The article argues that the Federal Reserve's recent rate hike decision, while justifiable on inflation grounds, highlights a critical lack of an underlying, transparent policy framework. The core problem is that the Fed's decisions appear discretionary, leading to market uncertainty because the committee's judgment, rather than clear data, dictates policy shifts. The author proposes that the Fed adopt a formal monetary policy rule—an algebraic formula linking the target rate to indicators like inflation and unemployment—to replace subjective guidance. Implementing such a rule would provide market predictability, enhance transparency, and shield the Fed from political attacks by making deviations from the standard easily quantifiable.
The Fatal Contradiction at the Heart of Socialist Prison Abolitionism
English Summary
The article identifies a fatal contradiction in socialist prison abolitionism: achieving socialism requires extensive government control over key economic sectors, which necessitates criminalizing countless activities and thus requiring a massive state coercive apparatus. Historically, attempts to enforce such sweeping regulations have generated black markets that must be suppressed through mass coercion, confirming the need for incarceration. Consequently, the author argues that genuine reductions in incarceration are not achieved by increasing state control or making more things illegal, but rather by significantly reducing the scope of criminal law (e.g., abolishing drug prohibition and limiting immigration restrictions).
中文摘要
本文指出社會主義監獄廢除主義存在一個根本矛盾：實現社會主義需要政府對關鍵經濟部門進行廣泛控制，而這又必然要求將無數活動定為犯罪，從而需要建立龐大的國家強制力體系。歷史經驗顯示，試圖執行如此全面的管制往往會產生黑市，進而必須透過大規模的強制手段來鎮壓，這反過來證實了監禁制度的必要性。因此，作者主張，真正減少監禁規模的方法並非增加國家控制或將更多行為列為非法，而是大幅縮減刑法本身的範圍（例如廢除藥物禁令和放寬移民限制）。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The brief challenges current border policies that allow agents to search travelers' digital devices without a warrant, arguing this violates the Fourth Amendment. Cato contends that the existing 'border-search exception' is being misused to grant the government an overly broad, warrantless window into private digital lives. The core argument is that personal possession of data should not be treated as a vulnerability, while third-party cloud storage should not be treated as a refuge. If upheld, these policies transform routine border crossings into invasive investigative checkpoints, significantly eroding constitutional privacy rights.
-
3.
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC serves as a critical warning that the global health security system is fundamentally unprepared for future biological threats. The difficulty in containing this outbreak is compounded by the rising risk of emerging pathogens and the growing potential for AI misuse in bioweapon development. Policy must therefore shift from reactive, crisis-driven funding to sustained, proactive investment in resilient public health infrastructure, particularly in conflict zones. Addressing this requires strengthening global surveillance, ensuring consistent international cooperation, and mitigating the intersection of conflict, climate change, and disease spread.
-
4.
The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
-
5.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.