Category: general freedom

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Winning Through Identification

Javier Milei, Argentina, freedom, government

Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, perceives that many political battles amount to a clash between producers and thieves. Between those who work for living (using what sociologist Franz Oppenheimer called the “economic means”) and those who steal for a living (using the “political means”).

Politics can’t always be reduced to this conflict, of course. But it can pretty often — certainly in a country where socialists have been pulverizing the economy.

Now, this knowledge is not kept by Milei as a dark secret, about which he would be embarrassed to be caught mentioning to a select few supporters.

Milei is not coy! That we learned during his campaign for president; and, no matter what his ups and downs in office, he still seems to be just as candid, just as willing to blast his opponents, to their faces, for —

Well: “Listen up, you ignorant fools! ‘Social justice’ is theft. It implies unequal treatment before the law and is preceded by theft. You bunch of thieves! Criminals!”

Also: “The world has only two kinds of people: those who live off what others produce — that is, the parasites, that is, you — and those who produce everything that is possible in modern life.

“The true battle of our time is cultural, philosophical, and moral. It is about choosing the system that lifted millions out of poverty. It is about ceasing to be an immature nation that squanders the future to distribute benefits in the present. . . .”

Probably even better in the original Spanish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Medicine Reverses Course

gender affirming care, health, fads, hysteria

Scott Jennings reports on what he calls “a political earthquake”: both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have “gone on the record saying the same thing. There is insufficient evidence to justify ‘gender transition surgeries’ for minors, and these surgeries should generally be deferred to adulthood.”

The ASPS made its statement on February 3, which the New York Times explained was prompted by “a lack of quality research on the long-term outcomes for young people who had undergone surgical interventions like mastectomies and cited ‘emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms.’”

The next day, the AMA, the nation’s largest medical organization, spoke up. 

When this issue came to the fore a few years ago, the usual response was “this is only happening to a tiny group of young people, if any.” Now, according to TheTimes, a review of “hospital data from 2016 through 2020 identified about 3,600 patients aged 12 to 18 who had received gender-related surgery. The vast majority were mastectomies.” 

The Times references a York University social scientist studying “transgender medicine” who attributes the new positions, in part, to “the growing political backlash over gender-affirming care.” Just as Scott Jennings judges these two big turnarounds as huge blows to “the left,” which has supported those surgical practices in the cause of gender-fluidity and -identity along with inclusion and whatnot.

By advising against major irreversible interventions into the maturation process of young people, ASPS and the AMA have, at the very least, made a long-overdue advance for Common Sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom nannyism national politics & policies

The Unstoppable Kill Switch

Congress, regulations, control, authoritarianism

Fifty-seven Republicans in Congress worked with the bulk of Democrats, and the President of These United States, to continue funding development of a “kill switch” on new cars. On Tuesday, the bill became law.

You may have thought that most new cars driving down the road could already be switched “off” remotely. After all, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by former President Joe Biden, required the National Traffic Safety Administration to develop just such a technology for passenger cars. “The sweeping infrastructure law passed Congress with bipartisan support,” MSNBC pointed out last week.

But government isn’t fast, and the kill switch project “needed” more funding, which was included in the new $1.2 trillion spending package.

Still, a minority did try — unsuccessfully, alas — to put a halt to this “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

Calling the R&D “Orwellian,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked a relevant question: “When your car shuts down because it doesn’t approve of your driving, how will you appeal your roadside conviction?”

Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow Clyde Wayne Crews further explained: “The vehicle ‘kill-switch’ is precisely the kind of overreach that will empower regulatory agencies to manage behavior without votes by elected representatives in Congress or real accountability.”

Though Republican Massie had proposed an amendment to defund the kill switch, and a few Democrats joined him — Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Lou Correa of California and Val Hoyle of Oregon — a Heinz 57 sauce of GOP representatives sided with the overwhelming bulk of Democrats to keeping the kill switch funding flowing.

Separate efforts to repeal Section 24220 outright, such as H.R. 1137 (the No Kill Switches in Cars Act), remain pending but likely paralyzed in committee.

The Leviathan rumbles along, no kill switch in development.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom nannyism

The Next Population Explosion

robots, Elon Musk, dystopia, utopia, totalitarianism, benevolence

While I sit way out here on the margins of big technological trends, Elon Musk pitches a very science-fictional near-future. 

“With robotics and AI, this is really the path to abundance for all,” he said at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos. “If you have ubiquitous AI that is essentially free or close to it and ubiquitous robotics, you will have an explosion in the global economy that is truly beyond all precedent.”

The world’s richest man predicted that humanoid robots will soon become pervasive: “there will be more robots than people.”

I’m not much of a science fiction reader — does Nineteen Eighty-Four count? — but from movies and friends’ book suggestions, it sure seems that sci-fi writers have not predicted universally cheerful outcomes from Elon’s prophesied robot population explosion.

How would we control such creatures? Isaac Asimov wrote a lot about this, using his “Three Laws of Robotics,” a Three Commandments for artificial beings. The first reads “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” But surely another scenario is more realistic, Jack Williamson’s The Humanoids (1948). There the shiny robots — primed with “To Serve and Obey, And Guard Men From Harm” — set up a totalitarian society without the State. 

Just the humanoids, nannying humans about.

What would life be like with all these “helping hands”? 

Remember Thoreau’s warning in Walden (1854)? “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. . . .”

Ronald Reagan quipped that “I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Elon Musk merrily imagines an “upgrade” to busybodies and governments.

Artificial busybodies and governments. On auto-pilot.

Terrifying.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom individual achievement media and media people social media

A Man of Learning

Scott Adams

Facts mattered to the man who told us “facts don’t matter.”

Ideas, principles, arguments — these mattered, too.

Which is probably what I will remember most about Scott Adams, who died yesterday. 

He had been suffering from prostate cancer for some time. During the moment, last year, when President Joe Biden’s possible prostate cancer diagnosis became a matter of public discussion, Mr. Adams informed us that he, too, had been diagnosed with that form of cancer, and that he had not long to live.

Like most newspaper readers, I knew of Adams from his Dilbert comic strip. I missed his career in writing books, in the aughts and early teens. But I caught up with the man when he predicted, in 2015, that Donald Trump possessed a “talent stack” that would likely lead to winning the presidency — an insightful judgment — that may have helped the prophesied event to occur.

Adams became one of the more interesting podcasters, an intellectual powerhouse who urged us to reframe how we think about politics, culture, our very lives. I never became a fan, exactly, but I not only admired him, I liked him. He was quite a character; he was a man of character.

It was interesting, especially, to watch him develop in the context of our odd (transitional?) moment in history. On the late pandemic, for example, many of his early opinions and meta-opinions were misguided. But he changed his mind, as many of us have. And though, as I mentioned above, his most famous assertion was that, in matters of persuasion, “the facts don’t matter,” he was persuaded to change opinions when he learned more. 

So may we all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Scott Adams

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture

Have an Endurable New Year!

Paul Jacob, 2025, 2026, ,New Year

So that was A.D. 2025.

We made it.

Endured.

What must we bear in 2026? 

Most of us, I think, would prefer “more of the same” to something entirely new. Especially if the “something new” can be interpreted as reaping all the consequences of bad choices all at once.

So what was 2025? Going by stats on this website, here’s what I’ve covered:

  • Fiscal Irresponsibility: 15% of coverage.
  • Free Speech/Censorship: 20%.
  • Political Scandals/Elections: 15-20%.
  • Government Overreach: 25%.
  • Representation/Local Issues: 10%.

Grok did the analysis, and added another category, “Historical Reflections,” at 10% of content — but this likely reflects the “Today” feature on the website, highlighting the most important event(s) concerning human liberty occurring on each date.  

I do like to think that I have a sense of history, which informs what I do here. In 2023, a meme spread around the Internet, where women asked the men they knew how often they thought about the Roman Empire. “The results will surprise you,” for men tend to think about the past generally, and the classical Romans in particular, a great deal indeed. The meme played out as a “gender” issue, with women finding men’s apparent fixation inexplicable. 

Truth is, for me, I think a lot more about the Revolutionary War. I suppose it’s possible to identify people’s ideologies by which historical war they think about most. This last year and earlier — really since the 2019 protests in Hong Kong — I’ve developed this strong suspicion that we are already in a war and just don’t quite know it.

Wishing you the best in 2026. And girding for what comes. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture international affairs regulation social media

U.S. Bans EU Censors

EU, censorship, free speech, Visa

European leaders are condemning American use of visa bans to penalize European enemies of American freedom of speech.

Which is understandable, since the U.S. State Department more than merely condemned the European Union.

In the words of Marco Rubio, the five just-sanctioned persons “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

Thierry Breton. Former EU commissioner and top proponent of the Digital Services Act, which seeks to force U.S. tech giants to “police illegal content more aggressively” or face big fines. “Illegal” here doesn’t mean speech deployed to commit bank robberies; it’s speech EU censors dislike.

Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg. Leaders of HateAid.

Clare Melford. Leader of Global Disinformation Index, which, the State Department observes, exhorts “censorship and blacklisting of American speech and press.”

Imran Ahmed. Leader of Center for Countering Digital Hate, described by Breitbart as the “deplatforming outfit which defined its central mission as ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter.’ ” CCDH also worked hard to get Breitbart and other sites blacklisted from social media.

Maybe none of these villains was planning a trip to the United States anytime soon.

And, doubtless, much more could be done to combat overseas attempts to censor Americans. But at least this much action against enemies of our First Amendment rights is warranted, even if mostly symbolic.

Just give us a little more time, European leaders. We’ll do more to oppose and thwart your obnoxious global censorship agenda. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture international affairs Internet controversy

Constant Caved

China, censorship, FreeWeChat, free speech

Sometimes people suggest that the People’s Republic of China is no threat beyond its borders.

You can’t reach this doctrine based on a thorough canvass of the evidence. From China’s perspective, though, it is true insofar as the Chinese government treats its borders as encompassing the entire earth and perhaps even the moon.

What is also true, though, is that not every person or organization outside of China that advances China’s totalitarian agenda is being threatened by China.

For example: the company Constant, which operates the hosting service Vultr. Based in Florida (a U.S. state), Constant has willingly cooperated with Beijing’s censorship agenda as promoted by the China-based conglomerate Tencent.

Tencent owns the social media platform WeChat. As the Chinese Communist Party demands of all such platforms within China, WeChat censors discussion of topics that the CCP dislikes, e.g., Tiananmen Square or Xi Jinping pictured as Winnie the Pooh. 

An organization called GreatFire produces a Chinese-language website, freewechat.com, which archives many of the posts on taboo subjects that get censored on WeChat.

Since 2015, FreeWeChat had been hosted by Constant’s Vultr — until several months ago, when Vultr started receiving harrumphing letters from Tencent, demanding that it stop hosting FreeWeChat. Vultr obeyed; dropped FreeWeChat.

Which, fortunately, managed to transfer its site to another hosting service.

Tencent’s letters offered an array of specious claims that GreatFire refuted in detail. GreatFire’s attempts to communicate with inconstant Constant about the matter have had no effect. Nevertheless, FreeWeChat and its noble mission survive.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

A Sporting Chance

Riley Gaines, Paul Jacob, Protect Women's Sports, Maine Girl Dads

Maine may become the first state to place a Protect Girls Sports measure on the statewide ballot. 

A group appropriately enough called Maine Girl Dads has been standing up on this issue and constitutes the core of a newly formed ballot question committee, Protect Girls Sports in Maine. On Election Day weeks ago, the committee launched an initiative petition that needs 68,000 registered voter signatures in order to give voters the choice to designate public school sports as male, female or co-ed. 

Let every person participate. But stop allowing males to enter and dominate sports set aside for women. Or to lurk in their locker rooms.

It’s no wonder why the issue of permitting 6’4’ men transitioning to identify as women to compete against females has caused a stir — they’ve won competitions by wide margins, setting new records.

And, in several cases, the dangerous physical mismatches created have also resulted in injuries to women.

That’s not sportsmanlike, for there are very real biological differences between men and women and, in virtually every athletic activity, men have significant physical advantages: speed, quickness, strength. 

Which is why there has been no issue with women transitioning to identify as men competing in men’s sports. Because they are at a distinct disadvantage and, therefore, not a factor. 

Over the weekend, I traveled to Portland to hear NCAA champion swimmer Riley Gaines speak and learned that the Protect Girls Sports effort has surpassed 68,000 signatures and is now working on extra signatures to thwart any possible challenge.

“It’s time we made Maine Girl Sports safe for girls again,” says Alisha Lawson of Moms for Maine Girls, adding that the measure will be: “Common Sense. Voter Enacted.”

I’m all for it.* I’m Paul Jacob.

* To be clear, I’m actively helping this Maine campaign.

PDF for printing

Illustrations created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

La Libertad Avanza

Javier Milei, Argentina, freedom, bail out

“It’s a landslide victory compared to expectations,” Lizzy Burden announced for Bloomberg Television, going on to report that U.S. President Donald Trump has taken some of the credit for the successes, Sunday, of President Milei’s party, La Libertad Avanza (Liberty Advances).

On Truth Social, Trump wrote “BIG WIN in Argentina for Javier Milei . . . He’s making us all look good.”

But how does this redound to Trump’s, er, biglyness? 

Well, Trump provided a bailout. 

That’s the term used in the news for a $20 billion currency swap plus $20 billion private loan facility — that is, private funds directed by the negotiating agents at U.S. Treasury. This stabilized Argentina’s peso after a September crisis triggered by Milei’s party’s losses at Buenos Aires polls a month earlier.

Regardless, Liberty Advance’s current win defies recent polls showing a dip to around 40 percent, in part because of hardship from Milei’s “austerity” drive — slashed subsidies, fired public workers, deregulated industries.

It also defied North American expectations. Leading up to October 26, we heard little good news from the land named for the element silver: major U.S. outlets such as the New York Times and NPR, and British media including The Guardian, emphasized Argentina’s dire straits reveling in the “irony” or “failure” of Milei’s “libertarian experiment,” often with a strong whiff of schadenfreude toward “Trump-lite” policies.*

But Milei’s biggest successes should not be ignored: inflation has dropped from 211 percent to under 5 percent monthly. Another factor in his victory is how rural voters, lives improved by freer trade, outweighed disgruntled government workers, newly disemployed.

Mostly, though, I bet Argentines were fearful of a return to Peronism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * Of course, Milei’s “shock therapy” and “austerity” (and other leftist bugaboos) were unmatched by anything Trump has done — if anything, Trump’s “Milei Lite.” 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts