Today, David Henderson explains how Adam Smith offers a compelling rebuttal of the political philosophy of Zohran Mamdani; Jon Hartley speaks with Andrew Ross Sorkin about the legacies of the 1929 and 2008 financial crises; and Eugene Volokh shares his expert perspective on a piece of proposed New York City legislation that would regulate protest activity around houses of worship.
Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
At Defining Ideas, economist and Research Fellow David R. Henderson says that Adam Smith’s principle of self-interest has to be seen not just as “the invisible hand” but also as the desire to “be lovely”—in other words, to balance the iconic philosopher’s two examinations of how a free society works. Self-interest can allow people the freedom to prosper, express themselves, and serve society in the ways they choose, Henderson explains. Collectivism, on the other hand, far from fostering the “warmth” that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani extols, limits people’s choices and suppresses the outward-facing impulses that inspire true charity. In a society that honors individualism, Henderson argues, people are even free to reject some of the core values of their own society, as Mamdani does—in the sort of dissent that a socialist society would not tolerate. Read more here.
For the latest episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the Twenty-First Century, Policy Fellow Jon Hartley speaks with financial journalist and best-selling author Andrew Ross Sorkin about two major crises in American economic history and how they continue to shape American finance. Hartley and Sorkin discuss Andrew’s career as a journalist, his recent book 1929, and how the events between the 1929 Wall Street crash and 1933 reshaped banking and financial regulation. The conversation also covers the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, chronicled in Sorkin’s first book, Too Big To Fail, and the policy lessons that have been learned and remembered from both major financial crises. Watch or listen here.
Law & Policy
The New York Times ran a story today on a bill before the New York City Council “that would allow the [New York] Police Department to ban protests within a barrier of up to 100 feet from a house of worship to protect congregants’ right to peacefully pray and avoid ‘injury, intimidation and interference’ from demonstrations.” The piece cites First Amendment expert Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh, who says that both the local bill and a related piece of state legislation, “are very likely to be unconstitutional. The 100-foot one almost certainly is.” Volokh continues, “People can still worship. . . . It is just that they might have to see offensive or upsetting speech while they are going to temple or church.” Read more here. [Subscription required.]
Artificial Intelligence
Writing at his Substack Free Systems, Senior Fellow Andrew B. Hall writes about the “constitution problem” with artificial intelligence. Hall argues that in the governance of countries and AI companies alike, “constitutional constraints don’t just prevent tyranny—they enable growth.” Offering pragmatic suggestions to companies worried about AI governance, Hall argues, “Stop writing constitutions for your products and start writing constitutions for yourselves.” Hall says this would “start with a single external board—independent actors tasked with preventing dictatorship, with authority you cannot override.” Hall closes his case for constitutional limits on organizational governance in AI companies by revamping enduring wisdom from James Madison, writing, “Neither men nor AI companies are angels.” Read more here.
USA at 250
The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) invites you to join the next webinar in its ongoing series: “The Declaration of Independence: History, Meaning, and Modern Impact,” with scholars Michael Auslin, Jonathan Gienapp, and Jane Kamensky, on February 4, 10:00–11:00 a.m. PT. As America observes the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, RAI takes a renewed look at the origins and enduring influence of this defining national document. Expert speakers will examine the Declaration’s cultural and physical history, its philosophical foundations and contested meanings, and its evolving role in shaping debates about rights, equality, and self-government. Participants will gain insight into how the Declaration continues to inform national identity, animate civic discourse, and guide the ongoing effort to fulfill the promise of America’s democratic ideals. Learn more and register free here.
Related Commentary