< Back

Wartime President, Free Speech, Julian Simon, and More

Main Discussion Topics

Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and the Population Bomb

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968), has died at 93
Mark reflects on being drawn to environmentalism as a teenager, becoming a card-carrying member of multiple environmental organizations
Discussion of Ehrlich's wildly inaccurate predictions: mass starvation that never occurred, England ceasing to exist by the year 2000
Ehrlich famously bet Julian Simon that the prices of five commodities would rise due to scarcity between 1980 and 1990; Simon won
Mark notes that long-term commodity data from 1900 onward vindicated Simon thoroughly, with prices staying stable or falling even as mining volumes increased exponentially
Despite being wrong by enormous margins, Ehrlich received a continuous stream of prestigious awards: MacArthur Genius Fellowship, Crawford Prize, Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, Blue Planet Prize, fellowship in the Royal Society, World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal, and more
Both Mark and Michael identify this as a clear example of "failing upward" within ideologically aligned institutions
Julian Simon's core insight: the greatest resource available to humanity is the human mind, and that resource is effectively unlimited
Mark calls on listeners to read Julian Simon and discard Ehrlich's framework to avoid supporting environmentalist policies being pushed by governments and international bodies

Mark argued: "He became more famous being wrong, and yet being embraced by the environmentalist movement, than Julian Simon was by proclaiming that the greatest resource that humans have available to them is the human mind, and that that is nearly infinite. And he was right."

Michael noted the pattern of post-hoc rationalizations defending Ehrlich: "As I was researching this today, I came across a number of articles explaining how no, Paul Ehrlich was actually right. They just didn't pick the right metals or they didn't pick the right years."

The War in Iran: End Game, Competence, and Constitutional Concerns

Michael shares a post from Objectivist attorney Adam Mossoff (via Michael Nron) claiming the war is succeeding on every front and that the Islamic regime has been effectively decapitated
Michael ran the post through Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok for accuracy; all three raised significant doubts
When asked for sources, Michael Nron responded that this is Facebook and not a peer-reviewed paper, dismissing the AI tools as "pacifist libertarians"
Michael pushes back: credibility requires sourcing claims, regardless of the platform
Trump is quoted saying it is "arguable" that the US should not be in the region and separately that the involvement was done "almost out of habit, which is not a good thing to do"
Iran attacking Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait was described by the administration as unexpected; Mark and Michael argue this was entirely predictable given that attacking Gulf oil infrastructure is Iran's primary strategic option
13 US soldiers have died in the conflict
Joe Kent, from an anti-terrorism department, resigned, stating the war was unnecessary and that intelligence showed no imminent threat from Iran
Trump's stated war goals have shifted repeatedly, raising concerns about the ability to build or maintain an international coalition, particularly after alienating trading partners with tariffs
Mark emphasizes that once war is properly declared through Congress, the executive can pursue it fully; the constitutional concern is about a single individual exercising unchecked war powers with no clear directive

Mark stated: "A president can't speak in ambiguous terms. They shouldn't pass laws that are ambiguous, that can be interpreted multiple ways. They have to speak in very clear, concise terms so people understand exactly what it is they're trying to do. Trump is so anti-intellectual that he can't speak in those terms. You need specificity and clarity, and that's one thing they do not have."

Michael explained: "My concerns were the Constitution first and second, the guy running the show. He's shown no evidence at all that he's competent to execute this kind of war. If he can do it here, he can do it elsewhere. He could say this country's an imminent threat, and how are you gonna push back on that? How are you gonna stop it? You've already tossed out the Constitution."

Constitutional War Powers and the "Pacifist Libertarian" Smear

Mark rejects the label "pacifist libertarians" being applied to those raising constitutional objections to the war
The American Capitalist Party is not anti-war; the concern is that war-making power must reside with Congress as the representatives of the people who pay the price
Mark's personal view: the Iranian regime needs to go and force is the only language authoritarian regimes understand, but that does not remove the constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration
Once war is properly declared, the executive can act with full force and commitment

Mark explained: "We are not anti-war, but we understand, as people who believe in individual rights, that there should be constitutional restraints on the capacity to make war. Since you and I are the people who have to pay for the war and suffer the consequences, the power to make war should be in the hands of our representatives."

Trump's Zero-Sum Transactional Worldview

A viewer comment suggested a businessman president would naturally be "transactional," and that this is his style
Mark distinguishes between legitimate transactional thinking and Trump's zero-sum version of it
In a free market, transactions require both parties to profit; value is exchanged, not extracted
Trump's approach is rooted in the logic of a mixed economy where government-connected businesses can benefit at others' expense
This zero-sum mindset, Mark argues, is characteristic of authoritarian thinking

Mark stated: "In a free market economy, you don't understand transactional relationships as zero sum. You understand them as value for value trades. You understand that the other person has to profit as well as you. His style is based on a zero-sum way of looking at the world and an authoritarian mindset, because authoritarians look at the world as zero sum."

Constitutional Protections for Immigrants

Conservatives are increasingly arguing that illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights or equal protections
Mark and Michael reject this position as a dangerous and anti-American road
Michael cites James Madison's Report of 1800, in which Madison explicitly argued that non-citizens within the country are entitled to constitutional protections: those who owe temporary obedience are entitled in return to protection and advantage
Madison pointed out that if aliens had no constitutional rights, they could be executed without a jury trial, which no state in the union had ever practiced
The Constitution uses the terms "persons," "people," and "citizens" deliberately; where citizen-specific rights are intended, the document says so
The American Capitalist Party's position: any individual who comes under the umbrella of the Constitution's protections has inviolable rights regardless of how they entered the country

Mark stated: "What matters is that you are an individual now under the protections of the Constitution. Period. And that means you are entitled to the pillars of rights freedoms, trial by jury, one of the greatest protectors of human freedom ever devised in civilization."

Michael added: "If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they may not only be banished but even capitally punished without a jury or other incidents to a fair trial. James Madison said that. It's just silly to say that if they're in this country, they're not protected by the Constitution."

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, and the Co-option of the Right

Mark reflects on what conservatism originally meant to him when he was drawn to it in the 1990s: conserving classical liberalism and the American tradition of limited government
True liberalism means individuals are free to pursue their desires without interference, provided they do not harm others
Liberalism was corrupted in the late 19th and early 20th century into a technocratic project of engineering social outcomes
Conservatism, had it properly defined itself as the defense of classical liberalism, might have provided a clearer ideological foundation than the one now co-opted by Christian nationalists
Post-liberals like Patrick Deneen now openly oppose the Enlightenment and individualism from within the right
Mark and Michael both identify as defenders of constitutional principles and separation of powers when few others are

Mark argued: "The American tradition is a tradition of classical liberalism, which means government that can do nothing more than protect individual rights. You are free to do anything you choose to pursue your desires to your heart's content, provided you don't harm another person. That's true liberalism."

Integrity Has No Exceptions

A viewer exchange prompted discussion about people treating social media as a space where honesty does not apply
Mark argues that integrity is not divisible: if you permit yourself dishonesty in some areas, you compromise your credibility across the board
Michael points to an Objectivist posting war claims without sourcing and dismissing requests for citations
Both Mark and Michael argue that intellectual honesty is for your own benefit; the clarity with which you see reality serves you as a person
Michael references philosopher Harry Frankfurt's concept of "bullshit" as a lack of concern for truth, distinguishing it from lying, and applies it to Trump's public statements

Mark stated: "People are making concessions that there are spaces in which they do not have to have integrity. That reflects on your integrity. Either you have integrity or you don't. Honesty is for your own benefit. If you say there are exceptions to that rule, you're just undermining your own integrity."

Key Constitutional Issues Raised

War powers and the constitutional requirement for congressional declaration of war
Executive branch discretion versus legislative authority in committing troops
Constitutional protections for all persons on American soil regardless of citizenship or immigration status
Precedent risks when constitutional norms are abandoned, regardless of which party benefits in the moment

Notable Quotes

Mark on Constitutional War Powers: "Once you declare war properly through the representatives of the people, you can be all in. It's when the executive is exercising his war powers at the discretion of a single man that capriciousness and whim can step in."

Michael on Sourcing and Credibility: "If you want to be thought credible, and I thought Objectivists want to be credible, want to post stuff that they are sure is true and accurate, then you cannot just post something somebody else put up and not fact check it."

Mark on Julian Simon: "You need to throw Paul Ehrlich on the trash heap of history. He's intellectually dishonest and the world rewarded him for it. Instead, get books by Julian Simon because he's right."

Michael on the War's Leadership: "I don't want Americans dying. I don't want Americans sent to fight a war where there's no end game, where the president says maybe they shouldn't even be there, where the president says we didn't even anticipate what plenty of people anticipated."

Mark on Individual Rights and Immigrants: "Certain individuals on American soil having fewer rights under the Constitution than certain others on American soil is inherently anti-American."

Referenced Media and Resources

Julian Simon's writings on resource economics and the primacy of the human mind
Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968), cited critically
Adam Mossoff's post on the Iran war (shared via Michael Nron on Facebook)
James Madison, Report of 1800, on the constitutional rights of non-citizens
Harry Frankfurt's philosophical concept of "bullshit" as distinct from lying
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Leonard Read, "I, Pencil"
Milton Friedman, Free to Choose
Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution
Albert Bandura paper on self-efficacy (upcoming discussion on Self-Made Soul)

Key Themes

The human mind as humanity's greatest and most unlimited resource
The danger of intellectual failure being institutionally rewarded
Constitutional war powers and the risks of one-man decision-making on military action
Zero-sum versus value-for-value thinking in governance and economics
Constitutional protections extending to all persons under American jurisdiction
The original meaning of classical liberalism versus its modern distortions
Intellectual integrity as a non-negotiable personal standard, not a situational one

Capitalist Thought of the Day

"We want the world to be free. We want individuals to be free. And the only system that provides for that, that enables it to happen, is a capitalist economic system: one in which the government is restrained to acting only against those who initiate force against others, where property rights are protected, where people have a clear understanding of what those rights are, and where the overarching moral ideal underpinning society is individual rights. This is the society we strive for. We are idealists in the right sense of the term, in that our ideals are rooted in reality. They are achievable. A pure capitalist system is not theoretical; it is something that can be built. You just have to have the will to pursue it and the courage to stand on your own without being a party to the state interventionism all around us. We want a free world. We want a free society. If you agree, join the American Capitalist Party at americancapitalistparty.org and be part of the change." - Mark