- When Antarctica ran out of whales Lyndsie Bourgon, Aeon
- Even Boston was ankle deep in LSD Dominic Green, Spectator
- The Kind Cruelty libertarians must heed Wayland Hunter, Liberty Unbound
- The violent bear it away Richard Reinsch II, Law and Liberty
Author: Brandon Christensen
Nightcap
- The working class, immigration, and the Left Kenan Malik, Guardian
- What if Trump wins the China IP dispute? Scott Sumner, EconLog
- The free speech dilemma Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- A short history of the Mongols Peter Gordon, Asian Review of Books
Nightcap
- India at the time of the globalization Raj Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
- What do earnings tell us? Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- Haitian Voodoo art Marcus Rediker, Storyboard
- Why are there 2 distinct ways of writing Norwegian? Jessica Furseth, Literary Hub
Nightcap
- Black African Tudors of England Jonathan Carey, Atlas Obscura
- What can Marx and Smith teach us? Felix Martin, New Statesman
- The history of Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi Morgan Meis, the Easel
- Goddess of Anarchy Elaine Elinson, Los Angeles Review of Books
Nightcap
- Piracy in Antarctica Philip Hoare, Spectator
- Federalism, good (Canada) and bad (E.U.) Nick Rowe, Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
- Why Macedonia’s name is such a problem Nikola Zečević, National Interest
- How international hegemony changes hands Kori Schake, Cato Unbound
Who are the protectionists in Africa?
Rwanda, a country that thankfully avoided “humanitarian” military intervention by Western powers during a nasty killing spree in the 90s, is leading the charge on free trade in Africa. Of the 54 countries on the African continent, 44 have signed the agreement, but the traditional economic giants of the continent – Nigeria and South Africa – have not. Surprisingly, Botswana, an example often cited by economists as an African success story, has not signed it either.
CNBC reports on why Nigeria has so far refused to join the agreement, citing a consultant who specializes in global trade:
There is a general sentiment among (labor unions and industry bodies) that Nigeria’s export capacity in non-oil sectors isn’t sufficiently robust yet to expose itself to external competition.
Unions and “buy local” capitalists: The scourge of prosperity and progress worldwide, but also not much of a surprise.
What will be interesting to see is where this bold experiment leads. How can 44 countries with poor institutions come together to form a free trade pact? I am hoping this will lead to more states in Africa. My logic goes something like this: stronger economic ties will hasten the demise of current African states’ superficial institutions, while allowing informal institutions to flourish. Because these informal institutions are better at solving coordination problems, they’ll eventually be recognized as states. Here’s how I put it back in 2012:
A better way of looking at it, and one that I have pointed out before, is to look at Europe realize that it shares roughly the same amount of polities as does Africa (50-ish) despite being four times smaller. I bring up the comparison with Europe because in the Old World things like ethnicity still have a strong hold on how individuals identify themselves with their various social spheres. Rather than the 50-ish number of polities in Africa that we have today, a better way of solving Africa’s problems would be to let the polities currently in place dissolve into 400 polities. Or 500. Then, I think, Africans would know peace and prosperity.
I’d add, today, that this would only be possible if the links built by this free trade pact endure. Economic integration is vital to the dissolution of Africa’s despotic states. (h/t Barry)
Nightcap
- Singapore, capitalism, and market socialism Scott Sumner, EconLog
- China’s Creditor Imperialism Brahma Chellaney, Project Syndicate
- Chairman Xi, Chinese Idol Ian Johnson, New York Review of Books
- Trump may be rude, but that doesn’t make him a tyrant Ted Galen Carpenter, the Skeptics
What on earth was the Dervish state?
That’s the topic of my latest column at RealClearHistory. An excerpt:
2. Sovereignty and suzerainty are concepts that have little to no bearing on today’s world, but perhaps they should. Prior to the end of World War II, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. became the globe’s alpha powers, suzerainty was often used by imperial powers to manage their colonies. Suzerainty is a formal recognition, by a power, of a minor polity’s independence and autonomy, and a formal recognition by the minor polity of the power’s control over its diplomatic and economic affairs. Suzerainty was used especially often by the British and Dutch (and less so by France and other Latin states, which preferred more direct control over their territorial claims), as well as the Ottoman Empire. The U.S.-led order has focused on sovereign states rather than unofficial spaces, and this has led to many misunderstandings. Somalia, which has long been a region of suzerains, is a basketcase today largely because it is approached by powers as a sovereign state.
Please, read the rest. The Dervish state was an ally of the Ottoman and German empires during World War I.
Nightcap
- Canada’s Jews: Maple Leaves and Mezuzahs Bruce Clark, Erasmus
- We’re still no closer to the end of Pi Oliver Roeder, FiveThirtyEight
- Why is Trump turning his back on Iran’s Christians? Doug Bandow, the Skeptics
- What’s divine about divine law? Jacob P. Ellens, Law and Liberty
Nightcap
- A question about Israel for a Bleeding Heart Libertarian Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
- How Putin has changed, and subjugated, Russia Christian Esch, der Spiegel
- Russia’s bite is not nearly as powerful as its bark Daniel DePetris, the Skeptics
- Who cares about Washington anymore? Parag Khanna, Politico
Nightcap
- Unconventional Trump successful in Korea Jung Woo Lee, New Statesman
- Iran’s mullahs are out of answers Ali Safavi, RealClearWorld
- Cultural costs of high housing prices in England Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- The new challenge to ObamaCare Randy Barnett, Volokh Conspiracy
Lessons from the Stamp Act
That’s the subject of my latest over at RealClearHistory. Peep game:
The refusal of the colonies to pay for the war they initiated also led to the flare up of a simmering tension between elites on both sides of the British Atlantic: representation. The colonists wanted to send representatives to London and have them participate as full members of the body politic. The elite on the islands, however, were openly disdainful of American elites and probably did not want to disperse their power even more thinly by admitting new seats. Adam Smith was especially prescient on this matter, actually arguing that London could avoid most of its trouble by simply admitting American representatives to parliament.
Please, read the whole thing.
Nightcap
- The long fight for equal liberty David Lowenthal, History Today
- Gun seizures have already led to too many abuses James Bovard, the Hill
- Turkish questions, Kurdish responses Amberin Zaman, Al-Monitor
- How American students are unlearning liberty David French, National Review
Nightcap
- What would “lesser Mexico” look like? Noel Maurer, The Power and the Money
- Picasso’s nudist streak Fiammetta Rocco, 1843
- In Asia, the copy is the original Byung-Chul Han, Aeon
- Pakistan’s Deadly Game with the U.S. Anthony Loyd, New Statesman
Notes On Liberty 