• About

Sacred Cow Chips

Sacred Cow Chips

Monthly Archives: October 2026

Hold On To Your Country: Vote Down the Leftists

27 Tuesday Oct 2026

Posted by Nuetzel in Election, Socialism, Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abdul El-Sayed, Abortion, Affordability, Amanda Janoo, Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, Babylon Bee, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Bill Maher, Catch and Release, Chuck Devore, Claire Valdez, Color Revolution, Court Packing, Cynical Publius, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Data Centers, Deb Haaland, Defund Police, Democratic Socialists, Donald Trump, Donovan McKinney, Election Fraud, Electoral College, Elon Musk, Free Speech, Gavin Newsom, Gina Hinojosa, Glenn Reynolds, Graham Platner, Great Compromise, Gun Rights, Hannah Pingree, Hasan Piker, ICE, Infanticide, Iran War, Israel, James Talarico, Joe Biden, Justine Bateman, Kamala Harris, Milot Kiros, Open Borders, Pete Buttigieg, PJ O’Rourke, Richard Scarry, Roy Cooper, Sherrod Brown, Tariffs, The Federalist, Tina Kotec, Universal Health Care, Voter ID, Wealth Tax, William Lawrence

The Babylon Bee has it just about right. But putting aside important medical, ethical and cultural issues for the moment, lots of voters are pissed off about “affordability”, or a lack thereof. Will that, or something else, keep GOP voters away from the polls? Or will it cause them to switch allegiance to Democrats, or persuade independents to swing left this time? That would be a huge mistake.

Dumb Policies and Own-Party Turnout

The trend of rising prices isn’t new, of course, and it will continue as long as federal spending continues to escalate. In that context, voters should recall that Democrats, enabled by the Fed, left us with much higher prices after Joe Biden’s term in office, and Dems aren’t offering workable solutions to reduce the cost of living — they don’t have any.

But for his part, Trump hasn’t exactly restrained the growth of government, and his protectionist (and almost certainly illegal) tariff policies have taxed businesses and consumers. The Iran war and blockade have completely washed out the price effects of other pro-energy policies, at least for now, though it would be crazy to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

I’m unhappy with Trump on a number of other scores, such as his push for the federal government to take wasteful and ultimately coercive equity stakes in hitherto private companies, which might ultimately offer Democrats a treasure chest to fund their favorite NGOs. Furthermore, Trump’s political motivations are so baldly obvious, like his promise to have the Treasury pay every American $5,000 if both houses of Congress remain in GOP hands for the next two years.

So yes, there are reasons to wonder whether the GOP will struggle in this year’s midterms that go well beyond the usual explanations for incumbent underperformance (own-party apathy and a motivated opposition).

What Motivates Me

Since I’m not drooling over the prospect of a $5k payout, and in fact I hate the profligacy it would represent, what do I care if the Democrats take control of Congress? Well, there’s plenty to fear from a Congress controlled by Democrats, and I will discuss some of risks below. I fully confess that what follows is a rant, but right now it needs to be said.

The Democrats have become preoccupied with fervid anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, and vengeance against their political enemies. (Don’t tell me about Trump’s Justice Department… what do you expect after years of immigration fraud and criminally bogus government actions against him.) The Dem’s platform this time is largely focused on the chanting of words like “affordability”, “government health care”, and “Free Palestine”, without explaining exactly what policies they’d implement. But their real agenda is far worse than any of that sounds.

The thing is that ultimately Trump will move along. Disenchanted Trump voters should keep that in mind, even as they keep a suspicious eye on him and potential successors. Despite Trump’s penchant for expanded executive power, I believe that in the long run our public and private institutions, and our constitutional order, are in much safer hands with a Republicans majority in Congress than a Democrat majority. As a matter of fact, certain Democrats have as much as promised to demolish many of our key institutions if they are elected or control Congress. They would pull out all the stops to eliminate anything they think might place the left at a disadvantage.

Even Dumber Policies

I’ve dealt with the pros and cons of most of the following issues in the past, so I won’t elaborate much on any of them. And it is by no means a complete list! Suffice it to say that the kinds of positions shown below would be disastrous for the nation, our prosperity, and for the cause of individual liberty. Just so I’m not accused of painting with too broad a brush, let me qualify this by noting that there are centrist democrats who do not support all of the listed positions. Nevertheless, this is where their party is headed, as it’s members continue to normalize and drift toward ever-more extreme positions:

  • Abolish the Senate? This would destroy the key basis of the Great Compromise that enabled the founding of our nation. Without it, a simple majority in the House could enable a tyrannical regime or destabilize the country.
  • Abolish the electoral college? Again, an effort to destroy a compromise that was and is critical to our union.
  • Pad the Supreme Court with extra justices? Get a Democrat supermajority? Like hell!
  • Rewrite the constitution? Well, only if you want to remove limits on the power of the federal government to confiscate, regulate, and spend without restraint.
  • Restrict speech? Because the left does not recognize the distinction between words (opinions or honest disagreement) and violence, or pretends not to. Hurting feelings is not violence!
  • Legalize abortion? It’s somebody else’s body in your body. A person. Let them live!
  • Legalize infanticide? Because they view children as inconvenient and basically worthless!
  • Confiscate the means of production? Sure, and the victims of this theft will simply have to explain to these geniuses how it all works. Break out the Richard Scarry books. No problem!
  • Tax wealth? Goodbye standard of living.
  • Impeach Trump? For being elected and for governing!
  • Demonize success? Because they think profit has nothing to do with creating value.
  • Prosecute Elon Musk? Because we must punish the most productive man on Earth! This threat long preceded the Starlink shutdown in Ukraine, which was arguably justified.
  • Assassinate Elon Musk? Because we must eliminate the most productive man on Earth!
  • Universal healthcare? As PJ O’Roarke once said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” People aren’t as crazy about it when they learn the details.
  • Stop the data centers? No one should fall for this. Data centers can be great opportunities for local communities, so why prohibit them outright? No, they seldom use much water and they aren’t pushing up retail power costs. Negotiate!
  • Abolish ICE? Zero immigration enforcement. Get real!
  • Wide open borders and no vetting? Please, take my land, my home, my daughters!
  • Defund the police? Guess what’s coming to your neighborhood. Who you gonna call?
  • Abolish prisons? Same.
  • Crime and Release: Sympathy for aggressors. Victims… meh.
  • Revoke gun rights? You can forget about self-defense. But disarm and conquer is the final objective.
  • Outlaw voter ID? Kiss electoral integrity goodbye.
  • Abandon Israel? Exterminating Jews, from the river to the sea. Oh, and apparently here too! Genocide in Gaza is a fiction enabled by Hamas’ strategic ploy to forcibly embed with civilians.
  • Higher oil prices? Yes, much higher than even now, because the left hates fossil fuels.
  • Publicly ostracize Republicans to diminish their career and social prospects? Because they differ!
  • “Reeducate” Republicans? Because they differ!
  • Shoot Republicans? Because they differ!

Much of this adds up to a putsch for a one-party state. Don’t tell me I’m exaggerating: I’ve heard members of my own extended family engage in eliminationist rhetoric. And I’m far from alone. It’s not a joke. Yes, those are just words, but nevertheless, the left is actively normalizing even the most extreme and nonsensical positions. These people are insane.

The Clown Car

Who do the Democrats wish to elect in November? Well, for starters, a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool, big government lefties who would push for many of the agenda items listed above. This includes Senate candidates such as Roy Cooper (NC), Sherrod Brown (OH), and DSA member Angie Nixon (FL). But the worst of the worst for the Senate might be Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, a fake physician with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see this ridiculous ad from a supportive PAC, especially the end). Then we have James Talarico in Texas, a wokie who has played up his pastoral ambitions and has flipped on critical issues (youth transgender medical care and sports, abortion, and energy). And what about Graham Platner? … Oops, no, the Maine Oystergrüppenführer had to drop out due to accusations of sexual abuse — but this guy received 70% of Maine Democrats’ vote in the primary and support from prominent Democrats elsewhere. Nice people!

Some of the Democratic House candidates are even more extreme, including Democratic Socialists Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY), Melat Kiros (CO), Donavan McKinney (MI), William Lawrence (MI), and DSA-backed Claire Valdez (NY). Don’t allow them to waste the next two years of congressional time and energy trying to make ridiculous charges against Trump stick, or even worse, waste our time debating a socialist policy agenda.

The Democrats’ gubernatorial candidates include another collection of radical nut cases. Oregon Governor Tina Kotec is one of them. So is Gina Hinojosa of Texas, who has received an endorsement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which in turn defends Sharia law. Others include Amanda Janoo (VT), Deb Haaland (NM), and Hannah Pingree (ME), all for big taxation and grandiose plans for big government.

These Democrats are cheered on by such luminaries as:

  • the noted anti-Semite and socialist Hasan Piker;
  • Kamala Harris, whose patter is nearly 100% vapid drivel;
  • the oily, DSA worshiping Gavin Newsom;
  • the inimitable socialist Bernie Sanders, who has never done an honest day’s work in his life;
  • the former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who thinks highways are racist; and
  • the former narcissist-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama, who has played an instrumental role in radicalizing Democrats over the past two decades and would love to have another opportunity to pull strings.

Electoral Mischief

One of the policy issues bulleted above requires elaboration: our country has a major lack of election integrity. Our electoral process is not free and fair. It is rife with fraud. Already, well before Election Day, we have a major scandal with noncitizens voting, and you can be assured that it’s not confined to LA or California (see here for the latest case). In Georgia, various kinds of voter fraud in this election have already been identified, which may interfere with certification of the results. Cybersecurity has now become an additional concern with respect to electronic voting.

Of course, the manipulation of elections is nothing new. Local vote counts in jurisdictions dominated by a single political party are the most vulnerable to shenanigans, and those areas tend to be heavily urban with reliable Democrat majorities. These distorted and exaggerated vote counts can certainly have an impact on national results. The best means of bringing this kind of manipulation under control is voter identification, strict deadlines, and eliminating cyber threats via paper ballots. Of course, the election process is once again a major issue this cycle. If you want secure elections, DO NOT sit this one out!

Seditious Conspiracy?

Finally, in a dramatic illustration of how crazy and seditious some high-level Democrats have become, there is strong evidence that insiders, including prominent office holders, are attempting to lay plans for a so-called color revolution after the mid-term election. Here is Glenn Reynolds’ summary of the alleged plan:

“If the Democrats take the House and Senate (and maybe if they don’t), various leftist groups will stage violent protests, intended to press Trump into invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in troops. Once he does, Democratic governors in blue states will denounce his acts as illegal (whether they are or not) and mount resistance on various levels. The goal is to destabilize things enough that they can seize power and replace the Constitution.“

This might sound far-fetched, but again, there is solid documentation to back up the allegations. Chuck Devore in The Federalist gives more detail here (and there is more here). The Trump Administration certainly knows about this plot, but the excellent X poster Cynical Publius believes they want to avoid abetting these plans by deferring any necessary actions until after the midterms.

Final Thoughts

The people behind the plan to stage a color revolution are skunks, and one hopes they’ll be punished. But Democrats have other broad problems, I mean, other than the sheer stupidity of expecting big government to solve problems and protect basic liberties. Factions like the DSA, and a significant share of Democrats overall, really do want a one-party state. But today, the far left wing includes an Islamist faction whose beliefs are fundamentally at odds with ideals the left had championed for decades, like the rights of women, gays, lesbians and more recently, the trans community. Left-wing Jews need a loud wakeup call as well.

I think this clip from Bill Maher and Justine Bateman represents a pretty accurate take on what could happen if the leftist Democrats “get it all”. Do not allow them to take control of our country. They will bring disaster. Get out and vote, and make your vote count against Democrats, even against more moderate Democrats, because they are unlikely to present an obstacle to the radical agenda. Hold your nose if you have to, but you just might help to preserve our safety, our liberties, and our country.

Big AI Begs Government To Deliver Us From Evil AI

17 Saturday Oct 2026

Posted by Nuetzel in Artificial Intelligence, Regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AI Doomers, AI Force, AI Pause, AI Regulation, Alex Tabarrok, Anthropic, Bootleggers and Baptists, Claus Wilke, Cognitive Apathy, Existential Risks, Francis Turner, Fraud, Hallucination, Luddites, National Security, Noah Smith, Open AI, Per Byland, Pete Hegseth, Product Liability, Property Rights, Public Choice, Regulatory Capture, rent seeking, Self-Regulation, Supervirus, Trump Administration

Please, no. Let’s not get too aggressive about regulating AI development and use.

Sure, certain kinds of AI regulation are worthwhile and probably unavoidable, but those theoretically fall within the bounds of existing law: the framework in which liability issues, property rights, and claims of fraud are settled. Otherwise, there may be a role for industry self-regulation, perhaps within the kind of framework outlined here. Beyond that, broader and more intrusive government regulation and oversight of AI companies would serve to slow or retard development, and thereby hamper progress on addressing safety and security (because ongoing development will help reveal weaknesses). It would also stifle industry competition in the U.S., and cede advantages to adversaries, particularly China.

Promise and Limits

My position on AI regulation flows from optimism about what AI can accomplish as well as recognition of AI’s inherent limits. It is a powerful technology, but it does not “reason”. It is capable of real innovation, but only to the extent that it mechanically and iteratively constructs solutions based on a catalogue of past knowledge. Of course, it does the latter exceptionally well, and its solutions can be quite novel, drawing upon complex links between phenomena across many dimensions, but that is not the same as creative genius.

Those who anthropomorphize AI tend to fall for superstitions about new technology that have plagued humanity for centuries and have, at times, hindered the advancement of human well being. Yet we have prospered from new technologies in spite of this noise.

Begging For Discipline

Unfortunately, recent warnings from some AI executives and developers have been taken to heart across the political spectrum, though not particularly within the Trump Administration. While I have been critical of many of Trump’s policy positions and initiatives, deregulation has been a bright spot (if very uneven), and the promise of a light touch on AI regulation is another plus. Yet Trump has allowed the Pentagon to prohibit defense contracts with Anthropic as a security concern. In addition, the proposed “AI Force” raises questions, especially in light of Defense (War!) Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Anthropic decision. Presumably, the AI Force would be a branch of Homeland Security. AI obviously has significant military and defense applications. But could such an AI Force remain above the regulatory fray even as it designates certain applications or models to be a threat to national security? And could such a designation be contested?

The “doomers” within the AI industry are an obvious irony. They warn that their work might have “existential” consequences but continue that work under what we might call a self-compelled burden of competence. If anyone and everyone is going to do AI, then they too must do it too, if only for the good of humanity. But they insist that joining forces with the federal government to regulate or even pause development will somehow save the day, despite the global nature of the competition.

Perhaps Deeper Motives

To me, their rationale for government regulation seems implausible. The big AI companies are massive enterprises, and whether or not one believes they could “capture” a new regulatory body, they are nonetheless highly interested in shaping the future of any rules and regulation to which they and their competitors would be subject.

Alex Tabarrok insists that regulatory capture is typically confined to mature, regulated industries in his post “What Regulatory Capture Actually Looks Like”. He not only doubts that AI doomers have designs on capturing regulators; he also believes that the doomers expressed fears are completely sincere.

As one of Tabarrok’s commenters suggests, however, the AI executives’ behavior comports with the “bootleggers and baptists” theory of public choice, whereby politicians or influential parties claim the highest motives in serving the public interest and yet stand to reap economic gains from “protective” restrictions. In the case of AI, the executives may well be playing both roles. And they might happily accept both roles even if they believe their own warnings of doom. In fact, any rents the big AI concerns gain as a result of new regulations might be viewed as deserved, or unavoidable in any case.

Another plausible explanation for the pro-regulatory (and pro-pause) position taken by some players, notably Anthropic and OpenAI, is discussed by Francis Turner. It has to do with a desperate need for cash flow. One avenue would involve an effort to:

“… wriggle out of the optimistic compute commitments they have made. … both Open AI and Anthropic have made enormous commitments to purchase compute which has been what has driven the explosive growth in data centers. Unfortunately for Big AI the demand simply doesn’t seem to be there. Or at least the demand to pay the prices Big AI wants to charge.“

Turner also notes that a regulatory push to ban Chinese models would be seen as a competitive boost for these companies. Finally, Turner believes the big AI companies employ individuals with a personal drive to control the evolution and use of AI. That’s not hard to believe! A regulatory regime would offer ample opportunities for industry insiders to step into roles in which they could do just that. Possible motives are ample, whether borne of altruism, power-seeking, or the pursuit of economic gain. We could call this mere rent seeking or political bargaining, rather than regulatory capture, but some sort of capture might well be a goal.

Fears and Risks

Again, cries for regulation are accompanied by a stoking of fears that AI presents existential risks for humanity. One prominent example is closely associated with Noah Smith, though I’m sure he’s not the first to discuss it. That’s the idea that AI will be used to design a deadly supervirus that will wipe out most of the human race. This fear is overblown and unrealistic. A number of extremely deadly pathogens already exist, ebola being the perhaps the most contagious and deadly. Local deployments could surely be used to infect a large number of people, but that would be difficult to pull off and we are capable of containment. It is hardly an existential threat to humanity. As to the creation and spread of deadly new bugs, practical obstacles drastically reduce the likelihood of such an outcome, particularly on an existential scale, as outlined by Claus Wilke in “I’m sorry, you’re not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus”.

Perhaps the most significant risks presented by AI fall within the realm of cybersecurity. Certain security breaches could conceivably threaten large numbers of people, but they are unlikely to approach existential levels for humanity.

The potential for plain old fraud via AI is real, including the creation and propagation of misinformation at scale. This is probably as much a human or user problem as an AI problem. AI hallucinations are an aspect of it as well, but that’s really an obstacle to adoption, so AI companies are working hard to minimize the problem. Damages under all of these categories should fall within the traditional legal bounds of liability, whether the result of intent or negligence. The latter distinction should carry less weight given that AI decisions are often shrouded within a so-called “black box”. Of course, assigning liability assumes that a responsible party can be identified, but legally defining LLMs as products helps to solve that problem.

Turner also raises the possibility of severe financial damage from an AI agent given authority over large amounts of capital, especially if assigned malicious financial objectives. This category of damage falls within the scope of existing securities laws and regulation.

Finally, some have warned of a risk that humans will suffer “cognitive atrophy” from relying on AI. In fact, it’s said to be a reality even now, and that it will become more severe as humans rely on AI to solve more problems and perform tasks. Will AI cause humans to devolve and face a more brutish existence? While I accept that AI presents a risk of cognitive atrophy, there are also ways in which AI stimulates intellectual curiosity about all manner of things. Much depends on the spirit in which AI is approached. It must be used as a tool and a complement to human intellectual pursuit, not a substitute for it, but that depends in large part on the user. I’m confident that the human spirit of inquiry will remain as strong as ever.

Summary

To sum up my general view regarding the pleadings for regulation of AI, I offer this quote from Per Byland:

“The State’s core function, in both theory and practice, is to give the ruling class a reliable way to extract wealth from society while posing as selfless public servants. It’s an ideal setup for the greedy, self‑absorbed, and unproductive.“

Except in this case we see the ownership and employees within a highly productive sector of the economy ostensibly rooting for the state to make them less productive. Or are they really? If it’s safety they want, then it’s incumbent on them to make their products safe, whatever that might entail, or face legal consequences. Continued development is likely to reveal risks as well as better ways to mitigate those risks.

If it’s economic advantage that Big AI craves, that answer too is in their very hands: they must compete in the AI marketplace to produce capable, reliable, and safe products that buyers value. Adopting a rigid government regulatory solution or a pause in development would likely bring the sacrifice of U.S. competitive advantages in AI and ultimately a centrally-planned and ineffective approach to AI.

As for designs on gaining a political advantage, we can hope that AI doomers will ultimately go the way of all Luddites before them.

Follow Sacred Cow Chips on WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • Hold On To Your Country: Vote Down the Leftists
  • Big AI Begs Government To Deliver Us From Evil AI
  • Data Center Power Price Confusion
  • The Rise of the GOP “Common Good” Socialists
  • Trial Lawyers Reveal Preference For Less Safety

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

Blogs I Follow

  • Passive Income Kickstart
  • OnlyFinance.net
  • TLC Cholesterol
  • Nintil
  • kendunning.net
  • DCWhispers.com
  • Hoong-Wai in the UK
  • Marginal REVOLUTION
  • Stlouis
  • Watts Up With That?
  • American Elephants
  • The View from Alexandria
  • The Gymnasium
  • A Force for Good
  • Notes On Liberty
  • troymo
  • SUNDAY BLOG Stephanie Sievers
  • Miss Lou Acquiring Lore
  • Your Well Wisher Program
  • Objectivism In Depth
  • RobotEnomics
  • Orderstatistic
  • Paradigm Library
  • Scattered Showers and Quicksand
  • Jam Review

Blog at WordPress.com.

Passive Income Kickstart

OnlyFinance.net

TLC Cholesterol

Nintil

To estimate, compare, distinguish, discuss, and trace to its principal sources everything

kendunning.net

The Future is Ours to Create

DCWhispers.com

Hoong-Wai in the UK

A Commonwealth immigrant's perspective on the UK's public arena.

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

Stlouis

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

American Elephants

Defending Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

The View from Alexandria

In advanced civilizations the period loosely called Alexandrian is usually associated with flexible morals, perfunctory religion, populist standards and cosmopolitan tastes, feminism, exotic cults, and the rapid turnover of high and low fads---in short, a falling away (which is all that decadence means) from the strictness of traditional rules, embodied in character and inforced from within. -- Jacques Barzun

The Gymnasium

A place for reason, politics, economics, and faith steeped in the classical liberal tradition

A Force for Good

How economics, morality, and markets combine

Notes On Liberty

Spontaneous thoughts on a humble creed

troymo

SUNDAY BLOG Stephanie Sievers

Escaping the everyday life with photographs from my travels

Miss Lou Acquiring Lore

Gallery of Life...

Your Well Wisher Program

Attempt to solve commonly known problems…

Objectivism In Depth

Exploring Ayn Rand's revolutionary philosophy.

RobotEnomics

(A)n (I)ntelligent Future

Orderstatistic

Economics, chess and anything else on my mind.

Paradigm Library

OODA Looping

Scattered Showers and Quicksand

Musings on science, investing, finance, economics, politics, and probably fly fishing.

Jam Review

"If you get confused, listen to the music play."

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Sacred Cow Chips
    Join 127 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Sacred Cow Chips
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...