Source: The American Conservative
by Peter Van Buren
“[T]he question hanging over the present war is whether we are witnessing the reassertion of American dominance or the continuation of its gradual displacement. The United States is still the meanest dog on the block. No nation can match our ability to destroy things, literally to erase a whole society off the face of the earth if we really wanted to. Even without our archipelago of bases worldwide, the U.S. can launch untouchable B-2s and other bombers from Missouri, bomb Tehran, and return them home safely. That is not the same as shaping what comes after — that is, primacy. The way the Iran War plays out says in part whether the U.S. is indispensable in reacting to nascent nuclear states or directing events on the very largest scales possible, as was envisioned in the postwar world.” (04/29/26)
“John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration is widely regarded as a foundational text of religious liberty. For centuries, thinkers have praised its clarity, moral confidence, and rejection of the coercive religious politics that prevailed in early modern Europe. On the surface, Locke offers a simple and powerful claim: the state has no authority over the salvation of souls, and therefore it ought not to coerce religious belief or practice. But this framing, so often viewed as self-evident, rests on claims that are highly contestable.” (04/29/26)
“The idea that artificial intelligence could usher in a ‘post-money’ world — and that such a world would also render firms obsolete — rests on a misunderstanding of what firms are and why they exist. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the highly implausible premise that money would disappear beneath an AI/robotics explosion of superabundance, it does not follow that firms would disappear with it. Firms are not artifacts or by-products of monetary exchange; they are organizational responses to coordination problems, uncertainty, and the costs of markets.” (04/29/26)
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Rory Mir
“If you want to overthrow Big Tech, you’ll need Section 230. The paradigm shift being built with the Open Social Web can put communities back in control of social media infrastructure, and finally end our dependency on enshitified corporate giants. But while these incumbents can overcome multimillion-dollar lawsuits, the small host revolution could be picked off one by one without the protections offered by 230.” (04/28/26)
“Because politicians win by working their base into a lather, there currently exist within American politics no incentives to be wrong with decency. Every opponent must be an enemy, every disagreement a threat. I helped in my small way to create that mess; I’m resolved to help in a similarly small way to fix it. This doesn’t mean no longer speaking to what I believe to be good policy even on questions where bad policy is non-catastrophic to our republic. It does mean not strategically catastrophizing them, and not vilifying their adherents. … the only way to get incentives pushing back in that right direction is for enough people to decide they don’t care about differences on policy when those differences do not radically reshape the world.” (04/28/26)
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) shocked the world on Tuesday when it announced that it’d be leaving the world’s largest oil cartel this week. While there’s no immediate impact for the US, in the long run it’ll mean lower gasoline prices and much-needed relief for American consumers. For decades, the UAE has been part of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which has artificially limited global oil supplies and thereby put upward pressure on prices. … The idea behind the cartel was simple: gather all the major oil-producing countries into a room and agree to act like a monopoly, thereby maximizing profits at the expense of the rest of the world. But as other nations began discovering and pumping more oil of their own, it became increasingly difficult for a dozen or so countries to control global prices.” (04/29/26)
Source: Rutherford Institute
by John & Nisha Whitehead
“In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence. The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next. Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration. Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.” (04/28/26)
Source: Los Angeles Times
by Alex Padilla & Brian Lemek
“More than 158 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2024 election, and nearly one in three did so by mail. Nothing about that should be controversial because voting by mail is safe, secure and deeply rooted in American history. On March 31, just days after casting his own ballot by mail in a Florida special election, President Trump signed an executive order attacking vote by mail and absentee voting nationwide. … Immediately after Trump’s executive order was announced, more than 20 states and multiple organizations challenged it in court. They are right to do so, and we believe these states will prevail for the same reason the courts rejected the president’s earlier attempts to seize authority over our elections. Because the Constitution is clear: States and Congress set the rules for federal elections — not the president.” (04/28/26)
