“[Adam] Smith is convinced that the commercial society which he describes and analyzes in The Wealth of Nations cannot do without the morally sensitive being of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, if markets and liberty more generally are to be sustained over the long-term. There is, however, something else that unites the two books. Both flow from Smith’s commitment to the Scottish Enlightenment project of improvement, at the heart of which is what David Hume called the ‘science of man.’ That is the light in which we should place these two volumes. It reveals to us Smith’s essential humanism as someone who believed that the economy of natural liberty was part-and-parcel of what Smith called a ‘decent’ society.” (03/11/26)
“It’s never easy working for tips. For eight years, from 2014 to 2022, I did just that. I was a server at a Maine hotel, taking orders at the restaurant and bringing customers their food. Some nights, I’d make $200 or even $300. Other nights, I’d make half that, or less. … I got married to a coworker I met on the job, and before leaving the dining room, we had two kids. I had to bring home the bacon, but it was hard to estimate how much I’d make in a given year. And every year, come April 15th, I had a choice to make. Would I report my tip income on my taxes? Or would I keep it off the books and keep more money in my pocket? I always made the lawful choice. But it was tough.” [editor’s note: The “lawful choice” would be to pocket it all as “gifts” with no paperwork involved – SAT] (03/11/26)
“The bottom-up mechanism of technological improvement that Smith showcases in the very first pages of Wealth of Nations shapes the division of labor. These technological improvements contribute to growing production (and to growing markets with more room for subdivision), capital’s profit, and cheaper goods and so raising living standards. Capital accumulation is an effect, not the cause, of technological innovation, and not just the result of the prudential habit to save.” (03/11/26)
“My country bombed a girl’s elementary school last weekend. My country killed around one hundred and sixty girls in an instant. My country is the reason that the men and women who loved those little girls have to pull their severed, bloody limbs from the rubble, find their backpacks covered in blood, and bury them forever. Then people like Karoline Leavitt, who will be remembered forever for being the spokeswoman for the human meat grinder, will refer to the mass slaughter as ‘propaganda’ when asked about it. Then, we all go to work on Monday instead of setting the world on fire — like nothing ever happened. Like one hundred and sixty girls’ lives weren’t extinguished while neocons and liberals alike justify regime change on the basis of state-sanctioned violence against women. Have we not all been here before?” (03/11/26)
“It is fighting for the survival of the organization and of Shiites there, and in the region. The US would be wise not to get sucked into this conflict, too.” (03/11/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Connor O’Keeffe
“After Trump ordered this major joint US-Israeli air campaign on Iran a week and a half ago, several politicians, political commentators, and public figures heaped praise on the president for the ‘remarkable courage’ he showed to finally take on the Iranian regime. …. these characterizations already look a bit antiquated after Trump quietly dropped his initial stated goal of helping the Iranian people take over their government. But, especially as the price of oil has risen, the administration has continued to use this whole conflict to present Trump as a bold, decisive, and courageous president who is uncharacteristically willing to endure short-term economic, military, and political hardship in order do what is necessary to make the world a safer and more prosperous place for future generations in America and across the globe. That is nonsense.” (03/11/26)
“Political movements often begin as revolts against entrenched power, only to be absorbed by the very institutions they sought to challenge. The pattern is familiar in American political history. Grassroots insurgencies ignite public enthusiasm, mobilize voters around neglected issues, and briefly threaten the ruling consensus. Yet over time they are either neutralized or transformed into instruments of the existing political order. Two movements defined the political awakening of many Americans in the early twenty-first century: the Tea Party and the MAGA movement. Both promised a revolt against Washington. Both claimed to represent ordinary Americans against an unaccountable ruling class. Both attracted millions of supporters who believed they were witnessing the birth of something genuinely transformative. Yet both ultimately failed.” (03/11/26)
“Centrist Democrats argue that the party should not ‘go so far left in a primary that they can’t win against MAGA in the general.’ As the Center for Working Class Politics observes, these ‘Third Way’ Democrats stress ‘affordability’ and ‘abundance’ without taking on the billionaire class. Progressive Democrats, including groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and Working Families Party, are seen as just too radical to attract working-class voters. I disagree. I think the problem is that Democrats, even progressive Democrats, are not radical enough. We have only to look at former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 ‘Four Freedoms’ State of the Union address to be reminded of what our politics could be and should be. The ‘Four Freedoms’ (of speech and religion, from want and fear) are properly the best remembered parts of the address.” (03/11/26)
“Everyone hates Congress. That poll showing that cockroaches are more popular than Congress is now thirteen years old, and things haven’t improved in those thirteen years. Congressional approval dipped below 20% during the Great Recession and hasn’t recovered since. A republic where a supermajority of citizens neither like nor trust their representatives is not the most stable of foundations, so it should not be shocking that the legislative branch is being subsumed by the executive. What’s the solution? Many have been proposed, some with very snazzy websites.” (03/11/26)
