Source: The Bleeding Heart Libertarian
by Matt Zwolinski
“If you had asked me in 2015 to describe the core commitments of American libertarianism, I could have done it in about a minute. Free markets, limited government, individual rights, skepticism of state power, free trade, open or liberal immigration, some version of non-interventionism abroad, a strong preference for constitutional constraints on executive authority. There would have been edge cases and internal disputes, sure, but the center of gravity was clear enough that you could gesture at it. Try to do the same today, ten years later, and you run into trouble almost immediately. In the public-facing, movement-adjacent side of libertarianism — the one that reaches audiences through podcasts, YouTube, X, and the tech-intellectual networks of the last few years — the center of gravity has shifted in ways that would have seemed inconceivable a decade ago.” (04/20/26)
“Private electricity grids could be key to opening the energy sector up to testing and innovation—something that is difficult on a ratepayer-supported grid. Due to mountains of regulation, public fear, and high costs, there has been little recent experience in constructing nuclear power plants, as only seven of the 94 operating reactors in the United States were built after 1990. While continued regulatory reforms are absolutely imperative, opening the sector to specialists to gain expertise would be significant.” (04/20/26)
“A reasonable rule is that once you begin making an argument ad Hitlerum — comparing some malevolent politician to Hitler or some malignant movement to the Nazis, or declaring a brutal (but non-eliminationist) war a genocide comparable to the Holocaust — you have lost the plot. The facile but extreme analogy is the first resort of the unimaginative alarmist. To this we should now add the argument ad Orbánum, namely, the view that the Trump administration is just like that of the creeping, well-nigh unstoppable, and irreversible corrupt authoritarian ruler Viktor Orbán.” (04/20/26)
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Cindy Cohn & Betty Gedlu
“For years, EFF has pushed technology companies to make real human rights commitments—and to live up to them. In response to growing evidence that Palantir’s tools help power abusive immigration enforcement by ICE, we sent the company a detailed letter asking how the promises in its own human rights framework extends to that work. This post explains what we asked, how Palantir responded, and why we believe those responses fall short.” (04/20/26)
“When we had shipping expert Sal Mercogliano on our Organized Money podcast, he said that for every day the Strait of Hormuz is shut down to traffic, it’ll take a week to untangle the problem afterward. Yesterday was day 52 of the crisis, so that’s a year on the back end, even if it ended imminently. So get used to more from us at Aftermath, as we detail the consequences before the fighting even stops. Tell your friends and scroll through previous editions at prospect.org/aftermath. We are [still at war]. My colleague Bob Kuttner ran down the latest as of yesterday afternoon. The fundamental problem is that this war turned the Strait of Hormuz into a bargaining chip, and both sides want to use that chip by closing the strait, which continues to punish the global economy with price spikes and shortages.” (04/21/26)
“In recent weeks, a growing number of Democrats and progressives have called on federal officials to invoke the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to remove President Donald Trump from office. Even some of Trump’s most stalwart onetime allies are joining in. While it may feel good to wishcast about booting Trump from the presidency, the 25th Amendment is perhaps the most unlikely strategy possible.” (04/20/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by James Bovard
“Presidents perennially claim that they possess their power thanks to ‘the consent of the governed.’ This phrase, a signature line of the Declaration of Independence, has echoed in official declarations ever since Jefferson’s time. President Harry Truman assured Congress in 1952, ‘No government can be invested with a higher dignity and greater worth than one based upon the principle of consent.’ But this has long since been a charade. As the federal government has become far larger and more heavy-handed, it is ever more important to persuade people that they consented to their oppression. But political consent is gauged very differently than consent in other areas of life.” (04/20/26)
“I might not win an argument explaining how San Jose’s public surveillance relates to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. But. … That amendment insists that people have a right ‘to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and that governments may not search and seize property without a warrant ‘upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ … I’m biased: mass surveillance is Orwellian. Do we want our government keeping track of us that much? Especially as in San Jose, where not only can over a thousand police department employees scour the data sans any legal warrant, but the department also shares this resource with over 300 agencies across the state. Creepy. That’s the word for it.” (04/20/26)
