I think citizenship should be built on explicit consent. We need to abandon the concept of birthright citizenship entirely.

The text of the coming Iran deal has not been released but I support it regardless. In my view, diplomacy is better than war. Iran getting access to foreign investment is fine. It doesn’t mean we were “defeated” nor does it mean Iran “won.” I don’t think that framing is particularly useful here because the war isn’t that important.

The best thing that could happen is for the conflict to end and relations to go back to normal.

In the latter half of the episode I talk about what loyalty to Trump and MAGA means in practice. I discuss why it is the case so many on the right have lost their minds over the conflict and why I think this is unfortunate.

The pessimists constantly warn of “brittle” supply chains, our “vulnerable” economy, and fears of China’s industrial “dominance.”

In reality, the American economy has never been more resilient than it is right now. The Strait of Hormuz closure has witnessed markets soaring to all time highs and the price of oil mildly spiking before declining.

This is not what I expected. But three months into the Iran conflict, my view is clarifying: the American economy is very, very resilient. Producers and consumers are far more flexible than I anticipated.

This doesn’t mean that the Iran War is a good idea. It is not. It does not mean that it hasn’t come at a price. It has. I merely want to make sense of the reality I see around me.

The COVID lockdowns, Russo-Ukraine War, and now the Iran War have all led to doomers predicting economic collapse, but it hasn’t happened. My conclusion: it is simply the case that the productive forces in the American economy consistently outweigh the parasitic ones.

Our lives would, of course, be far better, richer, and freer if there were no extractive forces at work. Ironically, however, our very productivity makes this hard to see.

Spanking children is fine. In fact, it is more effective at deterring bad behavior than time-outs, deprivation, or lecturing—the tools of the so-called “gentle parents.”

The simple reality is that every parent who ever physically restrains a child who is out of control, in imminent danger, or to return them to the “time out place” etc. is already using corporal punishment. They are using restraint (which is painful) against the child’s body (corporal comes from the Latin word for body).

My argument is that it is much better to make the pain a child feels sharp, decisive, and complete rather than diffuse, drawn out, and incomplete.

Spanking is not abusive. It is disciplinary and responsive. Hitting, by contrast, is initiated violence with no or insufficient corrective purpose. Spanking does not aim at harming the child’s body.

At heart, the core point is that a parent has the right to use corporal discipline in order to protect a child’s body and to ensure the child is raised to reason and freedom.

For that to happen the parent must give the child needed resources and the child must obey the reason and guidance of the parent. This lasts until maturity and goes no further.

In this episode, I dive deeper into the topic in a way that I hope will clarify the issues at stake, not only for the family but for society at large.

Forcing members of Congress to vote legislation up or down is the best way for Republicans to make gains among voters. Keeping promises is a good electoral strategy. Trump’s ongoing popularity is a function of his success on immigration and law and order.

Democrats, by contrast, have the opposite problem. The more they implement their agenda, the worse they suffer at the hands of voters. The procedural limitation of the filibuster is a boon to the Left and bad for the Right. It should be abolished.

Property taxes raise the cost of housing for renters, new buyers, and present owners. Local governments that are funded by these levies are some of the most profligate and incompetent government entities in the country. Property taxes should be repealed.

In March, commentator Scott Greer wrote a piece “Keeping the Empire” that critiqued my understanding of foreign policy. Greer’s argument was serious and I have attempted to deliver a thoughtful response.

In essence, I hold that the American regime was founded on the defense of the natural rights of men—a view of justice that holds in all times and all places. This view of justice precluded empire, which I describe as rule without consent.

As I show in this episode, the Founders and their heirs consistently articulated the core purpose of government as the protection of person and property (life and liberty). This fundamental equality of men requires the consent of the governed. Early American foreign policy was devoted to preserving these two key features of our regime.

This foreign policy was devoted to neutrality, non-intervention, and national defense. It made America wealthy and powerful beyond all possible imagining. In the 20th century, however, the American government tossed this view aside in favor of a missionary philanthropic foreign policy aimed at global uplift.

I hold that this shift has been bad for the safety and happiness of the American people.