Democracy

Should political reform be the result of a much-discussed comprehensive plan? Or should it come about through decentralized decision-making that deals with the situations at hand?

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.

Contrary to the worldview of progressives, taxation and the coercion it brings are not part of a "social contract." Instead, they are implemented by force.

Walter Bagehot, as Jim Grant writes, believed that bankers and central bankers should exhibit financial discipline. He would not recognize today's banking world.

Mises had hoped that democracy would lead to free societies after World War II ended. He did not foresee the illiberal turn in the West in the last decade.

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.

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.