Categories
Thought

Milton Friedman

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather ‘What can I and my compatriots do through government’ to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Introduction.
Categories
Today

Touching Upon Slavery

February First in History

1835 — Slavery was abolished in Mauritius.

1861 — Texas seceded from the United States.

1865 — President Abraham Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, finally abolishing slavery in all United States.

Categories
Update

What May Be Done in Minnesota?

It is well known that the several states cannot be commandeered to carry out federal law. 

So however much President Trump and his followers may demand aid from the state of Minnesota in the business of carrying out federal immigration law — which has long been held constitutional from multiple rulings as a federal, not a state, matter — the federal government may not compel such aid. 

Everyone should know this. It is a firmly established principle.

This would mean Governor Tim Walz and the State of Minnesota are under no legal obligation to cooperate with the federal government’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in removing criminal aliens (or alien criminals) from within the state’s borders.

But must the state protect the agents as they go about their duties? 

Probably not. Remember that the police are under no obligation to come to the aid of any citizen in any or all moments of crisis. This was firmly established in the District of Columbia District Court of Appeals ruling in Warren v. the District of Columbia. There does not appear to be case law that indicates a duty of states to protect federal agents as if they were body guards, for example.

Federal agents are protected under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 111, which criminalizes assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers in their duties. If citizens (including protesters or rioters) harass agents — through physical obstruction or threats — agents may use reasonable force in response.

This is why U.S. Border Patrol agents (part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP) were called in to protect ICE from Minnesota mobs. It was not ICE agents who shot and killed Alex Pretti on January 24, 2026. It was U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Joe Rogan has described the activities of the mobbing “protesters” as a coordinated “color revolution”; his guest Andrew Wilson insists that the mobs are being directed and supported in part by Minnesota state officials. If this proves true, an insurrection may technically be in progress.

And then the legality of federal crackdown in Minneapolis and St. Paul would become quite clear.

Categories
Thought

Philip K. Dick

Isn’t a miserable reality better than the most interesting illusion?

Philip K. Dick, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1965).
Categories
Today

Corn Laws Abolished

On January 31, 1849, the Corn Laws were abolished in the United Kingdom, one of the most impressive and far-​reaching anti-​protectionist moves of all time. 

“Corn” stood for all grains, including wheat, oats & barley; the free-​trade agitation by John Bright & Richard Cobden was one of the main impetuses for the reform.

Categories
general freedom nannyism

The Next Population Explosion

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
Thought

Richard Whately

I wish for my own part there were no such thing as Political-​Economy. I mean not now the mere name of the study: but I wish there had never been any necessity for directing our attention to the study itself. If men had always been secured in person and property, and left at full liberty to employ both as they saw fit; and had merely been precluded from unjust interference with each other — had the most perfect freedom of intercourse between all mankind been always allowed — had there never been any wars — nor (which in that case would have easily been avoided) any taxation — then, though every exchange that took place would have been one of the phenomena of which Political-​Economy takes cognizance, all would have proceeded so smoothly, that probably no attention would ever have been called to the subject. The transactions of society would have been like the play of the lungs, the contractions of the muscles, and the circulation of the blood, in a healthy person; who scarcely knows that these functions exist. But as soon as they are impeded and disordered, our attention is immediately called to them.

Richard Whately, Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (1832), Lecture III.

Categories
Today

A First

On January 30, 1835, a house painter named Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot former military leader and then-​President Andrew Jackson, but failed. He attempted to fire with two pistols, but both misfired, and he was subdued by a crowd, including several congressmen. That marked the first attempt on the life of a sitting U.S. president.

Categories
election law judiciary regulation U.S. Constitution

Fifty Years After Buckley

Congress began regulating campaign finances in the 1960s.

In 1976, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo reined in such regulation … in part.

This month, at a symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the ruling, John Samples — a former Vice President at the Cato Institute and currently a Member of Meta’s Oversight Board — compared what happened after the 1976 ruling to what might have happened had the ruling been better or worse.

The alleged point of campaign finance regulation was to “level the playing field.” The actual point, Samples observed, has been to “protect the political status quo” by making it harder “to spend enough money to effectively challenge congressional incumbents.”

In Buckley, the court ruled that contribution limits were indeed valid (they aren’t) for the sake of combatting corruption or the “appearance of corruption.” But it also ruled that limits on campaign spending are limits on speech, hence invalid — thereby saving democracy, argued former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith, in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago: “The Buckley court understood that effective political speech requires resources.”

The Court also upheld compulsory disclosure of donors and donations. This led to chronic calumniation of donors, helping to poison public discourse.

Samples suggeststhat a more libertarian Buckley might have enabled major reform, even perhaps privatizing of New Deal and Great Society spending programs in the 1980s.

On the other hand, had the decision been worse, “validating spending limits” as well, Congress would likely have continued to hobble challengers. And thus, perhaps, prevented the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan and the emergence of a GOP majority in the U.S. Senate.

Unwarranted restrictions on freedom of speech should be removed completely. Substantially removed is better than not at all, sure. But now let’s finish the job.

Something Brad Smith’s Institute for Free Speech works on every day.

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
Thought

F.W. Taussig

Human effort can not add or subtract an atom of the matter of the universe. It can only shift and move matter so as to make it serve man’s wants, — make it useful, or create utilities in it.

F.W. Taussig, Wages and Capital: An Examination of the Wages Fund Doctrine (1897), p. 3.