Podcasts about Montesquieu

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

Is America a democracy or a constitutional republic? Why did the Founding Fathers reject pure democracy and build a government with checks and balances? In this special Independence Day episode, Peter Rosenberger explores the biblical view of human nature, the influence of John Locke, Montesquieu, James Madison, and Robert Woodson, and explains why caregivers uniquely understand stewardship, accountability, and freedom. Discover how the lessons learned from decades of caregiving illuminate the Constitution, patriotism, limited government, and the Christian hope that no government can provide.

Por estos tiempos se cumplen los 250 años de la "Declaración de Independencia de los Estados Unidos", firmada el 4 de julio de 1776 en Filadelfia. Y para poder entender el contenido de esta celebración en este capítulo viajamos al siglo XVIII —un siglo de revoluciones entrelazadas, de ideas ilustradas que cruzaron a ambos lados del Atlántico y de Trece Colonias que apostaron a pensarse como una sola nación— para entender cómo varios procesos de reflexión y representación política terminaron por dar origen a uno de los textos fundacionales de la democracia moderna y el Estado de derecho. También analizamos los legados y las contrariedades presentes en el Acta de Independencia de las Trece Colonias. Notas del episodio El siglo XVIII como proceso global: Un recorrido por el siglo de las revoluciones científicas, política e industrial— y por el mundo Atlántico que conectó ideas, imprentas y plazas de mercado de un extremo a otro del océano. Los cimientos filosóficos: De la revolución científica a la Ilustración: cómo Locke, Rousseau y Montesquieu trasladaron la idea de leyes naturales al terreno político y sentaron las bases del contrato social y la separación de poderes. Montesquieu y la separación de poderes: Una mirada a la vida y la obra de Charles-Louis de Secondat, barón de Montesquieu, y a la teoría que dividió el poder en ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial. De la protesta a la ruptura: El Stamp Act, el boicot al té, el Boston Tea Party y las Actas Intolerables: la crisis fiscal entre Gran Bretaña y las Trece Colonias que transformó el reclamo político en confrontación abierta. «Sentido Común» de Thomas Paine: El panfleto que Thomas Paine publicó en enero de 1776 y que, con un lenguaje sencillo y directo, convenció a buena parte de la opinión pública colonial de que la ruptura con la Corona británica era inevitable. El texto de la Declaración de Independencia: La versión en español del documento firmado el 4 de julio de 1776, redactado principalmente por Thomas Jefferson y editado por Benjamin Franklin y John Adams. Sigue mis proyectos en otros lugares:  YouTube ➔ youtube.com/@DianaUribefm  Instagram ➔ instagram.com/dianauribe.fm Facebook ➔ facebook.com/dianauribe.fm Sitio web ➔ dianauribe.fm Twitter ➔ x.com/DianaUribefm  LinkedIn ➔ www.linkedin.com/in/diana-uribe    Gracias de nuevo a nuestra comunidad de patreon por apoyar la producción de este episodio. Si quieres unirte, visita www.dianauribe.fm/comunidad    

durée : 00:38:25 - Questions du soir : le débat - par : Quentin Lafay - 4 juillet 1776 – 4 juillet 2026 : les 250 ans de l'indépendance des États-Unis, célébrés sous le deuxième mandat de Donald Trump, seront sans doute l'un des événements nationaux les moins rassembleurs de l'histoire du pays. Donald Trump a fait de ces célébrations une fête à sa gloire. - équipe : Stéphanie Villeneuve, Mathias Mégy, Diane de Vanssay, Antoine Ayral, Juliette Mouëllic, Léa Racine - invités : Tamara Boussac Historienne, maîtresse de conférence en études nord-américaine à l'Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Hugo Toudic docteur en philosophie politique à Sorbonne université, spécialiste de la pensée de Montesquieu et de son influence sur les pères fondateurs , Julien Jeanneney Professeur de droit public à l'Université de Strasbourg, membre de l'Institut universitaire de France Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University

We know James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. But who was he before that? In this special episode, Dr. Katie Crawford Lackey takes the guest seat to explore the formative years that made Madison who he is.At 25, Madison was the youngest major figure of the founding era — small, sickly, quiet, and easy to overlook. He never commanded armies or delivered rousing speeches. What he had were ideas, and a framework for thinking about power, human nature, and government that no one else in the room quite possessed. Where did that framework come from?The answer lies in three Scottish Enlightenment-influenced teachers, a frontier Virginia upbringing, and an unconventional choice to attend the College of New Jersey — the institution we know today as Princeton — rather than William and Mary, where every other wealthy Virginia man of his generation enrolled.Dr. Crawford-Lackey traces Madison's intellectual development from the schoolroom of Donald Robertson, where a 70-mile horseback journey opened a young boy's mind to Locke, Milton, and Montesquieu, through his years under John Witherspoon at Princeton — where he experienced the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party not as distant news, but as live confirmation of everything the Scottish Enlightenment had taught him about human passion and the limits of reason.Madison wasn't born a Founding Father. He was made — by a rigorous education, a world in crisis, and the hardest question anyone could ask on the eve of a revolution: What kind of people is government meant to govern?The answer he arrived at still shapes American democracy today.

A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM STEPHANIE:I want to share a special invitation with you. You may have heard that I will be releasing my first book with IVP on July 28, 2026. It's a big deal and I am so overwhelmed with God' goodness in allowing me to share such an essential message about delighting in Him as the true essential foundation for all our spiritual growth and maturing. Truly, when we delight in the Lord, He promises to give us the desires of our hearts – namely, more of Himself!So, here's the invitation. If you feel this message is indeed important, and you know people – including yourself perhaps – who need to be encouraged to awaken and cultivate their delight in God, would you consider joining my book launch team? It's a great and super easy way to share the good news of God's love for us in Christ, Jesus, our Lord.**If you're interested, please go to gospelspice.com/awakendelight and find the section about joining the launch team, or email me at contact@gospelspice.com **Together, let's encourage everyone we know with the wonderful news that, in Christ, God delights in us and invites us to delight in Him!Stephanie welcomes Os Guinness again to explore what has made America unique in its freedom and what threatens that legacy today. They examine foundational principles, historical roots, the virtues necessary for sustaining freedom, and the challenges now facing the American experiment.America's greatness rests not only on its achievements but on its founding principles. Os Guinness stresses that neither contemporary political movements nor leaders have answered the vital question: What made America great in the first place?To steward freedom, each generation must understand, embody, and transmit the foundational ideas and virtues that made the American experiment possible. The Republic's survival—and America's blessing to the world—hangs on recovering this covenant vision.The American republic was never intended to be a pure democracy; the framers deliberately moved away from direct rule by majority, fearing the dangers of unchecked popular power. Its distinctive structure draws from ancient Hebrew ideas, especially the Exodus and Deuteronomy, rooting political liberty in biblical covenant rather than secular philosophy.Os Guinness highlights that America is “…a nation by intention and by ideas.” It means at least that:Societies must begin by shaping principles before policies; neglecting foundational ideas leads to losing the core of freedom.The American Revolution's most-cited book was Deuteronomy, not Locke or Montesquieu—emphasizing spiritual over philosophical freedom.Modern political discourse overwhelmingly focuses on policies rather than underlying principles, missing the root causes of freedom's decline.The sustainability of freedom relies on what Os Guinness calls the "Golden Triangle":Freedom requires virtueVirtue requires faithFaith requires freedomAbandoning any side of this triangle causes freedom to wither. In recent times, American society has widely dismissed the importance of virtue, attacked faith, and misunderstands freedom's true foundation. Authoritarian societies depend on fear. Free societies depend on trust, built on shared morals and character.Several virtues are essential for sustaining freedom, including:Freedom: Modeled on God's own restraint, granting humanity genuine free will.Reciprocity: Mutual responsibility and equality; its neglect enabled the tragedy of slavery.Civility: Respectful public discourse grounded in truth—now degraded in contemporary society.Morality: Freedom is a "moral accomplishment." Public life requires both the rule of law and private character; otherwise, legal structures become weapons for power rather than justice.Fidelity: The conscious passing of identity and purpose to the next generation. Education and storytelling sustain freedom.Guinness cautions that America's crisis is not only external (the "wolves at the door") but internal—moral decay ("the termites in the floor") is often the greater danger.Failure to transmit and sustain these virtues can render America's freedom a "byword" rather than a "city on a hill". As the nation nears its 250th anniversary, the Republic is at a tipping point.However, Os Guinness grounds hope in the power and truth of the biblical heritage that birthed American freedom. For example,Reform and recovery are possible if Americans reembrace the core virtues and principles from Scripture.Christians, in particular, have a calling to model and advocate for these truths, showing society the way back to lasting freedom.The lesson for Christian and freedom-loving citizens is clear: freedom is not inevitable or self-perpetuating. It requires gratitude for its biblical roots, courage to exemplify truth, virtue, and responsibility, and commitment to pass these on. As Os Guinness says, our hope lies not in political maneuvering but in recovering the profound, transformative truths of the Bible as the wellspring of true liberty.MORE ABOUT OS' LATEST BOOK, "A FREEDOM LIKE NO OTHER"To renew America, we must remember what made it great in the first place.Across the ages, republics have been lost not only to enemies without, but to corrosion within. Free societies are rare. Lasting free societies are rarer still. So, what are the prospects for the American republic at the 250th anniversary of the revolution? Many citizens long to “make America great again,” but far fewer ask the deeper question: What made America great in the first place—and what kind of freedom can last? What does it mean that half a century of cultural conflict, ideological polarization, and unprincipled power has left Americans fractured, disillusioned, and tempted by extremes of chaos on one side and control on the other? And what happens when the older menace of tyranny is joined by the newer challenge of artificial intelligence—magnifying the forces that weaken truth, character, and self-government?In A Freedom Like No Other, Os Guinness offers not another round of outrage from left or right, but a constructive path forward—twelve foundational principles for restoring the Republic and renewing ordered liberty. The third in a quartet of studies on the crisis of America and the West (following Our Civilizational Moment and America Agonistes), this book is a foreign admirer's call for America's semiquincentennial to be more than celebration: a time of honest self-examination, needed correction, and national rededication. Drawing on America's Jewish and Christian roots and the covenantal vision of freedom and responsibility that shaped the Republic at its best, Guinness sets out the moral and civic architecture a free people must recover if they are to remain fit to be free.This is a book for every American who believes freedom is worth the cost, and for anyone around the world who knows the alternatives and longs for a human-friendly future.Purchase today here: https://a.co/d/06XUZLbK DISCOVER THE BOOK BEHIND THE PODCAST | "Awaken Delight" by Stephanie Rousselle"Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart." Psalm 37:4 isn't a poetic suggestion — it's a promise. But many believers quietly assume it doesn't really work, or it's not really possible here on earth.In Awaken Delight, Stephanie Rousselle invites you to rediscover what Scripture actually means by delight — not emotional hype, not religious performance, but a steady satisfaction rooted in who God is.Delight in God isn't a mood to manufacture; it's a relationship to receive.Through biblical theology and practical rhythms, you'll learn how communion with God reshapes suffering, quiets restless striving, and anchors your identity in something unshakable.Delighting in God isn't sentimental optimism. It's deeply rooted in Christ, Jesus.It's the quiet revolution that reshapes how we endure pain, love others, and understand our own heart.Awaken Delight is a theologically grounded spiritual formation book for thoughtful believers who feel spiritually fatigued and are ready to embrace the reality of Psalm 37:4.More at https://www.gospelspice.com/awakendelight Purchase the book, "Awaken Delight" by Stephanie Rousselle: https://a.co/d/0bqhUb5JKind words from Jennifer Rothschild, Bible teacher, Author, Speaker, Podcast Host, Founder, Fresh Grounded Faith: “Stephanie helps us awaken to and experience true delight. It is a rich mix of God's delight in you and your delight in him. This is the life you were made for, the life your soul deeply longs for. So, the table is set. Pull up a chair and let your heart sit alongside Stephanie. As your delight in God wakes up and becomes fully realized, you'll find a satisfaction in Christ that makes you want more and more.”Kind words from Amanda Jenkins, Lead creator of THE CHOSEN's literary content: "I have yet to meet another person quite as eager to intimately know Jesus as Stephanie is. Her enthusiasm for the beauty found inside a thriving relationship with her Savior is downright contagious. Indeed, Stephanie's joy and faith and commitment to growth—along with her love for really good food!—will implant themselves in the hearts of readers. Lucky readers."Kind words from Os Guinness, Theologian, Social critic, Author, The Call:  "Stephanie addresses one of the greatest needs of Christians today. Knowing God is not knowing about God, but knowing Him genuinely and with desire and delight. She does so practically and helpfully, and in a style that sparkles with a verve and joy that is distinctively French."Kind words from Pippa Gumbel, Pioneer, The Alpha Course; Author, The Bible in one year with husband Nicky: "Stephanie's love of God is inspiring and infectious. Her book is an invitation to share in that delight and to come to know God in new and wonderful ways."More at https://www.gospelspice.com/awakendelight Purchase the book, "Awaken Delight" by Stephanie Rousselle: https://a.co/d/0bqhUb5JSupport us on Gospel Spice, PayPal and Venmo!

Coğrafî şartlar ise siyâset arasındaki münâsebet fikir târihinin alâka duyduğu bir mevzu olarak dikkat çeker. Bu bağları birinci derecede kuran ve nazarîleştiren düşünür ,hiç şüphesiz İbn-i Hâldun'dur. Kendisinden sonra Montesquieu ve diğerleri aynı yolu tâkip etmiş ve ortaya çok dikkat çekici iddialar koymuşlardır. İndirgemeciliğe kaçmaksızın bu tarz bir nazârla bakıldığında siyâseti de bir bağlama oturtmak mümkün olabilmektedir.

Stand-up Carolina Montesquieu is cracking open her notebook to help us eulogize SATC S2E5, “Four Women and a Funeral.”  Charlotte picks up a widower at a graveyard, single Miranda is persecuted by the housing market and faces the horror of dying alone with her cat, Samantha experiences social suicide and has to be saved by “Leonardo DiCaprio,” and Carrie resurrects her relationship with Big. We discuss how being a single woman is a lot like being a gay guy, Miranda's undeniable lesbian haircut, how stalking Big's Instagram on a burner account would have saved Carrie a world of hurt, and Shibby Shipman's incredible cancellation reach in a pre-social media world. Plus, Carolina divulges about her personal Big, Amelia laments the lack of Main Events in the tri-state area, and Evan wishes they could get a free lunch at the cost of their dignity.  Find out where Carolina is performing next at www.carolinamontesquieucomedy.com or @carolinamontesquieu. (Any single boxer listeners, hit her up!) Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com/go/GIRLSREWATCH! #squarepod #ad Visit NUULY.com and use code REWATCH for $28 OFF your 1st month! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sección en el programa El Remate de la Diez Capital radio con nuestro abogado particular, Juan Inurria. Puente descubrió esta semana que entre las funciones del Poder Judicial «no está derribar gobiernos». Yo, que llevo más de treinta años frecuentando juzgados, cuando estudié y cuando lo sigo haciendo no lo veo escrito en ninguna parte, pero sí, en cambio en las barbaridades que espeta el gobierno sanchista, está este nuevo mantra que compran la manada de votantes que le siguen. Y es que cada cual aprende donde puede. Y esta vez te toco a ti Puente, Bolaños no quiso. El CGPJ respondió con un comunicado. Dijo que ciertas declaraciones de «altas instituciones del Estado» erosionan la confianza ciudadana en el Estado de Derecho. Sin dar nombres. Que respetuosos. Y Puente replicó que la justicia también está sometida a crítica, como cualquier otro poder. Tiene razón, Puente. Lo está. Pero hay una diferencia que cualquier albergador de sentido común conoce, y es que criticar una sentencia es un derecho. De eso a que el Gobierno mande a descalificar a los jueces que lo investigan es otra cosa distinta. Esa otra cosa tiene nombres varios, así que queridos lectores uds. pónganle el que más les guste. Donde el CGPJ anduvo con pies de plomo, por si le riñen a su presidenta, las asociaciones profesionales no se anduvieron con rodeos -todas menos una- La Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura, la Asociación Judicial Francisco de Vitoria, el Foro Judicial Independiente y las dos principales asociaciones de fiscales firmaron un comunicado conjunto. Sin eufemismos, y dejo claro que se trata de una «estrategia orquestada para atentar contra la independencia judicial». Su crítica más dura no fue para el Consejo -cuya declaración calificaron de insuficiente- sino para la Fiscalía General – que recuerden depende de Sánchez- a la que acusaron sin ambages de ignorar su deber legal de defender la independencia judicial. Queridos amigos, los jueces y fiscales del reino de España diciéndole al fiscal general que no hace su trabajo. Firmaron todas las asociaciones de la carrera. Todas menos una: Jueces y Juezas para la Democracia. Que dicen todo sin decir nada. ¿Qué independientes, verdad? El detonante fue una jueza de Badajoz, que es Magistrada, Beatriz Biedma, que fue instructora en el caso del hermanísimo de Sánchez. La trama es que se habría ordenado seguimientos sobre ella, su familia y su entorno profesional. Con el propósito, según las informaciones publicadas, de hostigarla y desacreditarla. Una magistrada espiada por hacer su trabajo. Si eso no es un ataque al Estado de Derecho, que es lo que tiene que pasar. Y al parecer todo lo hacia una tal Leire que pasaba por allí. Otro Juez, o Magistrado mejor dicho, Pedraz lleva semanas removiendo los cimientos de Ferraz, que es la sede o el local del PSOE en Madrid. La UCO pasó por allí y se quedo doce horas. Y hemos sabido esta semana que el sumario del caso Leire apunta a una trama pagada con fondos del PSOE para entorpecer causas judiciales que afectaban al partido y al Gobierno de Sánchez. Santos Cerdán como presunto cabeza visible. Gaspar Zarrías, la gerente del partido y varios compañeros abogados como co-investigados. El magistrado sitúa el arranque en una reunión del 26 de abril de 2024 y por aquel entonces recordar lo qué estaba ocurriendo exactamente esos días con el presidente y su famosa carta de reflexión, por lo que le pasaba a su esposa. También esta semana en Badajoz, seguíamos con el juicio al hermano del presidente. Y su hermano David negó cualquier implicación en la creación de su propio puesto. Claro, el resto somos bobos. La UCO señaló que buscó piso en Badajoz un mes antes de que le adjudicaran la plaza. Uno puede buscar piso donde le plazca o pueda pagar. Pero cuando ese dato se suma a un expediente para crear su plaza, a testigos que en el juicio recordaron las cosas de forma llamativamente distinta a como las recordaban en instrucción, – a mí me pasa a diario- y a un puesto que nadie cubrió mientras él no estaba, el cuadro tiene una pintura descarada que no necesita demasiada imaginación o sí, en fin, créanse lo que consideren creerse, yo lo dejo aquí que tengo que preparar la visita del Papa y el inicio de los mundiales. De cualquier manera, ya Montesquieu escribió que no hay libertad donde el poder judicial no está separado del ejecutivo. Lo escribió en 1748. Hay quien lleva desde entonces sin leerlo. Descarados. Puente lee.

« Comment peut-on être Persan ? », se demandait Montesquieu ; « comment succéder au général de Gaulle ? », se demandait Georges Pompidou.Plongez dans l'histoire des grands personnages et des évènements marquants qui ont façonné notre monde ! Avec enthousiasme et talent, Franck Ferrand vous révèle les coulisses de l'histoire avec un grand H, entre mystères, secrets et épisodes méconnus : un cadeau pour les amoureux du passé, de la préhistoire à l'histoire contemporaine.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Frédéric Samama est auteur de L'énigme de l'inaction climatique et pionnier de la finance verte et alors que nous vivons un de ces épisodes de canicule aujourd'hui, il m'a semblé essentiel d'essayer de comprendre pourquoi nous savons depuis 70 ans et nous ne faisons rien. En 2009, il a monté le premier centre de recherche mondial sur la finance et le climat, lancé les premiers indices low carbone et créé la première coalition d'investisseurs à la COP21. Et pourtant, son livre ne parle pas de finance. Il parle de cerveau, d'histoire, de philosophie et d'une question qui l'obsède depuis cinq ans : pourquoi, sur un problème que tout le monde connaît, que l'on a créé, et qui nous menace en tant qu'espèce, on n'arrive pas à bouger ?Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de neurosciences cognitives, d'inférence bayésienne, de moments fromages dans l'histoire de l'humanité, et du lien entre capitalisme, néolibéralisme et perte de nos réflexes moraux. J'ai questionné Frédéric sur l'overview effect des astronautes, sur Lévinas et la philosophie du visage, sur Jean Cavaillès et la résistance, et sur ce que tout ça dit de notre capacité à réinventer nos représentations du monde face à l'urgence climatique.Citations marquantes"Sur un problème où tout le monde est au courant, qu'on a créé, et qui nous menace en tant qu'espèce — pourquoi diable, on n'arrive pas à se mettre en mouvement ?" (0:29:00)"Le capitalisme, c'est comment tu fais vivre des gens ensemble en dehors de règles morales et religieuses. Et maintenant qu'on fait face à un défi moral, qui est le défi du climat, on ne sait plus faire." (0:19:30)"Face à l'enjeu moral, c'est l'action qui doit prévaloir — et pas la réflexion de est-ce qu'on est optimiste, négatif, et ainsi de suite." (1:06:44)"On a voulu détendre le lien social. En cas de problème, il n'y a plus personne, et donc il n'y a plus de devoir — on ne demande que des droits." (0:26:30)"Le climat, ce n'est plus seulement la plus grosse menace. C'est aussi la plus belle opportunité de réapprendre à vivre ensemble, nous, les 8 milliards de personnes sur Terre." (1:12:00)Big Ideas1. Notre cerveau construit des modèles à partir de signaux — et s'y enferme L'inférence bayésienne selon Stanislas Dehaene : le cerveau observe des signaux et fabrique des lois du monde. Agassi qui lit le service de Becker, le bébé qui comprend la gravité, le rat dans le labyrinthe — tous fonctionnent pareil. Le problème : une fois le modèle établi, on arrête de le mettre à jour. On entre en surconfiance. C'est exactement ce qui se passe avec le climat : on sait, mais on ne change pas de modèle. (0:02:37)2. L'histoire humaine s'est organisée autour de "moments fromages" — et le climat en exige un nouveau Deux grandes ruptures : l'agriculture et la science moderne (accès aux ressources naturelles), puis le néolibéralisme (accès aux ressources humaines mondiales). À chaque fois, l'humanité a réorganisé ses représentations. Le climat est la première fois qu'on nous demande de limiter l'accès aux ressources — un défi sans précédent pour des cerveaux conditionnés à l'expansion. (0:07:43)3. Le capitalisme a délibérément mis la morale hors jeu Au XVIIe siècle, la grande question était : comment faire vivre des gens ensemble sans passer par la morale ou la religion, qui créent des guerres ? La réponse : l'intérêt personnel. Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Hirschman ont construit un système où l'égoïsme profite à la société. Ça a marché. Mais le climat est un problème moral (les plus faibles meurent en premier) — et on n'a plus les réflexes pour ça. (0:14:55)4. L'overview effect comme signal de bascule possible Les astronautes dans l'espace deviennent poètes. Ils voient la planète fragile, belle, vivante. Frédéric propose ces trois perceptions comme signal capable de réécrire nos représentations. La fragilité déclenche la responsabilité (Lévinas). La beauté prépare à la morale (Kant). Le vivant nous réintègre dans la nature après des siècles d'extraction. Pas un programme politique — une hypothèse sur comment les cerveaux humains peuvent changer. (0:39:00)5. Face à un enjeu moral, la question n'est plus l'espoir — c'est l'action Jean Cavaillès, philosophe-mathématicien résistant, incarne la réponse. En mai 1941, zéro espoir objectif. Et pourtant il agit — parce que face à un enjeu moral, la question n'est plus "quelle est la probabilité ?" mais "quelle est mon obligation ?". C'est la même logique que d'appeler les pompiers pour quelqu'un qui fait une crise cardiaque dont on sait qu'elle sera fatale. On agit. Pas parce qu'on espère, mais parce qu'on doit. (1:04:06)Questions poséesQu'est-ce que l'anecdote d'Agassi et Becker révèle sur le fonctionnement du cerveau humain ?Quels sont les grands "moments fromages" de l'histoire de l'humanité, et où en sommes-nous aujourd'hui ?Comment définirais-tu le capitalisme à son origine — et en quoi diffère-t-il du néolibéralisme ?Pourquoi le néolibéralisme a-t-il dissous le lien social, et quelles en sont les conséquences concrètes ?Sur un problème aussi connu et aussi grave que le climat, pourquoi l'humanité n'arrive-t-elle pas à se mettre en mouvement ?Qu'est-ce que l'inférence bayésienne nous apprend sur notre incapacité à mettre à jour nos modèles face au climat ?Qu'est-ce que les astronautes et l'overview effect peuvent nous apprendre sur comment changer nos représentations collectives ?Comment Lévinas et Kant peuvent-ils nous aider à repenser notre rapport au problème climatique ?Qui était Jean Cavaillès, et pourquoi son histoire est-elle une réponse au problème de l'inaction ?Si le signal qui change nos représentations n'est pas encore arrivé, qu'est-ce qui pourrait en tenir lieu à l'échelle de nos sociétés ?Références citéesPersonnes et penseursStanislas Dehaene — chaire de sciences cognitives, Collège de France (0:04:00)André Agassi / Boris Becker — anecdote du service et de la langue (0:02:37)Max Weber — thèse sur la naissance du capitalisme (0:13:00)Albert Hirschman — économiste, auteur sur l'origine du capitalisme (0:13:00)Marcel Enaf — sur le commerce pré-capitaliste (0:17:29)Machiavel, Spinoza, Galilée, Montesquieu, Adam Smith — généalogie du capitalisme (0:15:25)Milton Friedman — article dans le New York Times sur le néolibéralisme (0:19:54)Emmanuel Lévinas — philosophe lituanien, "le visage d'autrui" et l'éthique (0:42:44)Emmanuel Kant — la beauté, le désintérêt et la morale (0:44:30)Michel Serres — "on mesure l'ampleur d'un problème à la durée qu'il a mise à se former" (0:33:34)Robin Dunbar — nombre de 150, limite de coordination des groupes humains (0:34:22)Hannah Arendt et Karl Polanyi — fascisme comme réaction au libéralisme du XIXe siècle (1:07:50)Henri Bergson — envoyé aux États-Unis pour convaincre Wilson d'entrer en guerre (0:53:43)Président Wilson — discours d'entrée en guerre au nom de valeurs morales, 1917 (0:54:30)Jean Cavaillès — philosophe-mathématicien résistant, fusillé (1:02:11)Raymond Aron — "Si Jean Cavaillès avait vécu, j'aurais dit moins de bêtises" (1:04:06)Pierre Brossolette, Jean Moulin — résistants évoqués en parallèle (1:05:00)Concepts et événementsInférence bayésienne — mécanisme cognitif de construction de modèles (0:47:50)Overview effect — phénomène de bascule perceptuelle chez les astronautes (0:39:30)Théorie des "moments fromages" — concept central du livre (0:07:43)Bulle des tulipes — première crise financière spéculative, XVIIe siècle (0:50:23)COP21 — coalition d'investisseurs créée par Frédéric (0:27:33)Passage à l'an 2000 (bug Y2K) — contre-exemple de mobilisation rapide (0:30:00)Protocole de Montréal / couche d'ozone — résolu en 18 mois (0:51:43)Timestamps clés00:00 Introduction — Et si on se réjouissait à nouveau du futur ? Gregory présente Frédéric Semama, pionnier de la finance verte et auteur de L'énigme de l'inaction climatique. 02:37 L'anecdote Agassi / Becker Comment Agassi a découvert le code du service de Becker en s'asseyant dans la foule — et ce que ça révèle sur le cerveau humain. 04:00 Comment le cerveau construit ses modèles du monde Stanislas Dehaene au Collège de France : inférence bayésienne, le bébé, le rat dans le labyrinthe. 07:43 Les "moments fromages" de l'histoire humaine Agriculture, science moderne, néolibéralisme : trois grandes ruptures où l'humanité a réorganisé ses représentations pour accéder à de nouvelles ressources. 13:00 L'origine du capitalisme — bien au-delà de l'argent Comment le capitalisme est né comme solution à la guerre de religion : faire vivre des gens ensemble sans morale ni religion. 20:56 Tout le monde veut un village mais personne ne veut être villageois La concierge qui sauve Frédéric pendant le Covid — et le choc quand il essaie de la remercier avec des cadeaux. 27:00 Pourquoi on n'agit pas sur le climat Trois raisons structurelles : c'est la première limite à l'accès aux ressources, il n'y a pas de signal à hauteur du problème, et nos modèles sont inadaptés. 36:22 La bulle sociétale — on peut savoir et continuer quand même De la bulle internet à la bulle des tulipes : le mécanisme d'enfermement conscient à l'échelle d'une planète. 39:00 L'overview effect — les astronautes comme piste de bascule Fragile, belle, vivante : les trois perceptions que les astronautes rapportent de l'espace — et ce qu'elles activent dans le cerveau. 42:44 Lévinas : le visage d'autrui comme début de l'éthique Quand voir la fragilité de l'autre nous oblige à agir au-delà de notre instinct de conservation. 52:07 La couche d'ozone vs le climat En 18 mois, tous les pays du monde se sont mis d'accord. Qu'est-ce qui est fondamentalement différent avec le climat ? 53:43 Bergson à la Maison-Blanche La France envoie le philosophe Henri Bergson convaincre Wilson d'entrer en guerre. Il réussit. Ce que ça dit du pouvoir des valeurs morales en politique. 1:00:14 Je ne cherche pas à avoir de l'espoir Frédéric explique pourquoi la question n'est pas l'espoir — avec mai 1941 comme exemple. 1:02:11 Jean Cavaillès — le héros oublié de la résistance Fils de militaire, philosophe-mathématicien, major de Normale Sup tout seul. Et résistant. Fusillé dans une fosse commune. 1:06:29 La crise cardiaque et l'obligation morale "La probabilité que tu survives est nulle. Et pourtant, tu vas tout faire pour me sauver." Ce que ça dit du rapport entre morale et action. 1:14:54 La solution concrète : recommencer à regarder le vivant Pourquoi enseigner la vie des animaux et des plantes à l'école changerait plus de choses que n'importe quelle taxe carbone. Suggestion d'autres épisodes à écouter : #286 Le cynisme politique face à l'urgence climatique? avec Fabrice Nicolino (https://audmns.com/SHnNoJp) #292 Les enjeux de la géopolitique climatique avec David Djaiz (https://audmns.com/BoZGVQa) #178 Les technologies vont-elles nous permettre de faire face au défi climatique? avec Philippe Bihouix (https://audmns.com/ktZSlzb)Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Stel dat je de economie opnieuw kon ontwerpen, net zoals Montesquieu ooit de politieke macht opsplitste. Dat is precies wat duurzaamheidsonderzoeker en auteur Babette Porcelijn voor ogen heeft met haarTrias Economica.In deze aflevering gaat Marnix Kluiters met haar in gesprek over de verborgen machtsstructuren in onze economie. Wie voelt de gevolgen, zonder ooit een stem te hebben gehad? Babette laat zien hoe de drie economische machten: de publieke macht, de financiële macht en de bedrijfsmacht, steeds verder verstrengeld raken, en wat dat betekent voor onze democratie.Verder bespreken ze geldschepping en groeidwang, aandeelhoudersmacht versus stakeholderszeggenschap, rechten voor de natuur en toekomstige generaties, de rol van Europa als tegenmacht, en hoe je kleine maar fundamentele stappen kunt zetten. te beginnen bij Big Tech.

La esclavitud fue una institución milenaria y universal. Existió en todas las civilizaciones a lo largo y ancho del mundo. Da igual donde y cuando miremos. La encontramos en Sumeria, en la antigua Roma, en el islam y en los imperios prehispánicos de América. Nadie la cuestionaba y parecía que iba a existir siempre. Pero entre finales del siglo XVIII y finales del XIX esa estructura se desmoronó. Las raíces del movimiento abolicionista se encuentran en el cristianismo, que aceptó la esclavitud, pero no entre cristianos. En la Edad Media la esclavitud se redujo mucho en Europa occidental, pero resurgió con fuerza tras la llegada de los portugueses al golfo de Guinea y de los españoles al continente americano. Isabel la Católica prohibió esclavizar a los indígenas, pero no a los africanos, lo que permitió que los españoles primero y luego las potencias europeas con intereses en América empezasen a llevar esclavos desde África dando origen a la trata atlántica. El abolicionismo en América surgió entre entre los cuáqueros. En el siglo XVIII se sumaron predicadores como John Newton, autor de Amazing Grace, y filósofos ilustrados como Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire y Kant, que ofrecieron a la causa de la abolición un fundamento racional y secular. El Reino Unido, curiosamente la mayor potencia esclavista de la época, fue quien más esfuerzos hizo por acabar con la esclavitud. El caso Somerset de 1772 liberó a los esclavos en suelo inglés. Años más tarde la Sociedad para la Abolición, fundada en 1787, creo la campaña política moderna con panfletos, medallones, boicots y peticiones al parlamento. Crearon también un nuevo género, el de los testimonios de antiguos esclavos. Algunos como los de Olaudah Equiano, Quobna Cugoano, Ignatius Sancho y Mary Prince conmovieron a la opinión pública y fueron de vital importancia para influir sobre la agenda legislativa. En el Parlamento un diputado llamado William Wilberforce fue quien se encargó de dar la batalla durante casi 20 años hasta lograr la prohibición de la trata en 1807. La Royal Navy comenzó a patrullar las costas africanas para capturar a los barcos negreros. La diplomacia británica, entretanto, presionaba a las potencias coloniales para que ilegalizasen la compra de esclavos. En 1833 el parlamento aprobó la Slavery Abolition Act que liberó a los 800.000 esclavos del imperio. Los dueños fueron indemnizados con una suma tan elevada que el Gobierno británico tuvo que pedir el dinero prestado. Francia abolió definitivamente la esclavitud en 1848, los Países Bajos en 1863, Portugal en 1869. Estados Unidos resolvió la cuestión en el campo de batalla con una una guerra civil que alumbró la Decimotercera Enmienda de 1865. En España la abolición llegó primero a Puerto Rico en 1873 y luego a Cuba en 1886, tras el sistema transitorio del patronato. Brasil hizo lo propio en 1888, pero aquello costó el trono a los Braganza. El proceso coincidió con la revolución industrial, pero las plantaciones en las Antillas eran rentables. Había algo más que empujó esta idea, el convencimiento íntimo de aquellos europeos de que la esclavitud era incompatible con la dignidad humana. Eso persuadió a las mismas sociedades que se beneficiaban de ella para que renunciaran voluntariamente a una institución milenaria en apenas cinco generaciones. En El Contrasello: 0:00 Introducción 3:50 Abolición de la esclavitud 1:15:16 La desamortización de Mendizábal Bibliografía: "Breve historia de la esclavitud” de James Walvin - https://amzn.to/42AhJUr “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “The slave trade” de Hugh Thomas - https://amzn.to/4wMgTlB “Esclavitud. Una historia de la humanidad” de Michael Zeuske - https://amzn.to/4d8n9w6 · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva #FernandoDiazVillanueva #esclavitud #abolicion Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAdrian is a journalist and an old friend. We arrived in America on the same plane in 1984 and spent the first few days together in the same hotel room. After more than 20 years writing for The Economist, he became the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He's the author of several books, including The Aristocracy of Talent, and the co-author of many more with John Micklethwait, including The Right Nation. Adrian's new book is The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. It's a terrific tonic for a philosophy as vital as it is in eclipse.For two clips of the episode — on how Enlightenment ideas got corrupted, and Big Tech's threat to liberalism — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in rural Shropshire; his parents both teachers; his dissertation on the 11-plus (an exam that changed my life); when IQ tests were a liberal cause; Luther and the Reformation; the religious civil wars leading to the Enlightenment; Hobbes as a proto-liberal; the humanism of Erasmus; Montesquieu and the spirit of liberalism; John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism; Isaiah Berlin and pluralism; Graham Wallas and the Great Society; Lippmann; Leo Strauss; Thatcherism; consumerism vs. self-improvement; meritocracy threatened by the left; Foucault's folly; the EU and managerial liberalism; Brooks' bobos; affirmative action and DEI; why liberal democracy in Iraq didn't work; Oakeshott; Schmitt and friend-enemy; Trump's stark illiberalism and neo-royalism; King Charles; Putin ushering in a strongman era; Biden's open borders; the migration crisis and Brexit; the buffoonish Boris; the struggling Starmer; high culture and other upsides to elitism; Abundance; Deneen and post-liberalism; and Europe stepping up for Ukraine.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. We have some real stars coming up: Ben Rhodes on Iran and speech-writing, Harvey Mansfield on modernity, HW Brands on the life of George Washington, John Gray on Trump's new world, Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, Jerusalem Demsas on the state of the left, Daniel McCarthy on conservatism, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, and Robby George on pretty much everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

"Daher das rege, geistige Leben, das Ideen- und Wortgefecht im Salon, dem diese Frau ihre Seele einhauchte [...]", so begeistert schrieben die Brüder Goncourt über Claudine Alexandrine Guérin, Marquise de Tencin (1682-1749), die intelligente Herrscherin der "Hauptstätte des Geistes" in den Jahren vor 1750. Hier konnte man Montesquieu, Fontenelle und Marivaux begegnen, aber auch der jungen Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson (der späteren Madame de Pompadour). Diese Laufbahn hätte sie sich selbst wohl kaum erträumt, als sie 1698 in Montfleury bei Grenoble das Ordensgelübte ablegte. Wie konnte sie 20 Jahre später in die höchsten Kreise Frankreichs aufsteigen? Und welche Rolle spielte sie bei der Entwicklung der europäischen Salonkultur? Diesen Fragen gehen wir in dieser Episode nach.

Nuestro 'historiador de cabecera' Francisco José Franco, nos lleva hoy hasta el origen de la separación de poderes en los estados, ante la pregunta de si se da de forma fehaciente en nuestra actualidad. José Francisco nos cuenta que la idea fue desarrollada en el siglo XVIII por el filósofo francés Montesquieu, quien propuso separar el poder político en tres partes: ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, con el objetivo de evitar abusos y garantizar las libertades de los ciudadanos.La teoría apareció en su obra 'El espíritu de las leyes', publicada en 1748, y tuvo gran influencia en revoluciones y constituciones posteriores como la de los países como Estados Unidos y Francia, aunque el Fuero de León fue el primer lugar en el mundo en establecer algo "muy parecido a la separación de poderes".

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Réconcilier la France et l'Algérie par l'économie et le « doux commerce » cher au penseur français Montesquieu... C'est le pari de Patrick Martin, le chef du patronat français (Medef), qui rentre d'un séjour à Alger, où il a été reçu notamment par deux ministres. Sur RFI, le président du Medef s'exprime aussi sur les opérateurs chinois en Afrique, qui, selon lui, « sont des prédateurs et travaillent à perte ». Et il lance un appel contre « la sauvagerie » de la nouvelle guerre des droits de douane. Le « patron des patrons » français répond aux questions de Christophe Boisbouvier. RFI : Vous rentrez d'Algérie où vous avez passé quatre jours et où vous avez été plutôt discret. Peut-être parce qu'il ne faut surtout pas dire des mots qui fâchent ? Patrick Martin : Je ne pense pas avoir été discret parce que les médias algériens, par exemple, ont assez largement couvert ce déplacement. Mais je crois avoir, en répondant à l'invitation de mon homologue algérien du Crea (Conseil du renouveau économique algérien), contribué quand même à ce que les relations importantes et historiques entre la France et l'Algérie se stabilisent. Depuis la brouille de 2024, l'Algérie importe beaucoup moins de produits français : par exemple des céréales, des bovins. Est-ce que ces exportations françaises vont reprendre après votre visite à Alger ? Je l'espère en tout cas. Enfin, il ne faut pas non plus exagérer. La France reste par exemple le deuxième investisseur étranger en Algérie. Moi, j'ai vu de très belles entreprises françaises implantées là-bas, souvent dirigées par des binationaux d'ailleurs. Donc, oui, il y a une baisse de nos exportations. D'autres prennent nos places. D'ailleurs, je pense à l'Italie. Mais c'est vrai également des Allemands, c'est vrai des Turcs. Donc, il faut qu'on y soit attentif parce que c'est un pays qui a un réel potentiel. Il y a un marché intérieur qui est important avec bientôt 47 millions d'habitants. Je le redis, il y a de très belles entreprises. Après, il y a un certain nombre de sujets sur lesquels il y a des interférences étatiques. On souhaite évidemment qu'elles se règlent. Après le ministre de l'Intérieur, Laurent Nuñez, voici le patron du Medef, Patrick Martin. Est-ce à dire que la France et l'Algérie se réconcilient grâce à la sécurité et grâce à l'économie ?   À nouveau, moi, je crois beaucoup à ma place, à la diplomatie économique. C'est ce qui m'avait valu, par exemple, de me rendre en Chine l'année dernière avec le ministre des Affaires étrangères, pour contribuer à régler le problème très sensible de nos exportations de Cognac et d'Armagnac. C'est dans cet esprit également qu'il y a quelques années, on avait contribué à ce que la relation entre l'Italie et la France, qui s'était momentanément dégradée sur le plan diplomatique, se ressoude ou se consolide. J'étais allé également au Maroc à plusieurs reprises au premier semestre 2024, et je crois pouvoir dire qu'avec nos homologues du patronat marocain, on avait aidé à ce que la relation étatique se consolide également. Voilà, sans présumer de nos forces et de notre influence, je crois que cette diplomatie économique est importante dans les relations internationales. Vous êtes le ministre bis des Affaires étrangères ? Certainement pas. Moi, je pense que l'économie est suffisamment importante pour se suffire à elle-même. L'autre actualité économique, c'est le sommet Afrique-France de Nairobi, qui va s'ouvrir dans quelques jours au Kenya, avec notamment un grand forum d'hommes d'affaires où sont attendus 2 000 participants africains et français. Est-ce à dire que la France des chefs d'entreprises tourne le dos à l'Afrique francophone au profit des pays anglophones ? Non, certainement pas. Je voudrais rappeler que, par exemple, le Medef a pris l'initiative, il y a cinq ans, de créer l'Alliance des patronats francophones, qui est une logique d'affaires en parallèle de ce qui peut exister sur le plan politique et culturel de longue date. Mais dans le grand rebattage des cartes du commerce mondial, on se doit de s'intéresser à toutes sortes de pays qui, francophones ou non, sont demandeurs. Est-ce que quelquefois les opérateurs français ne sont pas un peu plus timides que leurs concurrents chinois ou turcs dans certains pays africains ? Je pense que les entreprises françaises ont une qualité - et c'est peut-être vrai des Français d'une manière générale - lorsqu'ils sont installés quelque part c'est d'y être pour longtemps. Moi, il ne m'a pas échappé qu'en particulier les Chinois étaient très offensifs dans certains secteurs d'activité. J'entends tout autant qu'ils peuvent partir aussi vite qu'ils sont arrivés. Les Chinois sont très offensifs parce qu'ils sont très prédateurs, très agressifs sur le plan tarifaire. On est à peu près convaincu que dans un certain nombre de cas, sur un certain nombre de gros marchés, ils travaillent à perte et ça s'inscrit probablement dans une stratégie étatique d'influence. Dans quels secteurs par exemple ? Dans le secteur des infrastructures. Ils construisent des stades, des routes, des ponts en perdant de l'argent ? En tous cas, on a du mal à comprendre comment ils peuvent gagner de l'argent au niveau des prix auxquels ils prennent un certain nombre d'affaires. En marge du G7 qui se tiendra cette année en France, le Medef va organiser ce 11 juin un B7, un sommet du business, « B » comme business, entre les patronats des sept pays occidentaux les plus riches. Quelles peuvent être les retombées pour l'Afrique ? Les retombées pour l'Afrique, elles sont indirectes d'une certaine manière. Nous, notre enjeu, qui est totalement partagé par mes sept homologues patronaux des États-Unis, d'Allemagne, de Grande-Bretagne, du Japon, d'Allemagne, d'Italie, c'est qu'on rétablisse des règles dans les relations économiques et commerciales, parce que ce qui se passe actuellement, c'est une forme de sauvagerie qui s'introduit dans les relations commerciales. À quoi pensez-vous ? Je pense aux droits de douane. Or, nous avons besoin du commerce international, nous avons besoin d'accords de libre-échange raisonnés, raisonnables. Sans quoi, pour imager mon propos, les 20 % de salariés français qui travaillent grâce aux exportations pourraient voir leurs emplois menacés. Donc, voilà, nous, les sept patronats que je viens d'évoquer, nous sommes très demandeurs et nous allons dire à nos pouvoirs publics, à nos gouvernements, qu'il faut rétablir des règles. Ça pourra profiter aussi aux entrepreneurs américains ? Mais bien sûr, eux même sont quand même perturbés. Je n'irai pas au-delà, mais ils sont quand même perturbés par les volte-face que leur propre administration crée dans les relations internationales.

Une enquête de l'IFOP de mars 2026 le montre clairement : 46 % des Français placent la liberté en tête de la devise républicaine, 35 % l'égalité… et seulement 19 % la fraternité. Autrement dit, plus le monde devient incertain, plus nous valorisons ce qui nous protège individuellement, et moins nous choisissons ce qui nous relie. Article de la revue Acropolis d'avril 2026, par Thierry Adda, philosophe, Président de Nouvelle Acropole France.Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre newsletter philosophique :www.revue-acropolis.comSaviez-vous que Nouvelle Acropole est réalisée à 100% par des bénévoles ? Nous dépendons donc beaucoup de nos étudiants et amis pour la divulgation !   N'oubliez pas de vous abonner à la chaîne et si possible de la partager sur vos réseaux sociaux.   Ce sera d'une grande aide !

In this episode, William Green talks with Matthew McLennan, who oversees about $130 billion at First Eagle Investments. Matt is head of the firm's Global Value team & a portfolio manager of its Global Value, Global Equity, International Value, International Equity & US Value strategies. Here, he explores how to build resilient wealth by patiently holding a “non-uniform” portfolio of scarce assets that should endure & prosper even in difficult conditions. This episode provides a time-tested survival strategy for investors looking to navigate this period of extreme uncertainty. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00:00 - Intro00:02:14 - Why Matthew McLennan thinks investors should prepare for turmoil.00:17:43 - How to construct a resilient portfolio by thinking like a gardener.00:19:38 - Why Matt loves businesses with scarce assets in mundane industries.00:23:02 - Why survival is the key to investment success.00:23:33 - How cash & gold provide a ballast in the event of unexpected storms.00:26:28 - Why he's wary of a highly concentrated investment strategy.00:51:07 - How patience has become a powerful edge in a hyperactive world.00:57:17 - How to build long-term success by focusing on process, not rewards.01:05:28 - How to think better by harnessing our right-brain capabilities.01:23:05 - Why “what's hot today” is likely to produce terrible investment returns.01:25:10 - How studying wine & playing backgammon help him as an investor.01:29:04 - Why he favors a team-based approach, instead of being a lone wolf. Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to join us in Omaha for the Berkshire meeting ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Inquire about William Green's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Richer, Wiser, Happier Masterclass⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thucydides' book, History of the Peloponnesian War. Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize. John Cochrane's book, The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level. Peter Matthiessen's book, The Snow Leopard. Iain McGilchrist's book, The Matter with Things. David Galenson's book, Old Masters and Young Geniuses. Charles de Montesquieu's book, The Spirit of the Laws. Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science. Winston Churchill's book, My Early Life. William Green's book, Richer, Wiser, Happier. Follow William Green on X. Related ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠books⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses through ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We Study Billionaires Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our sponsors: HardBlock Human Rights Foundation Plus500 Shopify Netsuite Vanta References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

In this episode from 2024, Alex speaks with Bryce Tingle about corporations, how these unique legal entities are governed, how changes we have made to corporate governance has discouraged companies from joining Canada's public markets, and how the decline in our public market is hurting Canadians. 

 Episode Notes: 1. Bryce's article “Returning Markets To The Centre Of Corporate Law” https://jcl.law.uiowa.edu/sites/jcl.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-09/Tingle_Final.pdf  2. Bryce's profile at UofCalgary https://profiles.ucalgary.ca/bryce-tingle  3. Jensen and Meckley's “The Theory Of The Firm” https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/jensen-meckling.pdf  4. Introduction to Douglass North's theory of Institutions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-016-0028-8  5. Summary of Montesquieu's “Doux Commerce” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doux_commerce  6. Mill on Trade As a Social Act: https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/five.html  7. The Voltaire quote referenced regarding the London Stock Exchange: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7351337-go-into-the-london-stock-exchange-a-more-respectable 

Nombre de juristes et de commentateurs critiquent régulièrement les lois prises sous le coup de l'émotion suscitée par le retentissement médiatique de certaines affaires criminelles. Ils les caricaturent parfois par cette expression « un fait divers = une loi » et considèrent qu'elle est en parfaite contradiction avec cette pensée très juste de Montesquieu selon laquelle « il ne faut toucher aux lois que d'une main tremblante ». Il est pourtant indéniable que certaines grandes affaires pénales exercent parfois une influence très directe sur l'évolution de notre droit, qu'il s'agisse du droit pénal ou de la procédure pénale. L'ampleur de la couverture médiatique, l'horreur des faits, leurs conséquences politiques ont interpellés nos gouvernants et les ont conduits à agir. Comment ces grandes affaires pénales ont-elles modifié notre droit ? Quelles sont-elles ? Quelle peut-être leur influence réelle ? Est-ce de nature à répondre à certains dysfonctionnements ou difficultés de notre système judiciaire et à favoriser les nécessaires évolutions sociétales ? L'influence de ces grandes affaires répond-elle à cette nécessité citée par Maîtres Vouland et Bonnifay, avocats : « quand la justice vacille, le droit se réinvente ? » Ce podcast est inspiré par l'ouvrage collectif « l'influence des grandes affaires criminelles sur le droit » édité par Lefebvre Dalloz, dans lequel sont évoquées notamment les affaires du petit Grégory, Michel Fourniret, Cahuzac, Outreau, ou encore le procès de Bobigny, le naufrage de l'Erika ou les attaques terroristes djihadistes, Sarah Halimi … un ouvrage très riche donc Et nous recevons pour en parler Francis Nachbar, qui nous fait une nouvelle fois l'amitié de participer aux podcasts de l'ISP

Carmen Iglesias es una de las intelectuales más importantes de este país. Está considerada una de las voces más influyentes en el estudio de la Ilustración y de autores como Montesquieu, Rousseau o Comte. Tutora de la infanta Cristina y profesora de Historia del entonces príncipe de Asturias y hoy rey Felipe VI, en 2014 se convirtió en la primera mujer en dirigir la Real Academia de la Historia. Además, es académica de número de la Real Academia Española (RAE) desde el año 2000, donde ocupa el sillón E.

För många historieintresserade är 1700-talet nära förknippat med den europeiska upplysningstiden. Det var då, menar många, som människor började vända vidskepelse och okunnighet ryggen och i stället sätta sin tro till förnuft, vetenskap och framtidstro. Upplysningens centrala gestalter – tänkare som Montesquieu, Voltaire och Rousseau – har därför blivit självklara inslag i den historiska allmänbildningen.Men vad var egentligen upplysningen? Här går meningarna isär. Vissa forskare betraktar den som en i huvudsak fransk elitkultur, förankrad i Paris salonger och utan djupare folklig påverkan. Andra ser upplysningen som en bred intellektuell rörelse som genomsyrade hela Europa, med inflytande långt utanför aristokratin – inte minst i borgerliga kretsar i England, Sverige och andra delar av kontinenten.Begreppet upplysning omfattar dessutom en rad samtidiga fenomen: religionskritik och begynnande sekularisering, jordbruksreformer, liberalismens första uttryck, den vetenskapliga revolutionen, naturvetenskapliga upptäckter, politiska idéer om maktdelning och samhällsomvandling – från reformistiska envåldshärskare till utopiska socialister – samt en stark vilja att sprida kunskap, bildning och folkbildning.I detta avsnitt av Harrisons dramatiska historia samtalar historikern Dick Harrison och fackboksförfattaren Katarina Harrison Lindbergh om upplysningstidens komplexitet och mångfacetterade arv – en idérevolution som fortfarande präglar vårt samhälle.Bildtext: Les salons au XVIIIe siècle, målad av Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier, visar en litterär salong i upplysningstidens Frankrike där intellektuella och aristokrater samlas för samtal och idéutbyte. Salongerna spelade en central roll i spridningen av upplysningsidéer och formandet av den offentliga opinionen under 1700-talet. Wikipedia (Public Domain).Klippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:59:10 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli, Antoine Ravon - Hannah Arendt est convaincue que le nazisme et certaines périodes du stalinisme ont dessiné un tout nouveau type de régime politique : le totalitarisme. Afin de le penser, elle part de la classification des régimes proposée par Montesquieu au 18ᵉ siècle pour inventer de nouveaux concepts. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Martine Leibovici maîtresse de conférences émérite en philosophie politique à l'Université Paris Cité; Vincent Lefebve chercheur au Centre de recherche et d'information socio-politiques (CRISP) en Belgique

durée : 00:03:02 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - La condamnation de l'animateur Jean-Marc Morandini pour "corruption de mineurs" révèle les contradictions entre les valeurs conservatrices de la chaîne CNews et le comportement d'un de ses animateurs. Et si, pour mieux comprendre ce dilemme, il fallait se tourner vers Montesquieu ? - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Political Tribalism with Lauren HallPolitical scientist Lauren Hall joins Michael Liebowitz for a wide-ranging discussion on political tribalism—how identity, loyalty, and moral signalling have displaced judgment, moderation, and principled disagreement in modern politics.Lauren Hall brings a rare combination of scholarly depth and cultural clarity to the conversation. Drawing on the classical liberal tradition and her work on family, moderation, and the moral limits of politics, she examines how tribal thinking corrodes institutions, distorts public debate, and turns politics into a substitute for meaning. The discussion explores why societies fracture when politics becomes a moral identity—and what intellectual resources exist for restoring restraint, pluralism, and seriousness to public life.This episode is a thoughtful examination of ideas over slogans, and persuasion over power—an essential listen for anyone concerned with the health of liberal society.Disclaimer:The views expressed by Lauren Hall are her own, and not necessarily reflective of her employer or anyone with whom she works.About Lauren HallLauren Hall is Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Liberal Arts. She is the author of The Medicalization of Birth and Death (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019) and Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor University Press, 2014), and co-editor of a volume on the political philosophy of Chantal Delsol.Her scholarship engages deeply with the classical liberal tradition, including extensive writing on Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu.About Michael Liebowitz – Host of The Rational EgoistMichael Liebowitz is the host of The Rational Egoist podcast, a philosopher, author, and political activist committed to the principles of reason, individualism, and rational self-interest. Deeply influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Michael uses his platform to challenge cultural dogma, expose moral contradictions, and defend the values that make human flourishing possible.His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to becoming a respected voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities is a testament to the transformative power of philosophy. Today, Michael speaks, writes, and debates passionately in defence of individual rights and intellectual clarity.He is the co-author of two compelling books that examine the failures of the correctional system and the redemptive power of moral conviction:Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crimehttps://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064XView from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Libertyhttps://books2read.com/u/4jN6xjAbout Xenia Ioannou – Producer of The Rational EgoistXenia Ioannou is the producer of The Rational Egoist, responsible for overseeing the publishing, presentation, and promotion of each episode to ensure a consistent standard of clarity, professionalism, and intellectual rigour.She is the CEO of Alexa Real Estate, a property manager and entrepreneur, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Centre Australia, where she contributes to the organisation's strategic direction and public engagement with ideas centred on reason, individual rights, and human freedom.Xenia also leads Capitalism and Coffee – An Objectivist Meetup in Adelaide, creating a forum for thoughtful discussion on philosophy and its application to everyday life, culture, and current issues.Join Capitalism and Coffee here:https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/Follow Xenia's essays on reason, independence, and purposeful living at her Substack:https://substack.com/@xeniaioannou?utm_source=user-menuBecause freedom is worth thinking about — and talking about.#TheRationalEgoist #LaurenHall #PoliticalTribalism #ClassicalLiberalism #Reason #IndividualRights #FreeThought #IntellectualHonesty #MichaelLiebowitz #XeniaIoannou

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTl2m5StrvQ Podcast audio: The crimes of the French Revolution have long been regarded as indicting Enlightenment ideals. Its Reign of Terror has been seen as the product of an overconfident belief in reason, liberty, and human perfectibility. The American Revolution, by contrast, is said to have succeeded only because it was more moderate and traditional. In his 2025 OCON talk, “Enlightenment on Trial: The Real Lessons of the American and French Revolutions,” Don Watkins challenges this narrative. What history shows, Watkins contends, is that Enlightenment ideals in France were largely confined to intellectual elites within a rigid, hierarchical society. French culture was also shaped by powerful anti-Enlightenment currents — notably Rousseau's elevation of passion and the collective over reason and the individual. These ideas later fueled the Terror. By contrast, many American colonists read thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Franklin and had long practiced self-government, giving Enlightenment ideals real cultural depth. Watkins highlights a further, crucial difference between the two revolutions. The French were fundamentally motivated by hatred towards the ancien régime. French mob violence was widespread and brutal, since it sought, above all else, to eradicate the nobility, the clergy, and every other symbol of the past. Similar unrest was relatively limited and contained in America, where Americans resisted British rule with a positive aim: to establish a government that protected individual rights. Among the topics covered: Narratives about the French Revolution; The rise and fall of the Revolution; Two Revolutions compared; Contrasting motivations. This talk was recorded live on July 5th in Boston, MA, as part of the 2025 Objectivist Summer Conference, and is available on The Ayn Rand Institute Podcast stream. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Watch archived podcasts here.

Bienvenue dans cet épisode consacré à un thème cardinal de la Justice, une question fondamentale et ce qui apparait à l'évidence comme un dilemme voire une utopie : juger vite, juger bien. C'est également l'un des sujets de grand oral du concours de l'ENM 25. « Le temps est père de vérité », disait François Rabelais. Ainsi, pendant longtemps, l'on a considéré que la lenteur de la justice était une vertu, car elle permettait d'assurer la qualité de la justice. A l'opposé, Montesquieu affirmait qu'« il faut que la Justice soit prompte. Souvent l'injustice n'est pas dans le jugement, elle est dans les délais » (Discours prononcé à la rentrée du Parlement de Bordeaux, in Œuvres complètes, t. 1, Gallimard, Biblio. Pléiade, 1949, p. 47.) Le temps est un élément inséparable du procès civil comme du procès pénal, une donnée objective qui marque le temps de gestation du jugement. La prise en compte du temps par la justice donne lieu aujourd'hui à un véritable droit processuel. Par application de l'article 6§1 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits et libertés fondamentaux, le justiciable a un droit au déroulement du procès dans un délai raisonnable. Le 15 décembre 2025, la France a été mise en cause devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme pour une procédure de redressement et liquidation judiciaires qui a duré… plus de 28 ans… en 1ère instance. Si une telle situation demeure extraordinaire, on comprend que de manière générale, les exigences processuelles modernes de célérité imposent à l'État de prendre les mesures normatives et matérielles nécessaires à la réalisation de cet objectif, sous peine de sanctions, à la fois internes et européennes. Une bonne administration de la justice suppose que le juge puisse prendre son temps, pour examiner en profondeur le dossier et en apprécier sérieusement toutes les subtilités. Néanmoins, face à une société de l'instantané, de l'immédiat, la justice ne serait ni crédible, ni efficace, sur un plan humain comme sur un plan économique, si la décision mettant fin à la contestation était rendue à l'issue d'une procédure trop longue. Aussi, est-il possible aujourd'hui de « Juger vite et juger bien » ? explorons comment concilier célérité et qualité dans le fonctionnement de la Justice. Pour cela, nous recevons Franck TOURET, enseignant de procédure civile au sein de la prépa ISP.

Nous sommes dans les années 1773-1774, à Saint-Pétersbourg. C‘est-là, auprès de Catherine II, que l'encyclopédiste Denis Diderot passe l'hiver. La tsarine aime s'entourer des plus beaux esprits de son temps et des plus libres aussi, elle a donc sollicité le philosophe des Lumières. Dès sa prise du pouvoir, trente ans plus tôt, elle lui avait proposé de publier « l'Encyclopédie », qui était interdite en France. Diderot, qui suivait de près son action politique, avait fini par entreprendre le voyage. Sur place, l'écrivain français se rend tous les trois jours chez l'impératrice pour des séances de plusieurs heures. Il ne renoncera pas à lui faire part de quelques réflexions critiques, notamment dans ses « Observations sur le Nakaz ». Le « Nakaz » étant un ouvrage rédigé par Catherine, en 1767, s‘inspirant de « L'Esprit des lois » de Montesquieu. Diderot note : « L'impératrice de Russie est certainement despote. Son intention est-elle de garder le despotisme et de le transmettre à ses successeurs ou de l'abdiquer ? Si elle l'abdique, que cette abdication soit formelle ; si cette abdication est sincère, qu'elle s'occupe conjointement avec sa nation des moyens les plus sûrs d'empêcher le despotisme de renaître, et qu'on lise dans le premier chapitre la perte infaillible de celui qui ambitionnerait à l'avenir l'autorité arbitraire dont elle se dépouille. Voilà les premiers pas d'une instruction proposée à des peuples par une souveraine de bonne foi, grande comme Catherine II et aussi ennemie de la tyrannie qu'elle. » Le despotisme et l'impérialisme sont-ils les marqueurs de l'identité russe, bien avant Catherine II et jusqu'à nos jours ? Sont-ils son ADN ? Avec nous : Sabine Dullin, professeure d'histoire contemporaine à Sciences Po, spécialiste de l'histoire de L'Empire russe et soviétique. « Réflexions sur le despotisme impérial de la Russie » ; Payot. Sujets traités : Despotisme, impétailisme,ADN, Russie, Catherine II , Denis Diderot , Nakaz Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Twee jaar geleden overleed Meindert Fennema. Ter nagedachtenis organiseren we de Meindert Fennema-lezing. Deze tweede editie wordt uitgesproken door Annelien de Dijn, hoogleraar Moderne politieke geschiedenis en auteur van het boek Vrijheid: een woelige geschiedenis.Tijdens deze lezing laat zij zien hoe negentiende-eeuwse ideeën nog steeds doorwerken in onze samenleving. Ze benadrukt dat feminisme niet alleen terug moet kijken naar de geschiedenis van het patriarchaat, maar vooral vooruit moet denken. Een uitnodigend pleidooi om oude patronen los te laten en samen te bouwen aan een gelijkwaardige toekomst.Annelien de Dijn is hoogleraar Moderne politieke geschiedenis en voorzitter van de afdeling Politieke geschiedenis van de Universiteit Utrecht. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de geschiedenis van het politieke denken in Europa en in de Verenigde Staten van 1700 tot nu. promoveerde in 2005 aan de KU Leuven. Daarna was ze onder meer verbonden aan Columbia University en U.C. Berkeley. Haar eerste boek French Political Thought from Montesquieu to Tocqueville: Liberty in a Levelled Society verscheen in 2008.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textStart with a simple audit: what did your last 24 hours reveal about what you truly value? We walk through a practical reset—putting God first, then spouse and family—so your calendar aligns with your convictions. From there, we open Colossians 3 for plainspoken marriage guidance and let 1 John 3 challenge our love to become action, not talk. If faith is real, it should shape how we treat our neighbor, how we spend our money, and how we order our homes.We ground today's anxieties in enduring wisdom. Psalm 122 points us toward worship and peace in the city, while Proverbs 29 warns against stubborn hearts that refuse correction. We remember Boatswain's Mate Robert M. Blair, whose Medal of Honor citation for “cool courage” under fire illustrates how trust in God steels ordinary people for extraordinary moments. That courage extends to cultural clarity: despite modern efforts to cast America as a pagan echo of Rome, the moral sources that formed the founders—Scripture, Blackstone, Montesquieu—bear a Christian imprint. Judge Nathaniel Freeman's early remarks reinforce that aim for a Christian republic with biblical authority in civic life.The heart of our reflection is Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation. He names blessings amid civil war, urges penitence for national sins, and calls the people to thank the “Most High God” while seeking healing and unity. His words carry weight now, when polarization and moral drift threaten peace. Gratitude without repentance is thin; repentance without action is hollow. We make the case that daily obedience—time well spent, marriages guarded, neighbors loved—becomes the seed of public renewal. Join us as we trade vague outrage for concrete faithfulness and ask God to steady our steps.If this resonates, share the episode with a friend, leave a review, and subscribe so you never miss a moment. Your support helps more listeners realign their days with purpose. What will your next 24 hours say?Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

“Todo homem que tem poder é tentado a abusar dele.” Com esta frase célebre, Charles-Louis de Secondat, o Barão de Montesquieu, fincou as bases para uma das doutrinas mais influentes da modernidade: a separação dos poderes. Seu intuito era preservar a liberdade individual diante da concentração do poder estatal. Mas essa reflexão se expande para além da política secular — atinge, de maneira aguda, os mecanismos de autoridade, responsabilidade e limitação que permeiam as organizações religiosas, inclusive a Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia. Montesquieu via o poder como uma entidade que, sem freios e contrapesos, tende ao autoritarismo. E é neste ponto que sua teoria se torna especialmente relevante para a comunidade de fé: porque o poder, mesmo quando exercido com boas intenções, precisa de vigilância. A estrutura adventista, com sua escala global, múltiplos níveis de governança e forte compromisso com a ordem institucional, corre o risco de, inadvertidamente, reproduzir os desequilíbrios que Montesquieu tanto temia. Por isso, este episódio é mais que uma análise acadêmica. É um apelo eclesiológico e espiritual: por uma reforma da cultura de liderança, por limites espiritualmente conscientes ao exercício da autoridade, e por estruturas que não apenas funcionem, mas inspirem confiança. E, acima de tudo, por uma crítica responsável ao pensamento de Montesquieu que, embora ofereça contribuições relevantes, falha ao deslocar o centro da autoridade espiritual da revelação para a arquitetura institucional.

Congress, and not the presidency, used to be the predominant power of the U.S. government. In this interview, we discuss the history of how politics, populism and polarization changed the balance of power in our government.

durée : 00:02:31 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Suite à la sentence prononcée contre Nicolas Sarkozy hier, on a entendu une multitude de réactions : les uns considérant que la justice était passée, les autres, au contraire, qu'il s'agissait d'une grande injustice. Ce qui est en cause, c'est la vertu au sens de Montesquieu. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Gustav III (1746–1792) hade ett kluvet förhållande till upplysningens idéer. Hans reformer inom straffrätt, religionsfrihet, hälsa och kultur var tydliga uttryck för upplysningstänkandet. Samtidigt innebar inskränkningar i tryckfriheten och motståndet mot den franska revolutionen att han aldrig fullt ut kunde förena upplysningens ideal om frihet med sin egen enväldiga maktutövning.Redan som kronprins läste Gustav III upplysningsfilosofer som Voltaire, Rousseau och Montesquieu. Som kung blev han en av de främsta upplysta despoterna – en härskare som förenade enväldig makt med reformer inspirerade av upplysningens ideal. Men han föredrog att läsa upplysningsfilosofer framför att träffa dem.I detta avsnitt av Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Urban Lindstedt med historikern Hugo Nordland, aktuell med boken Överlevaren – En biografi om Gustav III (Historiska Media).Upplysningen förknippas ofta med förnuft, vetenskap, tolerans och samhälleliga reformer. I Frankrike fick rörelsen kanske sitt tydligaste uttryck i Encyklopedien (1751), där tidens samlade kunskap gjordes tillgänglig för allmänheten.Den svenska upplysningen utvecklades inte som en enhetlig rörelse utan antog upplysningsidéer inom vetenskap, litteratur och politik. Spridningen skedde genom vetenskapliga akademier, offentliga sällskap och tidningar, snarare än genom en samlad opinionsrörelse, och banade väg för reformer som ökad religions- och tryckfrihet samt tidig folklig folkbildning. Men vetenskapshistorikern Tore Frängsmyr har ifrågasatt om Sverige alls hade en upplysning i egentlig mening, och menat att det snarare rörde sig om pragmatiska nyttoreformer än en intellektuell rörelse inspirerad av franska filosofer.Samtidigt menar forskare som Marie-Christine Skuncke och Jakob Christensson att man mycket väl kan tala om en svensk upplysning – om än i en mer moderat, kristen och praktiskt orienterad form. Här symboliseras upplysningen snarare av sockenprästen som lärde bönder att vaccinera sina barn, lantmätaren som kartlade landet och provinsialläkaren som bidrog till folkets hälsa.Mot denna bakgrund framstår Gustav III som en central gestalt i 1700-talets kulturhistoria. Hans politik speglade både upplysningens inflytande och det svenska samhällets särdrag. I Lovisa Ulrikas omfattande bibliotek på Drottningholm tillgodogjorde han sig europeisk filosofi – särskilt påverkades han av fysiokraten Mercier de La Rivière och dennes idé om en ”naturlig ordning”. Till sin mor skrev han entusiastiskt:”Den är utomordentligt intressant och lägger fram nya och riktiga idéer, som tills nu har undgått till och med de mest upplysta politikers ögon.”Efter statsvälvningen 1772 genomförde Gustav III reformer som speglade Beccarias idéer om en humanare straffrätt: tortyr som förhörsmetod avskaffades och dödsstraffet begränsades från 1779 till att gälla endast mord, dråp och barnamord. Barnamordsplakatet 1778 gav ogifta mödrar rätt att föda anonymt för att minska barnamorden.Bildtext: Gustav III (i guldfärgad rock) tillsammans med sina bröder prins Fredrik Adolf och prins Karl, den senare sedermera kung Karl XIII. Gustav III framställs ofta som en upplyst despot – en monark som förenade enväldets makt med reformer präglade av upplysningstidens idéer. Konstnär: Alexander Roslin, Tre bröder. Licens: Public Domain.Musik: Elegant Arguments av Boris Skalsky, Storyblock AudioKlippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Durant le siècle des Lumières, un mouvement sans précédent s'est développé lorsque des philosophes comme Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Montesquieu ou Diderot ont combattu l'obscurantisme et l'ignorance. « Les lumières, c'est plus d'un siècle de débats, de discussions », affirme le philosophe Alexandre Dupeyrix.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJill is a writer and scholar. She's a professor of American history at Harvard, a professor of law at Harvard Law, and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She's also the host of the podcast “X-Man: The Elon Musk Origin Story.” Her many books include These Truths: A History of the United States (which I reviewed for the NYT in 2017) and her new one, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution — out in a few days; pre-order now.For two clips of our convo — on FDR's efforts to bypass the Constitution, and the worst amendment we've had — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised by public school teachers near Worcester; dad a WWII vet; her struggles with Catholicism as a teen (and my fundamentalism then); joining ROTC; the origins of the Constitution; the Enlightenment; Locke; Montesquieu; the lame Articles of Confederation; the 1776 declaration; Paine's Common Sense; Madison; Jefferson; Hamilton; Adams; New England town meetings; state constitutional conventions; little known conventions by women and blacks; the big convention in Philly and its secrecy; the slave trade; the Three-Fifths Clause; amendment provisions; worries over mob rule; the Electoral College; jury duty; property requirements for voting; the Jacksonian Era; Tocqueville; the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson; the direct election of senators; James Montgomery Beck (“Mr Constitution”); FDR's court-packing plan; Eleanor's activism; Prohibition and its repeal; the Warren Court; Scalia; executive orders under Trump; and gauging the intent of the Founders.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: John Ellis on Trump's mental health, Michael Wolff on Epstein, Karen Hao on artificial intelligence, Katie Herzog on drinking your way sober, Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Charles Murray on religion, David Ignatius on the Trump effect globally, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Professor Kozlowski tackles the French Enlightenment with excerpts from Montesquieu and Rousseau. The first is an orderly, encyclopedic thinker trying to categorize and classify every element of political philosophy; the second may well be a proto-Anarchist masquerading as an Enlightenment mainstay. Really, what were we expecting from the French?Readings today come from Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, as well as The Social Contract and "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" by Rousseau.Additional readings include Voltaire's Candide and Moliere's Don Juan, as well as a casual suggestion that you should read some David Hume, (here's an especially representative collection). And of course, today's video game recommendation is Europa Universalis. If you're interested in Professor Kozlowski's other online projects, check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, in Friday's meeting with Vladimir Putin, President Trump will attempt to forge an agreement between Putin and Zelensky. We're told we need to discus s the meeting but how much do you know about Putin? He's been in power for 25 years, longer than any Kremlin leader since Stalin. There's no effective opposition because Putin has killed them all.  Montesquieu says “any man who has power is led to abuse it; he continues until he finds limits.” This is Putin. Also, Trump's action to curb D.C's rampant crime is constitutional. In just a few days, his actions have resulted in hundreds of arrests and widespread resident approval, including from some Democrats. Democrats call Trump a dictator while they support criminals, Hamas, and illegal immigrants, manipulate crime stats, and defy court rulings.  Later, PM Benjamin Netanyahu calls in and addresses the global propaganda against Israel in the Gaza conflict, including false claims of starvation and inflated casualty figures from Hamas. Israel's delivery of nearly 2 million tons of aid, which is equivalent to one ton per Gazan, is stolen by Hamas. Netanyahu stresses the unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties, such as warnings via texts and calls.  Netanyahu also explains that forces gang up against Israel and the U.S., chanting "death to Israel, death to America" as they seek to destroy free societies and impose a dark tyranny reminiscent of the early Middle Ages. Afterward, WABC's Sid Rosenberg calls in to discuss the NYC Mayors race. Rosenberg endorses Curtis Sliwa as his top choice but predicts socialist Zohran Mamdani will likely win because no candidate will drop out anytime soon. Finally, On Power explains that the Democratic Party poses a significant domestic threat to America by seeking to breach constitutional safeguards in pursuit of a utopian society, influenced by Marxist, socialist, and Islamist elements, though not representative of all members.  The progressive movement aim to fundamentally transform the nation's character through centralized power, diminishing individual freedoms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode, Nathan Goodman interviews political theorist Jacob Levy about the rule of law and its tensions with modern immigration enforcement. Drawing on his 2018 article, “The rule of law and the risks of lawlessness,” Levy explains that the rule of law requires laws to be general, predictable, and applied equally. Referencing thinkers like Montesquieu, Fuller, Hayek, Oakeshott, and Shklar, Levy argues that immigration control often violates these principles, especially when it involves militarized policing, extrajudicial punishment, and fear-based governance, which ultimately threatens both civil liberties and democratic institutions.Dr. Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory and associated faculty in the Department of Philosophy at McGill University. He is the coordinator of McGill's Research Group on Constitutional Studies and was the founding director of McGill's Yan P. Lin Centre for the Study of Freedom and Global Orders in the Ancient and Modern Worlds. He is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center. He is the author of The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford University Press, 2000) and Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2014).If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming. Subscribe today and listen to season three, releasing now!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

This is the opening hour and a half of the sequel to my recording "Thucydides, Plutarch, Nietzsche" for my Technology and Nihilism series.  Subscribers will have access to the full 4 hour recording soon.Here I discuss the significance of Thucydides's turn to speeches after the "archaeology."  In this recording I discuss Thucydides as the alternative to the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, and how it is that Nietzsche sees in Thucydides the standard which we are to look towards going forward.Among other things, what is at issue is the status of the divine in the life of man, particularly with respect to what we mean by "history" and how, if at all, we even have access to "history."I include numerous and meticulous juxtapositions of Thucydides with Plato (particularly the dialogues of the Gorgias, the Republic, and the Laws) and Aristotle (particularly the Nicomachean Ethics, the Politics, and the Physics). I also draw upon specific examples from Montesquieu, Hegel, Nietzsche, William Butler Yeats, and Heidegger to connect everything that comes tumbling out from a very subtle and detailed reading of Thucydides and a representative sampling of the entirety of the great books of our Western tradition to emphasize the living relevance of them all for us todaySupport the show

This is Part 3 in a series noting that 2025 is the 40th Anniversary of Harvard University Press' 1985 publication of Richard A. Epstein's "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain." We our celebration of this anniversary with a fair use and transformative reading, finishing chapter 2 in what Richard calls "Philosophical Preliminaries." He titles chapter 2 "Hobbseian Man, Lockean World" because he's taking a look at political philosophy and the American constitutional order, how these things interact. Every college student should read this book. It's a superb introduction to the political philosophy of the American regime. Praise the Lord. We'd like to thank Harvard University Press for making this material available and Richard Epstein for writing it. Make sure you buy the book and follow along. It's very important for you to have your own copy on your own bookshelf, and to begin to master this material. Support your local book dealer. See if they have a copy of it, or if they'd mind keeping an eye out for you. I always encourage buying physical books, objects you can have, hold, cherish, learn from, display on your bookshelf as a topic of conversation, things you can pass on to the next generation with your notes in them, things that do not depend upon electricity. Toward that end: Go to Harvard University Press for more selections available for purchase. Please support the publisher and your local booksellers. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-contemplating-property-rights podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In this episode of The Classical Mind, we dive into a curated selection of The Federalist Papers, the seminal series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to argue for the Constitution. Rather than tackling all 85 essays, we focus on a thematic collection (#s 1, 9-10, 15, 30, 39, 51, 62-63, 68, and 78) that highlights the philosophical and structural pillars of the American experiment in self-government.We begin with Hamilton's General Introduction (No. 1), then explore how the proposed union protects against internal strife and faction (Nos. 9–10), and why the Articles of Confederation were inadequate (No. 15). We examine the central role of federal taxation (No. 30), the plan's alignment with republican principles (No. 39), and the essential structure of checks and balances (No. 51).We also explore the three branches of government through Madison's defense of the Senate (Nos. 62–63), Hamilton's thoughts on presidential elections (No. 68), and his case for an independent judiciary (No. 78).Along the way, we consider the historical context: chaos under the Articles of Confederation, Enlightenment influences like Montesquieu, and why Democracy in America offers a fitting modern endnote. Join us as we revisit the founding debates that continue to shape the American constitutional imagination.Endnotes: -Hamilton -Junius: The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students by Allan Bloom -Wesley: Democracy in America by Alexis de TocquevilleOur next read will be Peter Pan. Get full access to The Classical Mind at www.theclassicalmind.com/subscribe

durée : 00:58:53 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - Comment Montesquieu envisage-t-il les rapports entre États et quelles règles leur donne-t-il ? Dans quelle mesure le philosophe des Lumières peut-il être qualifié de précurseur de la géopolitique ? - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Sam Baquiast - invités : Hugo Toudic Docteur en philosophie, directeur adjoint de l'Institut international de recherche de l'Université de Chicago à Paris; Catherine Volpilhac-Auger Professeur émérite de littérature française à l'ENS de Lyon

durée : 00:58:53 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit - Comment Montesquieu envisage-t-il les rapports entre États et quelles règles leur donne-t-il ? Dans quelle mesure le philosophe des Lumières peut-il être qualifié de précurseur de la géopolitique ? Comment pense-t-il la géopolitique de son temps, mais aussi du passé ? - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Sam Baquiast, Jeanne Delecroix, Jeanne Coppey, Raphaël Laloum, Maël Vincent--Randonnier, Sidonie Lebot, Maïwenn Guiziou - invités : Hugo Toudic Philosophe français, Catherine Volpilhac-Auger Professeur émérite de littérature française à l'ENS de Lyon Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the framers of the Constitution did not grant courts, such as the International Court of Trade, the final authority on matters like tariffs, reserving that power for Congress. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority over taxation and spending, and through a 1977 emergency law, it delegated certain tariff powers to the president. Courts lack the constitutional basis to override such delegations. Historical records, including Madison's notes, the Federalist Papers, and state ratification debates, show the framers rejected giving courts supreme authority, like judicial review, to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. The framers of the Constitution, heavily influenced by Montesquieu, designed a government with a strict separation of powers to prevent tyranny, as Montesquieu warned that combining legislative, executive, or judicial powers in one entity leads to arbitrary rule and oppression. Congress should address this through legislation, not courts through litigation. Also, Sam Antar accused a Politico writer of "reputational laundering" for praising  New York AG Letitia James as a "Shadow Attorney General" in a Democratic shadow cabinet, while ignoring her federal criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud. Politico's omission of the DOJ referral shows the media bias, as James has targeted Trump, notably winning a $450M civil fraud case against him.  Later, the Wall Street Journal reports the decline of America's military-industrial capacity compared to China's rapid growth in the sector. The U.S. has allowed its defense manufacturing and supply chains to weaken due to underinvestment, outsourcing, and a focus on short-term efficiency over long-term resilience. This is frightening. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, you are hearing it in the leftwing press, in the Never-Trump editorial pages and more - you cannot and must not deport anyone without some kind of notice and due process. Yet, there's nothing from these people on how this is supposed to actually work. What kind of due process are they talking about? The kind of due process that applies to citizens? If not, then what lower standard suffices as constitutional due process? Exactly how would due process, of any kind, be administered to millions and millions of illegal immigrants? We don't have enough courts of any kind in our country to handle the tsunami of cases that would be involved. This was all intentional. The border was opened to anyone. This is the Cloward-Pivens strategy: flood the system, overwhelm the system, break the system, and in doing so achieve your goals. Effectively, this is massive amnesty. Also, it seems these Federal judges are trying to stop mass deportation efforts and disrupt the Trump administration's response to Biden's mass immigration policies. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that he was stunned by Judge Boasberg's order because he's blatantly defying the Supreme Court. Boasberg's order was void from the moment he signed it. So how can he hold the Trump administration in contempt? Either Boasberg is incompetent or he's deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court. Afterward, Jonathan Turley calls in to discuss the criminal referral against NY AG Letitia James. James claims ​that ​her ​Virginia ​home ​was ​her ​principal ​residence. ​That ​was ​not ​and ​cannot ​be ​true ​because ​she was and still ​is ​an ​official ​of ​the ​New ​York ​government ​who ​must ​live ​within ​the ​state. What's ​notable ​about ​her ​false ​statements ​is ​that ​each ​one ​​worked ​towards ​a ​better mortgage ​rate. ​ Then, the Declaration of Independence discusses natural law and natural rights. Where do these concepts originate? They are influenced by John Locke and Montesquieu, but not entirely, as they ultimately come from God. When they say the people are sovereign, that ide comes from God. This is why the government can never be sovereign. The United States is first county on earth to be founded on these principles. Finally, Heritage President, Kevin Roberts, calls in to discuss the organization's impactful projects and ongoing efforts to revitalize federalism in America. Roberts shares insights on the current political landscape, the significance of state legislative work, and the importance of maintaining a conservative agenda while addressing challenges such as tariffs and international relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices