“In NAZA, no one is worrying about rogue AI killing us off—that’s more a concern for Silicon Valley companies looking to raise capital. Rather, the film is rightfully concerned about the way that AI allows the military to justify killing ever more people, even as these systems absolve humans of the moral responsibility for choosing targets. ‘My role is entirely technical,’ says one IDF member, describing his part in the Gaza war. In this sense, AI gives soldiers a certain remove from the decision-making and even imbues such systems with virtue, since machines aren’t driven by hatred. … if AI is supposed to transfer responsibility for killing from humans to computers, and thus absolve humans of moral responsibility, it doesn’t quite work.” (10/05/26)
“Of course, the regressives and other enemies of liberty will tell you it is because people (especially those awful libertarians and sickening followers of Christ) are greedy and selfish, have no real compassion for the poor or people who wear different skin (or clothes) than they do, and the whole long litany we hear constantly. Clearly, TPOL and many of our readers disagree. (So we are even more evil, right?) But the rebellion against taxes is real, and the reasons people are rebelling are real and growing.” (10/05/26)
“The smart money in American politics has always bet against the rise of third parties. The reasons are both obvious and numerous. … The supposedly smart money is often based on conventional wisdom. But the problem with the conventional wisdom is that it is usually right for a long stretch—before suddenly proving to be disastrously wrong. Take, as an example, the longstanding conviction among political scientists studying the American primary system that party insiders ultimately decide who gets the presidential nomination, a supposed certainty that blinded large parts of the field to Trump’s rise in 2016. When it comes to third parties, we may now be approaching a similar paradigm shift.” (10/05/26)
“Wall Street Journal columnist Barton Swaim’s ‘A Suggestion for Young Radicals’ to embrace moderation (October 1) might seem to bring the second least appealing news hook for a commentator whose outlet is named after the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who famously asserted that he would rather ‘tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm’ than ‘use moderation in a cause like the present … I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.’ At least Swaim’s contribution keeps the Journal‘s op-ed page going when even the New York Times has moved on to so-called ‘guest essays.'” (10/05/26)
“As the midterm election draws near, a number of Republicans in tough races are distancing themselves from President Trump’s war. The war is unpopular because it has inflicted economic pain on the already-suffering American people. No, I am not talking about the Iran War. I am talking about President Trump’s tariff war.” (10/05/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“It shouldn’t surprise us that Trump would want little or no interference with his MAGA vision and program. After all, why else would the Framers incorporate the separation of powers concept into the Constitution? They knew that rulers inevitably had a propensity toward exercising dictatorial powers to implement their vision and their plans. After all, Trump isn’t the first head of state to have this propensity.” (10/05/26)
“Like tariffs, import restrictions are a congressional power under the Constitution, not an executive one. Thus, the president cannot impose import bans without congressional authorization. While some statutes delegate import restriction authority to the president, that power is strictly limited. And, as with tariffs, interpreting these authorities in a way that gives the president a blank check to impose import bans would run afoul of the major questions doctrine and constitutional nondelegation. It remains to be seen whether Trump or a future president might decide to claim sweeping authority to impose import bans at will. But when and if such an effort materializes, courts should strike it down.” (10/05/26)
“The artificial intelligence company Anthropic has been busy for months wining and dining religious leaders and influencers to try to push their self-serving agenda and utopian fantasies. The Vatican’s response has been to pour cold water on bizarre claims that Anthropic is embarking on its own ‘creation story’ to give birth to new sentient beings in the form of computer software. Billionaire co-founder Chris Olah, a 34-year-old Canadian-born evangelical who has turned his back on Christianity, thinks their AI model, Claude, has feelings and a sort of moral consciousness. He’s worried about its ‘mental health’ and believes it experiences human emotions like love and ‘suffers perpetually’, The New York Times reported.” (10/04/26)
source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by George Ford Smith
“An unalienable right is not possible under a government that claims a monopoly on the legal use of force. Governments of that type, found everywhere, had the energy and incentive to create the hell its media tries to hide. Potemkin villages are abundant. A presidential candidate who pledged to liquidate government in an orderly fashion and return governance to free market institutions and incentives, as we mostly had during the Revolutionary period, is our only peaceful hope.” (10/05/26)
Source: The Daily Economy
by Logan Tantibanchachai
“Brutus feared that unlimited borrowing power would eventually overwhelm political restraint. Congress has accumulated 40 trillion reasons to reconsider that warning.” (10/05/26)
