“Defenders of the federal maritime law known as the Jones Act contend that the threat of Chinese expansion is a reason to keep its protectionist regulations in place. If the Jones Act were pared back, they say, Chinese vessels would take over U.S. shipping lanes. Unfortunately for them, this argument does not hold water — in fact, recent events strongly indicate that reforming the Jones Act could benefit Americans across the country. The 1920 law mandates that ships delivering goods from one U.S. point to another be flagged and built in the U.S. and mostly owned and crewed by Americans. But the law has been suspended for shipments of fuel and fertilizer since March 17. … The results of the waiver period so far show clearly that U.S. companies would buy more domestic products if Jones Act supply restrictions weren’t in the way.” (10/05/26)
“When President Trump’s Republican acolytes primaried long-time US Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and defeated him in the most expensive Congressional primary race in history (about $30 million) in May, pundits offered their assumptions and agendas. The Trumpites said he wasn’t nice playing their ball game (I’m being diplomatic) and therefore deserved to be sidelined. They couldn’t abide a rogue Republican, even if he did vote with the president 92 percent of the time. Opposing the war in Iran was over the top. … I believe the American country-boy mystique is wrapped up in conquering things. Trump enjoys overwhelming support in rural America. Country folks like to fight. Hatfields and McCoys. President Obama and his wife Michelle planted a White House garden – nonchemical, by the way; fertilized with compost. President Trump hosts fighting on the lawn.” (10/05/26)
Source: Independent Institute
by Christopher J Calton
“In 1958, most homeless people in Chicago were at least 50 years old, and only around 10 percent were under 35. Three decades later, nearly 40 percent of Chicago’s homeless were younger than 35 years old, and other cities showed similar patterns. The falling age of the homeless was alarming in the 1980s, but according to federal data, the problem is even worse now. Today, an astonishing 47 percent of homeless persons are under 35, and more than one-quarter are younger than 25. Substance abuse, on the other hand, may help explain part of the shift.” (10/05/26)
“When Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, most people looked at each other wondering what they had missed. Now, in 2026, two Nobel laureates in economics have produced an argument that ought to make us stroke our chins. Writing in Evonomics, George Akerlof and Robert Shiller argue for more regulation. Indeed, they write that they ‘wrote it for government officials, who undertake the usually thankless task of regulating business.’ They argue that markets create powerful incentives to take advantage of people—not necessarily because entrepreneurs are evil, but because businesspeople tend to exploit opportunities to profit from human weakness.” (10/05/26)
“At this point, no one can say anything for certain about the ‘Cornell Seven’ case, except that bad things happened and no one will receive justice. The first of these is painfully obvious. Even if everything was consensual and legal, the young woman (Jane Doe) put herself in an extremely foolish and dangerous position, while the boys (certainly not men, by any stretch of the imagination) behaved monstrously, participating in or facilitating her sexual exploitation. The second should be just as obvious, although nearly all observers will pretend otherwise. Like everything else in our politically obsessed society, this case of sexual exploitation has morphed into a case of political exploitation, with the usual suspects lining up on both sides of the issue, using it to score ideological points and make partisan gains.” (10/05/26)
“He called press freedom ‘the Palladium of Liberty.’ But when did it become more of a curse than a blessing? What were an editor’s ethical duties? Should libels be met with speech or the law?” (10/05/26)
“What is Mr. Trump thinking? It’s simply the wrong way to govern: Using the public purse to broadcast pro-yourself messages to the people. And is there any constituency — outside of Mr. Trump — for these television spots? One that would override the stench from misusing public resources in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue? The White House calls these ads public service announcements. The whole thing smacks of leader-worship. Plus, the messages are purely political. The timing seems awfully vote-solicitous: ‘Together we will defeat.'” (10/05/26)
Source: David Friedman’s Substack
by David Friedman
“Utility functions are observed in the form of choices. If negative utility is the level at which existence is worse than nonexistence, zero utility is the level below which a person, given the choice, would prefer not to exist. People have that choice; for many of us, suicide is not only possible but inexpensive: All it costs is our life. Following the principle of consumer sovereignty to its somewhat grisly conclusion, it seems natural to say that if a person, having access to means for killing himself, refrains from doing so, it must be because his utility for living is greater than for dying. Making allowance for costs such as pain, injury to others, and the price of the bullet, we have a definition of zero utility: A person’s utility is zero when he is indifferent between committing and not committing a costless suicide.” (10/05/26)
“Fiscal year 2026 ended last week, and while official figures aren’t out yet, it looks like the federal government spent $2 trillion more than it took in. That’s not quite a record—in dollar terms, the federal government ran a bigger deficit in 2020 when the feds showered money on the country in hopes of offsetting COVID-19 lockdowns (fueling inflation in the process), and the deficit was a bigger share of GDP both that year and during the Great Recession. But given the federal government hasn’t balanced its books in 25 years, a $2 trillion deficit adds to already staggering national debt and looming disaster.” (10/05/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Laurence M Vance
“Most cases of choice involve goods that are much more distinguishable than almost identical bottles of ketchup: for example, cars, houses, furniture, shoes, clothes, pets. But choice is not limited to just goods. Sometimes, people choose between and among experiences: for example, cruises, concerts, sporting events, museums, zoos, and amusement parks. The same is true when it comes to the provision of services: for example, pest control, dentistry, hair styling, auto repair, landscaping, tanning. Although every service imaginable is or has been provided by the free market, governments at every level are united in their belief that there is one service that government at some level should provide, fund, regulate, control, and/or mandate that every child should receive: education.” (10/05/26)
