Drug Cartels, More Tariffs, Jack Smith, and More
Main Discussion Topics
The Death of a Cartel Boss and What It Actually Means
Following the killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, during a Mexican military operation, at least 73 people were killed in the retaliatory violence that followed, including 25 members of Mexico's National Guard. Cervantes had a $15 million U.S. State Department bounty on his head and had previously been arrested and imprisoned in the United States before being deported.
Michael used this as a starting point to trace the history of American drug prohibition, from the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 through Nixon's formal declaration of the War on Drugs in 1971, the creation of the DEA in 1973, and the Reagan-era escalation. The central question: has any of it worked?
Michael argued: "We keep doubling down that this is what we need to do. More enforcement, tougher laws. Trump is now talking about bombing land sites to hit cartels... You are not going to stop people from doing drugs when they want to, and you sure as hell are not going to eliminate the types of people that want to profit off of this."
Prohibition Creates the Violence It Claims to Fight
Drawing a direct parallel to alcohol prohibition, Michael laid out the economic and social mechanics by which the War on Drugs generates the very destruction it is supposed to prevent.
When drugs are illegal, legal businesses cannot enter the market, which means only people willing to break the law get involved, supply is constrained artificially driving up prices, and participants have no legal recourse when robbed or threatened. The result is that disputes get settled through violence rather than courts.
Michael explained the logic: "If you are a drug dealer and you get muscled or you get robbed, you do not have that option. You cannot call the police. Why? Because the drugs are illegal. So you have a couple of things going on here. When things are made illegal, most people don't like to break the law, so they're not gonna get involved in this, so you're gonna attract bad actors."
He also invoked the Iron Law of Prohibition: the more enforcement pressure applied, the more compact and potent the drugs become, because traffickers need to move smaller, more concentrated loads. This explains the fentanyl crisis in ways that more enforcement never can.
On overdoses specifically: "We don't have this problem generally speaking with liquor. We don't have it with sandwiches, cheeseburgers, Tylenol. Why? Because this stuff is legal. The ingredients are listed, the milligrams are listed. When I go buy a bag of dope from some guy on the corner, I have no clue what the potency is."
Michael also shared from personal experience: his parents were both drug addicts, and the criminalization of drugs meant they spent enormous amounts of time and energy simply trying to locate and acquire substances, pulling them away from their family in ways that legal access would not have required.
The Individual Rights Case
Beyond the utilitarian argument, Michael made the rights-based case: no person or government has the legitimate authority to tell consenting adults what they may or may not put in their bodies.
"Who the hell is one person or a group of people, regardless of what they call themselves, who the hell are these people to tell others what they can and cannot put in their bodies? If adults wish to do this, if adults wish to take risks like this, it's their business. It's your mind, it's your life. It's your happiness at stake, and you ought to be the one to choose."
Michael also addressed a comment claiming that drug legalization amounts to anarchy: "Anybody that knows me knows I'm not an anarchist. I've had numerous debates with high-profile anarchists. I don't think it's a workable system." He pointed out the critical context drop in that framing: "When it is government policy that is creating the problem of the War on Drugs, it's very wrong to say it's an example of anarchy. It is the government that went in there and is having these shootouts with cartels."
Trump's Tariffs: Unconstitutional Then, Unconstitutional Now
With Trump's emergency tariffs having been struck down by the courts, Michael analyzed the administration's next attempt: invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address "large and serious United States balance of payments deficits."
The problem, as Michael explained and confirmed through direct reading of the law: there is no balance of payments deficit. A balance of payments deficit is an archaic problem that ceased to be applicable after the shift to floating exchange rates in the 1970s. As Henry Hazlitt argued in Economics in One Lesson (published 1946), the balance of payments ultimately nets to zero because dollars that leave the country must return either through purchases of American exports or investment in the country. The administration is attempting to conflate a trade deficit, a current account measurement, with a balance of payments deficit, which are not the same thing.
Even if the legal basis existed, the law only grants the power for 150 days, not the permanent structural tariff regime Trump appears to want.
Michael noted: "If you're gonna actually have a discussion about tariffs and when might they be appropriate, at least identify what they are and the economic consequences they're going to have, and then state honestly why you think they should be implemented."
On the question of whether targeted tariffs for national security reasons can be defended, Michael acknowledged that reasonable arguments can be made, but insisted they must be honest about costs: "Even if they're for national security, the economic problems are the same. We might just judge that it's worth it. If it's truly a national security issue, ban the trade outright. I don't really see how tariffs are effective."
Jack Smith Report Blocked
Judge Eileen Cannon, the same judge who dismissed the classified documents case against Trump, has permanently blocked the release of Jack Smith's report on that case. Her reasoning involves the argument that since the case was dismissed and Jack Smith's appointment was ruled invalid, the report should not be released.
Michael expressed skepticism and a preference for transparency: "I'm much more in favor of transparency than not transparency. And it seems to me there's something they're trying to hide if they don't want this to come out."
On Objectivists Telling Michael How to Argue
Michael pushed back against a recurring pattern where self-identified Objectivists tell him his arguments are ineffective, whether economic arguments, analogical reasoning, pointing out contradictions in opponents, or engaging publicly with anarchists and communists.
His response: show the evidence. "I could see if there was an Objectivist out there who had, say, 5 million followers and that person has brought thousands upon thousands to Objectivism, and that guy comes to me and says this would be more effective. I'd be far more apt to take the advice. But when they're coming from people on Facebook and X with 500 followers and there's no studies, there's nothing cited in favor of the position, just a statement, I take it far less seriously."
He also noted the irony of citing Ayn Rand's authority as grounds for telling Michael not to do things Ayn Rand herself did, including debating anarchists in her apartment, appearing on Phil Donahue, Johnny Carson, Mike Wallace, and Playboy magazine.
Punishment Vote: MAGA Hat vs. Silent During Mark's Foreign Policy Takes
As part of an ongoing bit, viewers were asked to vote on what Michael's punishment should be if he's mean or sarcastic on air.
The two finalists: wearing a MAGA hat on camera, or sitting in silence while Mark discusses his views on foreign policy. Both were described as genuinely unbearable.
Persephone noted that if the MAGA hat option wins, TikTok clips of Michael wearing it would be a problem. Michael clarified that wearing it would be deeply ironic and would involve extensive commentary.
Notable Quotes
Michael on the War on Drugs: "The worse it gets, the more stringent you get, the more threatening you get, the more psychopathic are going to be the people providing the drugs. It's really that simple."
Michael on Individual Rights and Drug Use: "People's lives are their own. They are not yours. They have a right to make their own decisions."
Michael on Overdoses and Prohibition: "When I go buy a bag of dope from some guy on the corner, I have no clue what the potency is. I could be going to the same guy for a year and he's selling a certain type, and so I think this is what I can handle, but then he gets a different supplier and it's more than what I thought, and I'm dead."
Michael on Trump's Tariff Legal Basis: "The law that they're citing allows the president to rectify balance of payments problems. There is no balance of payments problem, hence Trump legally cannot use this law."
Michael on Government Creating the Cartel Problem: "When it is government policy that is creating the problem of the War on Drugs, it's very wrong to say it's an example of anarchy. This is not anarchy. This is government policy that has resulted in this."
Michael on Objectivist Criticism: "As adult human beings, we need to think for ourselves. If I'm going to advise somebody on something, it ought to be in something I've already done or I'm already good at or that I understand. Just saying you need to make moral arguments because, because I know where that comes from, that's not an argument in and of itself."
Key Themes
The War on Drugs as the cause of cartel violence, not drug use itself
Prohibition economics: how illegality creates scarcity, price inflation, and black markets
The Iron Law of Prohibition and the fentanyl crisis
Individual rights as the foundation of the case against drug laws
Trump's tariffs and the distinction between trade deficits and balance of payments deficits
Transparency in government and the Jack Smith report
Independent thinking within Objectivist-adjacent circles
Capitalist Thought of the Day
"Capitalism is ultimately the system whereby individual rights are protected and respected. In order to survive, in order to live ethical lives, freedom is the prerequisite. With freedom comes risk. With free will and free choice comes the possibility of making bad choices. As long as somebody is not initiating force, is not violating the rights of other people, that person has the right to make bad decisions and bad choices. Nobody has the right to initiate force against people to get them to make better choices. It does not matter if you believe you are saving their life, preventing their suicide, preventing their alcoholism, preventing their drug abuse. People's lives are their own. They are not yours. They have a right to make their own decisions." - Michael