Do We Need a “National Divorce”? It’s Not a New Idea
We are hearing calls both from right and left for an amicable national divorce. In truth, the states were never "hitched" in the first place, at least not by any plausible definition of marriage.
We are hearing calls both from right and left for an amicable national divorce. In truth, the states were never "hitched" in the first place, at least not by any plausible definition of marriage.
Canada created its central bank during the Great Depression, ostensibly to stabilize the currency and protect the banking system. Today, that system is falling apart, thanks to inflationary central bank policies.
The bipartisan RESTRICT Act—marketed as a "Tik Tok ban"—is properly named because it will restrict freedom, empower the state, and expand government surveillance.
Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength.
Walter Bagehot, as Jim Grant writes, believed that bankers and central bankers should exhibit financial discipline. He would not recognize today's banking world.
Violent crime is on the rise in Canada, and its progressive democracy is helpless to stop it. Further empowerment of the state makes things worse.
We are hearing calls both from right and left for an amicable national divorce. In truth, the states were never "hitched" in the first place, at least not by any plausible definition of marriage.
Low rates of military reenlistment in the USA are spun as a near crisis. Perhaps this situation should make us more optimistic about our future.
The bipartisan RESTRICT Act—marketed as a "Tik Tok ban"—is properly named because it will restrict freedom, empower the state, and expand government surveillance.
Politicians tout "bipartisanship"—that often just means one's pocket will be picked even more cleanly.