Clark Packard is correct: “Protectionism undermines economic freedom in the United States.” [DBx: How could it be otherwise? Protectionism is a state policy of intentionally restricting its citizens’ freedom to peacefully spend and invest.]
Bruce Yandle makes the case, at National Review, that “Fed independence is a myth worth keeping.” A slice:
If Trump’s bullying succeeds, the worst outcome would be more printing-press money and more inflation than the 2 percent per year that, strangely enough, has become accepted as okay (and for which former Fed chairman and renowned inflation-fighter Paul Volcker said, “I know of no theoretical justification”). Fear of the possibility has generated a virtual anvil chorus of concern about Fed independence, which, going back to the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951, theoretically shuts the door on presidential or political interference.
Libertarians have long commented on the authoritarian streak in Schmitt’s worldview. Friedrich Hayek would summarize Schmitt’s career as “a fight against liberalism in all its forms,” culminating in his role as “one of Hitler’s chief legal apologists” in the first volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973). Despite this sordid record, Schmitt has undergone a rehabilitation within the New Right, where his theories are regularly invoked to justify aggressive state action against all who are designated as “enemies.”
One of the more vocal neo-Schmittians is Auron MacIntyre, podcaster and writer for The Blaze and internet popularizer of postliberalism. MacIntyre has a long-running affinity for Schmitt, describing the friend-enemy distinction as “the true essence of the political.” His 2024 book The Total State denounces the classical liberal conception of democracy as America’s “founding myth” and turns to Schmitt as the antidote, although he brushes aside Schmitt’s Nazi affiliations as “deeply unfortunate.” In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, MacIntyre’s podcast has transformed into a full-fledged Schmitt show.
The administration seems to be ignoring and flouting laws and rules purposefully, to erode the checks on its authority. It could have pushed Congress to pass legislation raising tariffs to whatever Trump wanted — the Republican majorities there have denied him practically nothing. Similarly, it could have asked Congress to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, because foreign aid has rarely been popular. Instead, Trump took unilateral executive action. The administration is deliberately refusing to play by the rules, in ways that look to most observers like usurpations of authority and accumulation of power. Some are deeply troubled by this; others brush it off. But the question I want to ask is this: Why has America’s vaunted system of checks and balances proved so weak?
When you look at Western democracies today, the United States stands out. Amid the widespread rise of populism, discontent with various establishments and angry political rhetoric, the U.S. appears to have moved further than any other down the path of illiberal democracy, where constitutionalism and the rule of law are being steadily undermined. Hungary is the obvious other example, but Hungary is a very young and fragile democracy, scarred by decades of communism. The United States is the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. And yet, Sweden’s V-Dem Institute, which measures the condition of democracies around the world, has described the erosion of American democracy as “unprecedented” in scale.
The government is now a major shareholder of a major private company, Intel —an idea advocated by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and implemented by the Trump administration.
Behind these stories is a shared sense of blame among many Democrats and Republicans who believe too much freedom is causing our cherished society to go haywire, and that more control over individuals, cities and corporations is necessary.
…..
The left sees individualism, markets and limited government less as “the American Way” than the way toward degraded civic association and atrophied communities. They call for a more collective approach, including an expanding social safety net and egalitarianism policies that downplay free enterprise in our communities.
Is the classical liberal tradition actually the problem? No.
GMU Econ alum Caleb Petitt writes “in praise of plasma-donation system.” A slice:
Plasma donation in the United States pays well. Regular donors can make $400 a month if they donate twice a week. Since donation sessions last 90 minutes to two hours, that comes out to $25 to $30 per hour. This legal, readily available source of supplementary income is assumed to be the reason the centers reduce property crime in low-income areas.
Other research found that a nearby plasma donation center reduces young borrowers’ demand for payday loans by 13 percent. Plasma donation centers provide liquidity to help people manage their expenses and avoid high-interest debt. Overall, centers reduce the amount of high-interest debt held by Americans by $180 million to $227 million annually.
Plasma is critical for a variety of medical procedures. While groups like the World Health Organization advise against paying people for it, countries that do not allow compensation have to buy plasma from countries that do. Plasma donation is a rare case of regulatory permissiveness in America’s medical field. That freedom benefits Americans and others globally.
