“In September, Lizzie Dearden and Thomas Gibbons-Neff wrote for The New York Times about the worldwide proliferation of designs for the FGC-9, a partially 3D-printed weapon that can “be built entirely from scratch, without commercial gun parts, which are often regulated and tracked by law enforcement agencies internationally.”
As one expert told the reporters: “Now you have something that people can make at home with unregulated components. So from a law enforcement perspective, how do you stop that?””
…
“Another mass-deportation program—known by the offensive title of “Operation Wetback,” referencing a slur about Mexicans who got wet illegally crossing the Rio Grande—took place during the Eisenhower administration. That operation, which was backed by Mexican authorities who faced a labor shortage per the same report, didn’t directly use the military. But the Border Patrol used military techniques—and it ensnared many U.S. citizens.
I doubt politicians who have engaged in rhetorical attacks on immigrants will worry about their hardships, but shouldn’t they be concerned about what it will mean for U.S. citizens? During the 1950s operation, “Border agents raided Mexican American neighborhoods, demanded ID from ‘Mexican-looking’ citizens in public, invaded private homes in the middle of the night and harassed Mexican-owned businesses,” according to Axios.
Our Constitution upholds due process. The government cannot simply grab people off the street. It needs to follow a legal process. Every accused person gets their day in court to make their case. As George Washington famously said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force.”
Unleashing such force on a broad scale will not result in precise, humane, and just results. Government agents will conduct raids. Illegal residents often live among legal ones. Wide swaths of the population will get caught up in the dragnets.”
…
“As someone who has hired construction workers in towns without large immigrant labor pools, I’m skeptical that large numbers of native-born Americans will jump at these newfound opportunities. The incoming administration embraces the Lump of Labor Fallacy—the idea that jobs are a zero-sum game where one person’s job comes at the expense of another’s job. In reality, more labor spurs economic growth and business development. That’s how market economies work.”
“Situations like the ones we’ve seen in Lewisville, West Ocean City, and countless other places highlight how bankrupt our current approach to “helping human trafficking victims” is. If these women really are in trouble, there has got to be a better way to get them services than making them jack off a cop (sometimes several times) first. And if they’re neither victims nor perpetuating harm against anyone, then leave them alone.”
“Economic freedom isn’t just some wonky concept debated in academic halls. It’s about whether a government protects property rights or seizes assets at will; whether regulations are sensible or suffocating; whether you can trade freely or face a maze of obstructions; whether your money holds its value or your purchasing power gets eroded by government mismanagement; and whether you can count on courts to enforce contracts fairly.
The 2024 index, using the latest available data from 2022, measures precisely these factors across 165 countries, as it has done since 1996. The results are striking.
The freest economies enjoy an average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita about 7.6 times greater than that of the 25 percent least economically free places. They have cleaner environments, better health care outcomes, and longer life expectancies—by a lot. Even the poorest citizens of free countries fare better than the middle classes in economically repressive nations.
Who are these lucky countries? “Hong Kong (1st), Singapore (2nd), Switzerland (3rd), New Zealand (4th), the United States (5th), Denmark and Ireland (tied for 6th), Canada (8th), and Australia and Luxembourg (tied for 9th).” It shouldn’t be lost on my readers that Denmark, which Sen. Bernie Sanders (D–Vt.) often uses as an example of a socialist democratic regime, has far more in common with the United States than with a truly socialist country.”
“”Every set of extractive institutions is extractive in its own way, while all sets of inclusive institutions are inclusive in pretty much the same way. For example, ancient Rome ran on slavery; Russia on serfdom, Imperial China strictly limited domestic and foreign commerce; India depended upon hereditary castes; the Ottoman Empire relied on tax farming; Spanish colonies on indigenous labor levies; sub-Saharan Africa on slavery; the American South on slavery and later a form of racial apartheid not all that unlike South Africa’s; and the Soviet Union on collectivized labor and capital. The details of extraction differ but the institutions are organized to chiefly benefit elites.
So why don’t extractive elites encourage economic growth? After all, growth would mean more wealth for them to loot. Acemoglu and Robinson show that the institutions that produce economic growth are inevitable threats to the power of reigning elites. The “key idea” of their theory: “The fear of creative destruction is the main reason why there was no sustained increase in living standards between the Neolithic and Industrial revolutions. Technological innovation makes human societies prosperous, but also involves the replacement of the old with the new, and the destruction of the economic privileges and political power of certain people.” Thus throughout history reactionary elites naturally resisted innovation because of their accurate fear that it would produce rivals for their power.””
“What we’ve really got here, for the most part, is a bunch of adult men and women trying to engage in private and consensual sexual activity—and the state saying, no, you should go to jail for that.
It’s a gross infringement on privacy and bodily autonomy masquerading as a blow against the baddest of bad guys.”
“We don’t need a formal study to tell us that taking away sex workers’ ability to communicate online makes their lives worse—sex workers have been saying that for a decade now, since the federal government started taking down websites where they advertised (RIP MyRedBook, Rentboy, The Review Board, Backpage, and so on). But here’s a(nother) study saying exactly this.
For the study, published in the journal Social Sciences, researcher Melissa Ditmore and her team conducted a national survey of 440 sex workers, asking about how they used online platforms, how the use of these platforms affected their working conditions, and how laws like the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)—which led to platforms removing and restricting sex worker accounts—affected their work lives. Survey respondents included folks who had engaged in webcam work, phone sex work, strip club work, pornography, independent escorting, street-based sex work, working at a brothel, working at a massage parlor, BDSM/fetish work, working for an escort agency, and other types of sex work.
Ditmore’s team found—unsurprisingly—that “platform policies and practices often remove and/or limit sex workers’ access to them, which, in turn, restricts their ability to earn income and compromises their capacity to live and work safely.””
…
”
Ten percent said deplatforming led to more interactions with law enforcement, and 11.5 percent said it led to more social service interactions.
Around 9 percent said deplatforming led to more interactions with madams/agencies/managers/pimps.
Around 8 percent said they experienced “exploitative work conditions” after deplatforming” and 6.7 percent said they experienced “abusive work conditions.””
https://reason.com/2024/09/04/deplatforming-doesnt-make-sex-work-safer/
“The transformation is clearest in the GOP, thanks to the elevation of Vance to the GOP presidential ticket. Vance, according to most accounts, was selected in a moment of confidence, as an heir apparent meant to extend and intensify Donald Trump’s core appeal rather than as a counterweight to the former president’s electoral weaknesses.
Vance spent the last half-decade transforming himself into one of the GOP’s most prominent neopopulists. He’s an advocate of tariffs and trade restrictions, a walker of auto-worker picket lines, and a harsh critic of foreign labor. He’s even complimented Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission chair who has helped lead the Biden administration’s newly aggressive (if mostly unsuccessful) approach to antitrust enforcement. Vance, who is among those who have a habit of taking swipes at libertarians, combines a rejection of individual liberty with a rejection of economic liberty—and he’s Trump’s newly anointed successor.”
…
“What’s striking about this particular political moment is that on both the left and the right, a new elite consensus appears to be forming, one that is skeptical of, and in some cases quite hostile to, free market ideals and principles.
The neopopulist consensus is still rough, but in broad terms, it favors propping up domestic labor, cracking down on immigration, using taxes and spending incentives to carry out industrial policy, and implementing tariffs and trade restrictions for reasons of national security, job creation, or international competitiveness. Notably, the Biden administration left most of Trump’s tariffs in place—and in some cases increased them.
Whatever their other disagreements, the leaders and rising intellectuals in both parties seem to agree that the important thing is to leave out classical liberals, libertarians, and believers in economic liberty.
It’s true that the parties have never fully embraced these values, and at times have distanced themselves from them. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a self-described socialist, has long helped pull Democrats to the left on economics. Former President George W. Bush implemented tariffs on imported steel, and his brand of “compassionate conservatism” was partly an attempt to dampen the party’s libertarian tendencies.
Until recently, there was a place for those who prized individual freedom and markets. They were seen as valuable, or at least necessary, partners: As recently as 2012, none other than Democratic stalwart Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) pitched herself to libertarians. That same year, former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–Wisc.), who was probably most well-known for proposals to reform entitlements, appeared on the GOP ticket. Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, was similarly a link to the GOP’s Reaganite past.
There may be some holdouts in the party who still embrace a more orthodox pro-market economics. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s Republican National Convention speech paid homage to the “core principles of American conservatism,” which included “fiscal responsibility,” “free markets,” and “limited government.” But with Trump and Vance as the party’s reigning avatars, it seems likely that these values will remain only as limp, legacy platitudes.
That’s a shame. Personal liberty and market freedom are bedrock American political and economic values: That synthesis is explicit in the American founding, and it has long been deeply embedded in American life. In the 1830s, when America was still a young nation, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “boldness of enterprise is the foremost cause of its rapid progress, its strength, and its greatness.” That boldness has made America wealthy on a scale that is almost taken for granted: Today, the vast majority of American states are richer than most European countries. The neopopulists take this wealth for granted, and then propose policies—tariffs, labor regulations, vast new spending programs—that would make America poorer, that would slow its progress, that would deplete its strength and greatness.”
“security forces have been systematically stopping citizens to inspect their phones, including photos, social media profiles, and WhatsApp conversations. Detainees are often held based on content uncovered during these searches, such as images or conversations related to protests or anti-government expressions.
This shows Maduro’s willingness to crack down on dissent. It also shows the crucial role of technology in this fight for freedom. We use privacy messaging apps like Signal to communicate sensitive information. We rely on X and Nostr to share public information with the Venezuelan people. And we use bitcoin to overcome Maduro’s financial surveillance.
Regimes know this, which is why the Maduro government has been updating its surveillance system. They are doing this in cooperation with other autocratic regimes. For example, the Chinese company ZTE has been supplying Maduro with advanced surveillance technology, according to nongovernmental organizations.
This is also why Maduro banned X and Signal for 10 days across Venezuela, claiming his opponents were using these platforms to incite political unrest. This unprecedented measure in the Western hemisphere sets a dangerous precedent in the region. It also shows how regimes can restrict essential technologies, including their privacy tools and communication platforms.”
“In spring 2022, just months before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans in Florida passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, down from the previous legal threshold of 24 weeks. It took effect that summer, but advocates for reproductive rights challenged it in state court as unconstitutional.
One year later, Republicans in Florida took even more aggressive action against reproductive freedom: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new bill to restrict abortion at six weeks of pregnancy. But the fate of that law rested on what the court would decide about the 15-week ban. If it decided that ban was legal, the six-week ban would be, too.
In early April, nearly two years after challengers first filed their lawsuit, the Florida Supreme Court finally issued its ruling: The 15-week ban is constitutional under state law, and therefore the six-week ban would take effect 30 days later, on May 1.
In practical terms, six weeks is a total ban. Many people do not even know they’re pregnant by then. Even if they are aware, Florida requires patients seeking abortions to complete two in-person doctor visits with a 24-hour waiting period in between, a challenging logistical burden to meet before 15 weeks and a nearly impossible one before six.
Not only will the six-week ban decimate abortion access for Florida residents, but it will also significantly curtail care for people across the South, who have been traveling to Florida from more restrictive states since Roe was overturned. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, there were 8,940 more abortions in Florida in 2023 compared to 2020—a 12 percent increase that researchers attribute largely to travel from out-of-state patients. Residents of Florida’s bordering states face either a total ban (Alabama) or a six-week ban (Georgia).”