“Libertarian political philosophy in the analytic tradition nears the half-century mark. Libertarian theorists have produced sophisticated defenses of limited government and individual liberty, but these defenses diverge in fundamental ways. The divergences reflect incompatible views about the nature and source of justice itself. This philosophical diversity may point toward a more complete understanding of libertarian justice. Two recent works capture these divergent strands. Billy Christmas’s Property and Justice advances a natural rights libertarianism that derives a complete theory of justice from the single principle of non-interference. Nick Cowen’s Neoliberal Social Justice builds a contractualist case for classical liberal institutions that takes seriously the epistemic limitations plaguing any attempt at social organization.” (01/22/26)
“A growing share of voters (some 60 percent) are dissatisfied with the way our democracy is working and feel alienated from both major political parties. One factor is polarization: the growing emotional and policy distance and declining trust between supporters of the two parties. Another is the parties’ perceived failure to address the country’s economic and social problems. Related to this is a sense that both parties have become too captive to their most militant elements. … Ranked-choice voting (RCV) for president in November (state by state) could ease this problem by enabling voters to cast a sincere vote for their first preference, knowing that if their candidate didn’t make it and no one won an initial majority, their vote would be transferred to their second preference.” (01/22/26)
Source: Orange County Register
by Veronique de Rugy
“For some years now, conservatives who believe in free markets and limited government have been labeled RINOs — ‘Republicans in name only’ — as GOP liberals or moderates have historically been known. The MAGA movement flings this term as an insult and a signal that respecting the realities of supply and demand instead of endorsing price controls is a character flaw. But after watching the last few weeks unfold, it’s hard not to ask this: If believing in markets makes you a RINO, what exactly do we call Republicans who now openly embrace ideas lifted from the playbooks of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)? How about ‘Depublicans?'” (01/22/26)
“Pollsters have long understood that the act of casting a ballot creates a bond. Once we have voted for a candidate, we feel invested in him. We don’t want to admit to ourselves that we might have made a mistake. … Will anything turn MAGA against [Donald Trump]? I wondered whether, by threatening to annex Greenland, he had found the one issue where his base would not follow him. He was elected as the candidate who would put an end to foreign adventurism, and voters opposed taking Greenland by 71 percent to 4 percent — 4 percent being, coincidentally, the ‘lizardman’s constant,’ the estimated proportion of people in any poll who will give insincere or demented replies. Perhaps that is why, as I write, he seems to be backing down from the demand.” (01/22/26)
Source: Caitlin Johnstone, Rogue Journalist
by Caitlin Johnstone
“I’ve seen some Australians expressing confusion as to whether or not they can still legally criticize Israel online after new ‘hate speech’ laws were passed on Tuesday under the pretense of combatting ‘antisemitism’. The answer is yes, and you definitely should keep opposing Israel and its genocidal atrocities. I am worried that these new laws may indirectly have a bit of a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism due to Australians not understanding these new laws and what people are allowed to do without being jailed. … it is still legal for Australians to oppose Israel and to associate with pro-Palestine groups — and we should. What’s changed is that now those groups can be classified as ‘hate groups’ and banned, similarly to how Palestine Action has been banned in the UK. But this hasn’t happened yet, and hopefully never will.” (01/22/25)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“One of the most important lessons in the loss of liberty is how the federal government, especially the all-powerful national-security branch of the federal government, enlists the support of the American people for measures that destroy their very own rights and liberties. A good example of this phenomenon is America’s socialist (i.e., central planning) system of immigration controls, which millions of Americans have come to support on the basis that it supposedly protects the nation from invaders, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, communists, anarchists, and other scary people. By converting Americans into a fear-filled people, the federal government has been able to destroy their liberty through an immigration police state accompanies America’s socialist system of immigration controls.” (01/22/26)
“Over the last 18 months, the grip of the [Online Safety Act] has become more apparent to internet users with each click. The law was passed by the British parliament in October 2023 but came into effect in stages, the last of which was in July 2025. Among other things, it requires tech companies to take action against illegal content on their platforms, such as child sexual abuse, revenge porn, and fraud. Concerningly, however, the OSA also requires tech companies to protect children from content that is not illegal, but which is nevertheless deemed ‘harmful.'” (01/22/26)
“Most people would consider it a civic duty, and even an act of Christian love, to call 9-1-1 when they see an accident, someone injured, a car off the road, or other emergency. For some people, this would of course be in addition to offering to render help immediately. But should it be a crime to decide NOT to call 9-1-1? … Under Wyoming House Bill 47, people who knowingly ignore emergency situations could face fines and misdemeanor charges, with steeper penalties if inaction contributes to a fatal outcome. … Is it possible to legislate civic virtue? We all applaud the kindness of the Good Samaritan, but is the necessary other side of that coin taking legal action against the priest and the Levite who left the mugged man laying on the path?” (01/22/26)
“In the mid-1960s, I joined the freedom movement in the South as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Those were heady years, and I am proud of my small role in the great achievements of that time. Our movement breathed new life into American democracy, inspiring and teaching people who led many of the other liberation movements of the 1960s and ‘70s. It opened up schools, education, jobs, public accommodations, voting power, electoral office, and judgeships to people of color in the South and throughout the country. But there is also a fight for history.” (01/22/25)
Source: Independent Institute
by K Lloyd Billingsley
“Redistricting measures in Texas and California have all eyes on the Nov. 3 midterm election. That contest also marks 30 years since the people of California won a victory for civil rights, now ignored by the ruling class in the Golden State and across the nation. … The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), Proposition 209 on the November 1996 ballot, was the project of California State Hayward (now Cal State East Bay) professors Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, backed by University of California regent Ward Connerly. CCRI ended racial and ethnic preferences in state education, employment, and state contracting. … Long after the people approved CCRI, the University of California built a vast DEI bureaucracy, with UCLA paying a vice chancellor for ‘equity, diversity, and inclusion,’ a salary of $440,000.” (01/22/26)
