sectors in that state; can an impeachment be far behind? – SAT] (05/25/26)
“European powers frequently justified conquest by claiming that they were bringing civilization, Christianity, and economic improvement to the peoples they conquered. Smith rejected this narrative. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith described the ‘savage injustice’ of European colonial expansion, conquest and exploitation rather than benevolent improvement. Instead of imposing progress through force, Smith envisioned an alternative based on voluntary exchange and mutual gains from trade. The meeting of different societies, he argued, could have produced enormous benefits if it had occurred through peaceful commerce rather than coercion. The crucial issue for Smith and Easterly was not simply whether development increased material output but whether it respected the autonomy of individuals and communities.” (05/22/26)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Andrew Lilico
“It sounds so simple. If consumers are suffering because prices are going up, then forbid that. Who could object, beyond greedy firms profiteering by pushing prices up? … If the government caps the prices of supermarket products, that will make those products unprofitable for the supermarket to stock and also mean that consumers have to pay less for them than their economic value, the consequence being that they will sell out and not be available. Why would I, as a consumer, want key products to be unavailable in supermarkets?” (05/21/26)
“Donald Trump is now an unpopular president. Some of this dissatisfaction is due to the war in Iran. Some of it springs from the unanticipated speed, chaos, and perceived brutality of several of his administration’s actions over the past year and a half. But a significant part of his political problem has a straightforward economic explanation: Everything feels expensive, and his tariffs are a major reason why. If the president wants to help himself and his party ahead of this year’s midterm elections, the most effective thing he can do is eliminate the tariffs. The evidence in favor of this move is overwhelming, and it comes from his own tenure.” (05/21/26)
“I’d love to see Barack Obama charged with, tried for, and convicted of crimes that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s guilty of. For example: Obama ordered the murders of at least two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (Donald Trump later ordered the murder of eight-year-old Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki, also a US citizen). Obama also illegally took the US to war in Libya, never even seeking the constitutionally required declaration of war. For those crimes, and many others, I’d very much like to see Obama face legal consequences. But there’s a problem with the idea …” (05/21/26)
