Corbin K. Barthold, “Law and Liberty,” January 9, 2025.
excerpt:
Now, both state and federal legislatures are moving in the opposite direction. They have introduced, supported, and enacted legislation (so far only at the state level) that would impose age verification requirements on social media platforms and adult websites. Current online age verification technologies erode digital privacy. These technologies learn your identity and create a vector for peering into your browsing habits. Online age verification laws increase the likelihood that scandals like the Balk tapes will someday become a reality.
The purpose of online age verification is to protect children. However, online age verification only works if everyone does it. On the Internet, no one knows you’re an adult until you prove you’re an adult (to the extent possible, you can play with all online age verification systems). Determining your age requires managing certain personal data, which puts you at risk of data leakage. Online age verification laws thus burden adults’ First Amendment rights by interfering with their ability to anonymously post and view content on the Internet. (They also often burden children’s First Amendment rights, for example by excluding all minors from online spaces old enough for high school students.) Courts have ruled that such laws It has issued a series of preliminary injunctions to prevent it from taking effect.
New York Times, January 7, 2014.
I salute some brave people, especially a couple with three children. If he had been caught, he might not have seen his children for more than an hour at a time until they were teenagers or adults.
In this video you will learn about COINTELPRO.
By Liz Wolfe, Reason, January 9, 2025.
excerpt:
Many insurance companies significantly reduced coverage in 2017 and 2018, when wildfires raged across the state. Losses from these wildfires totaled $23 billion, nearly double the premiums companies collected during the same period, and many companies believe some of these locations are too expensive to insure. I decided that.
After all, insurance premiums are not arbitrary. They reflect risk. Our team of actuaries spends a lot of time understanding what prices we offer homeowners in specific areas. Unfortunately, in California, insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara, an elected official, must approve premium increases. Mr. Lara typically does not approve large premium increases, leading to the predictable outcome of insurers pulling out. Lara is also trying to “fix” something through government coercion.
Last month, he announced that “for the first time in our history, we are asking insurance companies to expand into areas where people need help the most.” “Large insurance companies need to increase their coverage of comprehensive policies in wildfire-affected areas, which represent more than 85% of the state’s market share,” he continued.
Yes, you understand this correctly. He bullied private insurance companies into covering expensive wildfire-prone areas (rather than allowing them to accurately price the risk), resulting in lower prices for homeowners. I think this will increase compensation. Once it gets expensive enough, let’s hope that State Farm and others pull out of the state altogether. Despite her arrogance, Lara cannot force the finances to work. (For some reason, many progressives can’t do that) understand This cycle of cause and effect. )
For more information on price controls, see Hugh Rockoff, “Price Controls,” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economy, edited by David R. Henderson.
By George F. Will, The Washington Post, January 8, 2025.
excerpt:
Japan has promised to pay $5 billion more than the company’s market capitalization. and keeping U.S. Steel’s headquarters in Pittsburgh. The company also decided to give its steel workers a $5,000 bonus. and comply with all union contracts. And get the U.S. government to refuse to cut U.S. Steel’s production capacity. and $2.7 billion to modernize what Biden has delusionally called “this vital American company,” which has been left to languish by relying on U.S. government tariffs, subsidies, and “Buy American” rules. It’s gone.
By Ilya Somin, Reason, January 8, 2025.
excerpt:
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Laken-Riley Act (LRA) by a vote of 264-159. The bill, named after a student killed by an illegal immigrant, is often touted by promoters as a tool to combat murderers and sex offenders. In practice, it focuses on detaining illegal immigrants charged with theft-related crimes, including minor ones. It also includes a Trojan Horse provision that makes it easier for states to challenge various programs that facilitate legal immigration. These policies are unjust and are more likely to hinder, rather than help, real crime-fighting efforts.
The main provisions of the Laken-Riley Act are that “a person charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admitted to having committed, or admitted to having committed, robbery, theft, or an act constituting an essential element of theft; Requires federal detention for illegal immigrants. , or a shoplifting crime. ” Note that this provision is triggered by a mere arrest or indictment and no further proof of guilt is required. It also covers the most petty theft, robbery, and shoplifting. If an immigrant is arrested on suspicion of stealing a dime or paper clip from a store, that alone can trigger mandatory detention. The same is true if you are charged with the most minor theft-related offenses.
Two comments:
First of all, it’s unfortunate that Elijah fell into the trap of calling illegal immigrants “illegal aliens.” “Undocumented” is a current euphemism for “illegal.” Avoid misleading euphemisms. It would not be surprising if many illegal aliens had documents such as birth certificates. They just don’t have the documents required by law.
Second, I remember reading someone say that it’s usually a bad idea for a lawmaker or commentator to vote for a bill that bears someone’s name. This is a great example.
By Matthew Rozsa, Reason, January 10, 2025.
excerpt:
Even if Trump completely fails at this geopolitical strategy, the fact that he is even trying in the first place shows his ability. In his second term, President Trump plans to use his executive power to expand America’s global empire. In contrast, Cleveland spent his second term rolling back America’s then-nascent imperial ambitions, unflinchingly doing so when real strength was needed in foreign policy. .
A prominent topic during Cleveland’s presidency was Hawaii. When Cleveland returned to public office in 1893, he was welcomed with a treaty submitted to the Senate regarding the annexation of Hawaii. Newspapers across the country soon waxed poetic about the American flag waving in the Hawaiian wind, but few journalists questioned the official story of how this land came to be ours. There wasn’t. They were told that the Native Hawaiians had willingly betrayed their monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, by replacing their rule with that of white foreigners (mainly Americans).
Cleveland suspected there was more to it than that. He knew that sugarcane plantation owners and other wealthy business people were suspicious of Liliuokalani, who wanted to reduce foreign influence in their country. Once the American people learned that she was planning specific policies to achieve this goal, American jurist Sanford Dole and US Secretary of State to Hawaii John Stevens hatched a plot to depose her. led. By the time Cleveland became president, they had succeeded in this (with the unwitting aid of American locals who believed they had support from Washington) and had obtained Senate ratification of an annexation treaty to complete their plot. All I had to do was wait.
