Throne and Liberty is a massive scale PvPvE MMORPG where players have the ability to transform into creatures that can fight across land, sea and air.

In Throne and Liberty you’ll be able to explore a vast, seamless and ever-changing world of Solsium, where the day/night cycle has a significant impact on your abilities and the gameplay. A key factor of the gameplay is your … Read More

The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term will be remembered for one case above all: Trump v. United States, in which the court granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal liability for attempts to use his office to obstruct the peaceful transition of power after he lost the 2020 election.

At the ACLU, we submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the justices to affirm that no person – including presidents – are above the law. And yet, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices abandoned the Constitution and its original meaning, voting instead to manufacture an immunity that effectively turns presidents into kings.

The justices’ ostensible justification for providing such immunity is baseless. They surmised that without knowing that they can commit crimes with impunity, presidents will be deterred from energetically doing their job. Yet, until this decision, every president faced the risk of prosecution if they committed crimes and there is no evidence that American presidents have been shy about exercising their authority. The court’s decision underscores the absolute necessity for organizations like ours to pursue constitutional checks on presidents while in office—and for voters to vote like their rights depend on it to hold presidents accountable.

While the presidential immunity case has rightfully dominated the public’s attention, the Supreme Court’s most recent term also involved many other important decisions. It issued important decisions protecting First Amendment rights, turned back a challenge to medication abortion, and addressed Second Amendment rights in a challenge to a law banning possession of guns by persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. The court also dealt several blows to our rights, denying constitutional protections for homeless people punished for sleeping in public, for Black voters subject to discrimination in South Carolina, and for an American citizen whose noncitizen husband was denied a visa without explanation.

A review of the term’s civil rights and civil liberties decisions offers a mixed picture, but make no mistake: This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless.

In a pair of much-watched cases involving reproductive health, the court preserved access to abortion without addressing the merits of the disputes. In one case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, doctors who opposed abortion sued to challenge FDA rules that eased access to medication abortion, the most common form of abortion. The lower courts ruled against the FDA, but the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge, ruling that the doctors lacked “standing” to challenge the FDA rules because they were not personally harmed by these rules. While this is a win for medication-abortion access, the fight is far from over. Politicians have vowed to continue efforts to restrict access to abortion nationwide.

The second abortion case, Moyle v. United States, asked whether a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients experiencing an emergency required those hospitals to provide abortions where that is the necessary treatment — even if state law forbids abortions under those circumstances. The case originated in Idaho, where state law prohibits abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother. After a federal district court properly ruled that the federal law overrides the state ban in emergency situations, the Supreme Court intervened prematurely and paused the lower court’s ruling until it could weigh in. But after hearing arguments, the court ultimately dismissed the case, thereby resurrecting the lower court ruling protecting access to abortion in emergencies. For now, the case will continue in the lower courts.

This term the court focused on civil liberties involving the First Amendment. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the ACLU represented the NRA in a case arguing that New York’s top financial regulator had violated the NRA’s First Amendment when she targeted it for its political views and sought to compel banks and insurance companies to blacklist the group. The court ruled unanimously in our favor. While the ACLU often disagrees with what the NRA advocates, we defended their rights before the Supreme Court because of the First Amendment principle at stake. Had we lost this case, governors in red states would have been free to employ similar tactics against immigrants’ rights groups, gay rights groups, or the ACLU itself. The case establishes that, while government officials are free to express their views, they may not use their official authority to coerce others to punish a group for its political ideas.

The court also issued important decisions protecting free speech online. While the Internet is far from new, decades after its advent the nation is still grappling with how to approach our speech rights online. In two cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that regulated the terms by which large social media platforms moderate the content they display, the court declared, as the ACLU argued in a friend-of-the-court brief, that social media platforms, like newspapers and bookstores, have a First Amendment right to choose how to curate the content they display, sell, or publish. In another pair of online speech cases, the court ruled that where government officials speak in their official government capacity on their personal online profiles, citizens blocked from those profiles can sue to challenge their exclusion.

The term’s only voting rights case saw the six Republican-appointed justices band together to overturn a unanimous lower court decision finding that South Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. In this case, in which the ACLU was counsel, along with the Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter, the court sided with Republican legislators, disregarded its own precedent, and made racial gerrymandering challenges much more difficult going forward.

After a lengthy trial, a three-judge court unanimously found that South Carolina had impermissibly used race to draw the lines between two adjoining districts, to the detriment of Black voters. The mapmakers had moved more than 100,00 more voters than necessary to equalize populations across the districts. They had disproportionately relocated heavily Black neighborhoods, and the mapmakers had programmed their computers to display the racial impact of every line drawing choice. In the end, they ensured that the Black voting population did not rise above 17 percent, a ratio they considered crucial to cement a Republican advantage. The trial court found that the South Carolina legislature used race for partisan purposes when drawing their map, which the Supreme Court has long ruled is unconstitutional discrimination. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, however, the court ruled that politics and race are both potential explanations for a legislature’s redistricting, and that reviewing courts must assume “good faith” even where trial courts have found that the legislators relied on race.

In an important immigration case, the court ruled that U.S. citizens have no constitutional right to object to the denial of a visa to their noncitizen spouses—even if the denial means they will be unable to live together in this country. In Dept of State v. Munoz, Luis Asencio-Cordero, a long-time partner of a U.S. citizen, sought to become a permanent resident through marriage. Under our byzantine immigration law, he had to leave the country and obtain a visa to re-enter as an immigrant. When he did so, a State Department consular officer denied his visa without any factual explanation. His partner, Sandra Muñoz, sued, saying that in light of the burden on her marriage, she had a right to know the basis for the denial so that they could respond.

This was not an unreasonable or unprecedented claim. The court had previously held, that where the denial of a visa infringes on U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights, the government’s visa denial must at least be based on a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. Muñoz argued that a citizen’s right to live with her spouse in her home country ought to be grounds for protection. But in another 6-3 ruling, the court ruled that she had no right whatsoever.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not bar punishing homeless people for sleeping in public, even when they have nowhere else to go. In Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that punishing someone without a home for sleeping outside was “cruel and unusual” because it punished them for the status of being homeless. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for his conservative colleagues, rejected that claim and concluded that the Grants Pass law punishes the conduct of sleeping in public, not the status of being homeless. But to be homeless is to have nowhere to sleep. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”

Even as this term ends, the court has already agreed to hear two important cases next term in which the ACLU is counsel. The first, United States v. Skrmetti, is a constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Tennessee is one of many states that have in recent years intruded upon the medical autonomy of parents, children, and their doctors by banning gender-affirming care, expressly because it is designed to depart from, rather than conform to, the individual’s sex assigned at birth. The ACLU has challenged these laws, arguing that they violate equal protection by discriminating on the basis of sex and gender identity. They also intrude on the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children. In the second case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court has agreed to hear whether the First Amendment bars Texas from requiring adults to submit digital identification to obtain access to websites containing constitutionally protected sexual speech.

Today’s Supreme Court is a challenging forum. That’s why the ACLU has launched our State Supreme Court Initiative to advance and protect civil rights and civil liberties under state constitutions, which can be more protective than the U.S. Constitution. But as this term illustrates, we can still win important victories in the federal courts — including the Supreme Court. One thing should remain clear: the ACLU will never stop fighting, in every forum available, for your rights and liberties, and for a more just America.

In a win for the separation of church and state, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma’s approval of the nation’s first religious public charter school violates the state constitution and charter-school statute, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The decision affirms what we already knew: A religious school can’t be a public school, and a public school can’t be religious.

Last year, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School applied to the Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board to become a public charter school. The school, which would have been managed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, proclaimed in its application that it would carry out “the evangelizing mission of the [Catholic] Church” by fully embracing its religious teachings and incorporating those teachings “into every aspect of the School.” The school also acknowledged that it would discriminate in admissions, student discipline, and employment, as necessary to satisfy the Catholic Church’s religious doctrine, and that it would not accommodate a student’s disability if doing so would violate the school’s Catholic beliefs.

Despite warnings from the Oklahoma attorney general, education groups, and civil rights organizations that public schools—including charter schools—cannot legally teach a religious curriculum or discriminate against students and employees, the Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s application and entered into an agreement allowing the school to begin operating for the upcoming school year. Today, in ordering the state board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sent a pointed message: Our public schools are for education, not evangelizing.

The court held that charter schools, which are funded by the state, created as government entities, and expressly characterized in state law as “public schools,” are, of course, just that – public schools. As a result, the court explained, a religious public charter school violates not only the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but also Oklahoma’s charter school law and constitution, which forbid public schools from imposing religious teachings on students. “Enforcing the St. Isidore contract would create a slippery slope and what the [state constitution’s] framers warned against—the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention,” the court stated.

The ruling comes in response to a petition filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court by the Oklahoma attorney general, who sought to rescind the Charter School Board’s contract with St. Isidore. Although some people may be surprised that a Republican attorney general would object to the nation’s first religious public charter school, safeguarding the separation of church and state is not, and never should be, a partisan issue.

OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

Nine Oklahoma residents and a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education in Oklahoma filed a lawsuit in July 2023 in state...

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

That’s why the ACLU, along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Education Law Center, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case supporting the attorney general. Even before the attorney general filed his petition, we brought suit in Oklahoma state court on behalf of parents, faith leaders, and public-school advocates who don’t want their tax dollars used to fund a religious public school that discriminates against students and staff and promotes religious doctrine.

Church-state separation is a cornerstone of our democracy. It’s critical to preserving the right of every person to decide for themselves—without pressure from the government—which religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. It also ensures that the government doesn’t undermine religion either by co-opting it for political purposes or rendering religious institutions dependent on the state to spread their faith. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the separation between religion and government is particularly crucial in our public schools, which, by design, freely serve all students equally regardless of religious background or preference.

St. Isidore is, and has always been, free to open as a private religious school that taxpayers would not be forced to support. It is not free, however, to assume the mantle of a public school—including all the associated legal and financial benefits—while flouting the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized as much, explaining, “What St. Isidore requests from this court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution receiving a generally available benefit…It is about the state’s creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause.”

Is the future of the GOP more libertarian, nationalist, or, somehow, both?

Joining us today is Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur, author, and former presidential candidate. He's been making a hard pitch for what he's called a "libertarian-nationalist alliance" for the past several months. He was at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention where he tried to convince libertarians to vote Republican. Reason's Zach Weissmueller also saw Ramaswamy at the Republican National Convention, where he was trying to convince MAGA supporters to be more libertarian. Reason's Stephanie Slade saw him make his case for "national libertarianism" at the National Conservatism Conference. That event was also attended by vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, who has a different vision for the conservative movement. Those dueling visions are the subject of today's episode.

Note: This episode is plagued by technical issues due to a software malfunction. With the exception of an approximately nine-minute section (which is marked in the episode), the full conversation is intact.

Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

Sources referenced in this conversation:

1. Vivek Ramaswamy's full talk at the National Conservatism Conference
2. J.D. Vance's full talk at the National Conservatism Conference
3. "Vivek Ramaswamy Debuts 'National Libertarianism' at NatCon 4," by Stephanie Slade
4. Vivek Ramaswamy: Don't "replace the left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state."
5. "What I Learned From Paleoism," by Llewellyn Rockwell

• Producer: John Osterhoudt

The post Vivek Ramaswamy: Is There a Libertarian-Nationalist Alliance? appeared first on Reason.com.

Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance's proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness.

And you know what? That's precisely what our tax code already does, in this case and many others.

Using the tax code to "reward" parents and "punish" nonparents is at odds with the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives.

Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all sorts of behaviors based on what government officials decide is good or bad.

For instance, the tax code does, in fact, treat people with kids more favorably than it treats those who do not have kids.* There's the child tax credit, of course. Then there's the earned income tax credit, which is more generous for families with children than those without. And there is no shortage of other provisions, such as a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for dependent care, which do the same thing.

It's hard to know what Vance's proposal really entails. Does he want another surtax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit and make it a universal basic income like many conservatives and progressives want? It's also unclear whether he is simply failing to see that our tax code already delivers on his wishes and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he is well intentioned and that he is rightfully concerned about the decline in fertility we are witnessing not just in this country but across the world.

Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with additional taxes wouldn't boost fertility. For one thing, we've had a child tax credit since the 1990s, and the tax break has been regularly extended. That hasn't encouraged people to have more kids.

That's not unique to the child tax credit. Lots of evidence exists showing that government programs of all sorts meant to encourage, reward, or stimulate the supply of babies usually fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent over $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates are still falling.

There isn't any doubt that more people, and hence more babies, are a boon for our lives and our economy. But that alone isn't a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising kids is expensive, that's no justification for a government tax break, either.

Besides, careful studies have shown the cost of raising a child in America has been decreasing for six decades. In the end, rather than rewarding families with lesser taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers—like overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making kids measurably safer—that make life more complicated for families.

Ultimately, these are only secondary aspects of a much bigger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It's not just childless adults that face a surcharge compared to parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean that renters pay more money for the same amount of housing. Households which include a college student pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can secure a tax break that others cannot.

These tax breaks for some are not just unfair to the taxpayers who don't get them—they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that requires many millions of collective hours to comply with. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction—toward a simpler, flatter, and more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally.

Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is misguided. It leads to economic inefficiencies and infringes on individual liberty. Rather than doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to see taxes as something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated in part who benefits more from the current tax code.

The post J.D. Vance Wants To Control You With Taxes appeared first on Reason.com.

Throne and Liberty - the latest South Korean free-to-play fantasy MMO to land on Amazon Games' publishing slate following 2022's Lost Ark - will get worldwide release on 17th September, with an open beta coming to PC and consoles in July.

Developed by NCSoft, the company behind Guild Wars and City of Heroes, Throne and Liberty promises to be a game of exploration and "massive-scale combat" - accommodating "thousands of players at once" - all unfolding in the "dynamic" open world of Solisium.

"Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players", its promotion blurb explains. "There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."

Read more

We are officially in summer, with the summer solstice having passed just yesterday.  Happy Midsommar to all who celebrate.  May your sacrifices protect you and bring a bountiful harvest once more.

I was a bit surprised that the Steam Summer Sale did not kick off yesterday.  Steam has a pretty solid track record of landing summer and winter sales on the first day of each season.  But this year it won’t start until the 27th. [Addendum: Though if I had looked back to 2023, I would have seen it didn’t start until the 29th, so just another issue in my brain.]

So no post about that today, as I had sort of planned.  Instead, some things are launching or announcing dates for launch.  Time for a pass through that I guess!

• Tarisland Launches

Tarisland goes live today, doesn’t it?  Technically it is going live world-wide and will have launched everywhere on the list by the time this post gets published.  At 11am eastern time it was supposed to go live here in North America, the last of its launch regions after Asia, Europe, and South America.

Now here and Free to Play

Derided repeatedly as a WoW-clone in a world where it is tough to be an MMORPG without that comparison, it is available on PC, Android, and iOS as a free to play title.

I have said several times that I wanted to give it a try, if only to see if all this WoW-clone talk had any merit.  But I have I downloaded it yet?  I have not.  Maybe it will strike my fancy this weekend.

Anyway, there is a launch announcement with details on how to join in on your platform of choice.  They have even partnered with an emulator to try and make the game playable on MacOS.  You need an M-series Mac, no Intel models need apply, and there are hoops to jump through, but you could make it happen if you were dying to play.

Finally, looking at that logo, is it Tasisland or Taris Land?

Meh, I’m not going to worry about it.

• Throne & Liberty Launch Date

Amazon Games, fresh off their good times trying to pretend New World isn’t an MMORPG, has announced the launch date for their next venture, Throne & Liberty, which promises to bring online RPG gameplay into a new era.

Throne and Liberty and totally not an MMORPG

Also it is multiplayer.  And a lot of people will be able to play together.  I mean, they literally use the word “massive” later on in the text to describe the PvP and PvPvE experience.  It is almost like it is… I don’t know, another MMORPG?

Amazon, why won’t you say that?  They have literally banished the term from their web site.  They make zero MMORPGs if you believe what they say.

Anyway, a title that I nearly put on the “won’t ship in 2024” list for my new year’s predictions… seriously, it was on there, then I realized I had one too many for the point count, so I removed it, will in fact ship in 2024, landing on September 17th.

So I dodged that bullet.  That and the whole refusal by Amazon to use the term “MMORPG” are the key takeaways from this bullet point.

• Valheim Board Game

Valheim has apparently hit the level of success where somebody felt they needed to make a board game out of the experience.

Please Odin… now in physical form

This will be a crowdfunding campaign and run by another company, which is probably good because Iron Gate has like three devs and they still have a biome to finish some time this decade.   The campaign will be run on Game Found, an off-brand Kickstarter clone for board games which you can find here.

There is a teaser video, but I am not going to bother to embed it because it is 17 seconds and tells you less than I’ve already written.  If you are interested you’ll have to go sign up at Game Found to get alerts as to when the campaign will go live… as they haven’t bothered to tell us yet.

• EVE Online Paragon Store for SKINs

The next stage of the Equinox expansion hit yesterday, which included the launch of the Paragon store in game, which allows you to take those rather pricey SKINs you can make with the new SKINR utility and list them on the market.

Want to buy a lime green Harpy SKIN?

And, of course, it is a mess.  The store front is there and you can do some sorting, but as an online shopping experience it rates ahead of the Pokemon Go in-game cosmetic store, but only just barely, and Niantic at least has the poor excuse of having to work within phone sized devices.

Anyway, you can find it in game… not easily, but you’ll get there if you persist… and read the CCP optimistic take on it here.  Or you can go over to r/eve and see what players think.  It isn’t pretty.

• EVE Vanguard Solstice

CCP’s decades spanning desire to make a successful first person shooter game despite all the signs indicating it is a bad idea carries on with a new round of EVE Vanguard testing which starts… wait, it started yesterday, didn’t it?  Yes.

The Solstice is here… which means it will just get darker from now on

The play test… because it is still in alpha so all two dozen fans will get angry and remind you of this should you criticize any aspect of it… features a second map, weapon SKINs, and… um… well, there is still just one gun, but you can now change its stats with chip sets you can find in game.

The play test runs to July 1st, so there is plenty of time to join in.  You’ll need to download it in the EVE Online launcher because CCP is determined to handcuff this potential corpse to its one viable game.  And, of course, they are offering SKINs to people who join in… which feels kind of odd now that they have blown up the SKIN market with SKINR, but whatever.  That is the bribe they have to offer.

You can read more about it here.

• Hearthstone Perils in Paradise

Finally, over at Blizzard they are cranking out yet another Hearthstone expansion.  It isn’t exactly a “month with a vowel in it” level of phenomena, but they do seem to get two or three out every year.

Maybe the WoW team could learn something from them.

Or maybe not, as Hearthstone goes where it pleases with the lore, with the new expansion being called Perils in Paradise, featuring a lot of perhaps unlikely Azeroth activities on the splash screen.

Perils in paradise

Anyway, among the features of the expansion are tourist cards that act as a conduit to bring in cards unrelated to your class in order to spice up your deck.  Blizz is also introducing catch-up packs, which I think was mentioned back at BlizzCon where I made some joke about ketchup packs… wait, here is the joke… was it worth it?

How this helps you with deck building I don’t know…

Anyway, those are here now.  The whole thing launches on July 23rd and you can read more about it here.

That is what I’ve got for Friday.  Did I miss anything?

A number of figmas showed up at Good Smile Company’s Smile Fest 2024, and one was an updated version of the Metal Gear Solid 2 Solid Snake figure. It is a new take on the item that first appeared back in August 2018. 

The Metal Gear Solid 2 Solid Snake figma wears his original uniform, just like the first version of the figure. His face plate is a stern, stoic expression in the example photo. He’s also holding the tranquilizer that he came with originally. It does seem like the bodysuit is a different shade than the original version of the figma. Also, the paint job on the face seems a bit different and more in line with other recent releases.

Here’s how that looks:

To compare, here’s how the original 2018 version of the Metal Gear Solid 2 Solid figure looked. The additional accessories also included an assault rifle and a cardboard box. Some of the hand parts would even allow the figma to be posed as though it is hanging from a shelf or table.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty is available on the PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5, Vita, Switch, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox Series X, Windows PC via various collections, and the Solid Snake figma will return in the future.

The post Metal Gear Solid 2 Solid Snake Figma’s an Update Figure appeared first on Siliconera.

You have a 15-character password, shield the ATM as you enter your PIN, close the door when you meet with your banker, and shred your financial statements. But do you truly have financial privacy? Or has someone else been sitting silently in the room with you this whole time?

While you might feel you have secured your financial information, the government has very much wedged its way into the room. Financial privacy has practically vanished over the last 50 years.

It's strange how quickly we have accepted the current state of financial surveillance as the norm. Just a few decades ago, withdrawing money didn't involve 20 questions about what we plan to use the money for, what we do for a living, and where we are from. Our daily transactions weren't handed over in bulk to countless third parties.

Yet, what is even stranger is that most people continue to believe in a version of financial privacy that no longer exists. They believe financial records continue to be private and the government needs a warrant to go after them. This belief couldn't be further from reality. Americans do not have financial privacy. Rather, we have the illusion of financial privacy.

Why is this? Put simply, financial surveillance has been kept hidden in three major ways: Encroachments into privacy have evolved gradually through obscure legislation, the scope of surveillance has constantly expanded through inflation, and much of the process is kept intentionally confidential.

Years of Obscure Legislative Changes

Compared to today, customers in the 1970s had far more freedom in opening accounts and interacting with their own money. Back then, the decision to transact with a bank could be based on the cash in one's pocket. Transactions were not scrutinized for threats of terrorism or drug trafficking. Customers were not legally required to supply a photo ID to set up an account. Banks decided for themselves what information they needed to set up an account, and this information remained effectively confidential between the customer and the bank.

This changed in the 1970s when a pivotal piece of legislation was passed: the Bank Secrecy Act. Stemming from concerns in Congress regarding Americans concealing their wealth in offshore accounts, the legislation aimed to gather financial information to detect such activities. For example, financial institutions were required to monitor and report transactions over $10,000 to the government.

It didn't stop there. Over the years, Congress came up with more ways to expand financial surveillance in what is now best referred to as the "Bank Secrecy Act regime."

In 1992, the Annunzio-Wylie Anti–Money Laundering Act led to the introduction of suspicious activity reports (SARs), where, instead of just reporting anything over $10,000, financial institutions had to report "any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation." Two years later, the Money Laundering Suppression Act authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as the agency to oversee these reports.

Following the September 11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act significantly expanded surveillance powers, granting the government easier access to communication records. Hidden among the pages of this sprawling omnibus bill was a set of "know your customer" requirements that forced banks not only to investigate who you are but also to verify that information on behalf of the government.

Again, Congress didn't stop there.

Another extensive omnibus bill, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, quietly introduced a rule intended to surveil all bank accounts with at least $600 of activity. Luckily, the controversial measure was noticed and met with immediate pushback. The Treasury Department responded by informing people that the government already has access to much of everyone's financial information.

While the proposal was retracted, the initiative was only shut down partially. Instead of affecting all bank accounts, the law narrowed its scope to require reporting for transactions over $600 made through a payment transmitter such as PayPal, Venmo, or Cash App.

Then the 2022 Special Measures To Fight Modern Threats Act aimed to eliminate some of the checks and balances placed on the Treasury, granting it the authority to use "special measures" to sanction international transactions.

While the Special Measures To Fight Modern Threats Act hasn't been passed, it remains a persistent presence in legislative proposals. It has been introduced in various forms, including as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and as an amendment to the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (both of which failed), as well as a standalone bill.

Similar challenges exist in other bills that try to expand financial surveillance such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Transparency and Accountability in Service Providers Act, Crypto-Asset National Security Enhancement and Enforcement Act, and Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act. Each new bill that passes could further chip away at our financial privacy.

Considering these laws and proposals are buried within thousands of pages of legislation, it's no wonder the public doesn't know what's going on.

A Constant Expansion Through Inflation

Even if every member of the public could read every bill front to back, there are still other ways that the Bank Secrecy Act regime has been able to expand silently each year. Surprisingly, inflation has also contributed to the erosion of our financial privacy.

Following the Bank Secrecy Act's requirement that financial institutions report transactions over $10,000, concerns were raised in court. A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union, California Bankers Association, and Security National Bank argued that the Bank Secrecy Act violated constitutional protections, including the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. They successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against the act.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court later held that the Bank Secrecy Act did not create an undue burden considering it applied to "abnormally large transactions" of $10,000 or more.

Let's put this number into context: In the 1970s, $10,000 was enough to buy two brand-new Corvettes and still have enough money left to cover taxes and upgrades. So perhaps the court's description of these transactions as "abnormally large" was fair at the time.

The problem is that this reporting threshold has never been adjusted for inflation. For over 50 years, it has stayed at $10,000. If the threshold had been adjusted this whole time, it would currently be around $75,000—not $10,000. Not adjusting for inflation would be like not receiving a cost-of-living adjustment for your income; it means losing money each year.

Each year with inflation is another year that the government is granted further access to people's financial activity. In 2022 alone, the U.S. financial services industry filed around 26 million reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. Of those, 20.6 million were on transactions of $10,000 or more, with around 4.3 million filed for suspicious activity. However, the second-most-common reason for filing a SAR was for transactions close to the $10,000 threshold. It almost makes one wonder why Congress bothered with a threshold at all if you can be reported for crossing it and also reported for not crossing it.

While the public has been focusing on the prices of groceries and gasoline when it comes to inflation, the impact of inflation on expanding financial surveillance has largely gone unnoticed.

Much of the Process Is Confidential

With millions of reports being filed each year as both Congress and inflation continue to expand the Bank Secrecy Act regime, shouldn't members of the public at least know if they were reported to the government? For a little while, Congress seemed to think the process should operate that way.

Realizing the need to establish boundaries after the Supreme Court gave the green light to deputizing financial institutions as law enforcement investigators, Congress enacted the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. The legislation mandated that individuals should be told if the government is looking into their finances. Not only did the law establish a notification process, but it also allowed individuals to challenge these requests.

So why don't we see complaints of invasive financial surveillance on the news?

Put simply, the Right to Financial Privacy Act doesn't live up to its name. Although it should result in some protections, Congress included 20 exceptions that let the government get around them. For example, the fourth exception applies to disclosures pursuant to federal statutes, including the reports required under the Bank Secrecy Act.

Making matters worse, the Annunzio-Wylie Anti–Money Laundering Act made filing SARs a confidential process. Both financial institution employees and the government are prohibited from notifying customers if a transaction leads to a SAR. And it's not just the contents of the reports that are confidential: Banks cannot even reveal the existence of a SAR.

With these laws, banks went from protecting the privacy of their depositors to being forced to protect the secrecy of government surveillance programs. It's the epitome of "privacy for me, but not for thee."

The frustration and harm this process causes might not be so secret. There are numerous news stories about banks closing accounts without any explanation. While many have blamed the banks for giving customers the silent treatment, they may be legally prohibited from disclosing that a SAR led to the closure.

As one customer described it, "I feel that I was treated unjustly and at least I deserve to get an explanation. I had no overdrafts, always paid my credit cards on time and I consider myself to be an honest person, the way they closed my accounts made me feel like a criminal." Another customer said, "Any time I asked about why [my account was closed] they said they were not allowed to discuss the matter."

The government claims this process should be kept secret so that it doesn't tip off criminals. Yet SARs are not evidence of a crime by default.

The exact details of the reports are confidential but some aggregate statistics are available. These suggest that the top three reasons for a bank to file a SAR include (1) suspicions concerning the source of funds, (2) transactions below $10,000, and (3) transactions with no apparent economic purpose. These are not smoking guns.

There are many reasons why a bank might close an account, including inactivity, violations of terms and conditions, frequent overdrafts, and internal restructuring. But when banks refuse to explain closures, it might just be because they are prohibited from doing so, further keeping the public in the dark about financial surveillance activities.

A Balancing Act

Many might still ask, "If these reports catch a couple of bad guys, aren't they all worth it?" This raises a fundamental societal question: To what extent are we OK with pervasive surveillance if it stops bad people doing bad things?

To answer this question, we should first recognize that the optimal crime rate is not zero. While a world without crime might seem preferable, the costs of achieving that can be prohibitively high. We can't burn down the entire world just to stop somebody from stealing a pack of gum. There is a percentage of crime that is going to exist—it's not ideal, but it is optimal.

Similarly, the cost of pervasive surveillance is also too high. Maintaining a balance of power by protecting people's privacy is essential for a free society. Surveillance can restrict freedoms, such as the freedom to have certain religious beliefs, support certain causes, partake in dissent, and hold powerful people accountable. We need to have financial privacy. We have too many examples where surveillance has gone wrong and allowed these freedoms to be squashed. We have to be careful about creeping surveillance that tilts the balance of power too far away from the individual.

Removing this huge financial surveillance system doesn't mean ending the fight against terror or crime. It means making sure that Fourth Amendment protections are still present in the modern digital era. It's not supposed to be easy to get this magic permission slip that lets you into everyone's homes. The Constitution was put in place to prevent such abuses—to restrict the powers of government and protect the people.

Breaking the Illusion of Financial Privacy

Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has slowly built a sprawling system of unchecked financial surveillance. It's time to question whether this is the world we want to live in. Instead of having a regime that generates 26 million reports on Americans at a cost of over $46 billion in a given year, we should have a system that respects individual rights and only goes after criminals.

Yet, government officials seem to have another vision in mind. Through obscure legislative changes, inflationary expansions, and a process of confidentiality, financial privacy has been continuously eroded over time.

Changing this reality is an uphill battle, but it's one that's worth fighting. The first step is raising awareness about how far financial surveillance norms have shifted in just a few decades. Changes won't happen until we dispel the illusion of financial privacy.

The post The Illusion of Financial Privacy appeared first on Reason.com.

A game doesn’t have to be newly released for it to require some guidance to get through, as this week’s batch of tips will prove. From the OG Final Fantasy 7 to Metal Gear Solid 2, there’s some older games that people have been recently dipping into that may require some support to get through. Thats’ what we’re here…

Read more...

We’re reaching the end of yet another week, and that (hopefully) means we’ve got a solid 48 hours of gaming bliss lined up. Perhaps you too are looking forward to spending some time this weekend gaming, but aren’t sure what to pick.

Read more...

Cyberpunk 2077 associate game director Paweł Sasko has thanked the game's community for the thousands of positive Steam reviews it has received in the last 30 days.

The open-world action-adventure game had a release so disastrous, CD Projekt investors considered suing the studio for "materially misleading information", and Sony refunded Cyberpunk 2077 players unhappy with the game's performance on PS4 even beyond the typical two-hour playtime limit before pulling the game from sale completely shortly after it launched.

Now, in the wake of its acclaimed Phantom Liberty DLC, 95 per cent of the 7000+ reviews left in the last month are positive, something Sasko said they "always believed" but "never thought [he] would actually see it".

Read more

Cyberpunk 2077 associate game director Paweł Sasko has thanked the game's community for the thousands of positive Steam reviews it has received in the last 30 days.

The open-world action-adventure game had a release so disastrous, CD Projekt investors considered suing the studio for "materially misleading information", and Sony refunded Cyberpunk 2077 players unhappy with the game's performance on PS4 even beyond the typical two-hour playtime limit before pulling the game from sale completely shortly after it launched.

Now, in the wake of its acclaimed Phantom Liberty DLC, 95 per cent of the 7000+ reviews left in the last month are positive, something Sasko said they "always believed" but "never thought [he] would actually see it".

Read more

After more than a decade since its initial announcement, Throne and Liberty finally launched in South Korea in December 2023. However, this still leaves hopeful Western players wondering when it'll become available in their regions.

The good news is, at the time of writing, Throne and Liberty is planned for a Western release. The game is developed and published in South Korea by NCSoft but, back in February 2023, Amazon announced it had entered an agreement to publish Throne and Liberty in North America, South America, Europe, and Japan. So, it's a matter of when it'll come out in the West, not if.

What is Throne and Liberty?

From the same publisher responsible for other MMORPGs, like Guild Wars 2 and City of Heroes, Throne and Liberty is a fantasy MMORPG set in a world called Solisium, which is under threat by the villainous Kazar and his army. Your goal is to defeat Kazar, and you'll have access to a wide range of weapons and skills, including the power to transform into animals, as you engage in PvE and PvP battles. The game promises evolving battlefields that can be affected by the weather, the time of day, and other players.

When will Throne and Liberty release in the West?

Currently, Throne and Liberty has no exact release date, with it only said to be aiming for a 2024 launch. NCSoft did run a closed beta in select Western territories from April 10 to April 17, which is hopefully a sign the full game will be on track to be released before the end of the year. We'll be sure to update this article once NCSoft and/or Amazon confirm a proper release date or a delay.

Which platforms will Throne and Liberty release for?

Throne and Liberty will be available on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X|S. Following its release in South Korea, it's safe to assume it'll come to all three platforms at the same time once the game comes to the West. So, console owners won't need to wait a while longer after the PC version or anything. We will update this article should that not be the case.

The post Throne and Liberty western release window, platforms, and more appeared first on Destructoid.

“Most companies die with a bad launch, this one actually came out stronger.”

That’s a line from New York University’s Stern School of Business professor Joost van Dreunen, quoted in The Wall Street Journal earlier this year. He was describing the transformation undergone by developer CD Projekt Red …

Just 15 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. But why is it broken and how do we fix it? Those are just two of the questions that Reason's Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash, the former five-term congressman from Michigan who is currently exploring a Senate run.

Elected as part of the Tea Party wave in 2010, Amash helped create the House Freedom Caucus but became an increasingly lonely, principled voice for limiting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. After voting to impeach Donald Trump, he resigned from the GOP, became an independent, and then joined the Libertarian Party in 2020, making him the only Libertarian to serve in Congress.

They talked about the 2024 presidential election and the country's political and cultural polarization that seems to be growing with every passing day. And about how his parents' experiences as a Christian refugee from Palestine and an immigrant from Syria inform his views on foreign policy, entrepreneurship, and American exceptionalism.

This Q&A took place on the final day of LibertyCon, the annual event for Students for Liberty that took place recently in Washington, D.C.

Today's sponsor:

• DonorsTrust is the oldest and largest donor-advised fund made for people who live out with their charitable giving the idea of free minds and free markets. If you don't know about donor-advised funds, you should. The fund gives you a simple, tax-advantaged way to easily donate to charities that align with your values. Whether it's promoting education freedom, protecting free speech, or just helping people live better lives, the choice is yours. There are lots of providers of donor-advised funds, but DonorsTrust is the one that understands you the best. DonorsTrust is a great friend of Reason and to all other groups like it.

Watch the full video here and find a condensed transcript below.

Nick Gillespie: Why is Congress broken and how do we fix that?

Justin Amash: We can take up the whole 30 minutes talking about that if we wanted to. We don't know exactly how Congress got to where it is, but today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything. And that has a lot of negative consequences for our country. Among them is that the president has an unbelievable amount of power because the president now only has to negotiate with really a few people. You have to negotiate with the speaker of the House. You have to negotiate with the Senate majority leader and maybe some of the minority leaders. But it's really a small subset of people that you have to negotiate with. And when that happens, it gives the president so much leverage. 

So when we talk about things like going to war without authorization, as long as the speaker of the House isn't going to hold the president accountable and the Senate majority leader is not going to, the president is just going to do what he wants to do. And when it comes to spending, as long as the president only has to negotiate with a couple of people, the president's going to do whatever the president wants to do. So it's super easy in the system for the president to essentially bully Congress and dictate the outcomes. 

But there's a deeper problem with all of this, which is that representative government is supposed to be a discovery process. You elect people to represent you. You send them to Washington, and then the outcomes are supposed to be discovered by these representatives through discussions and debates, and the introduction of legislation, and amendments. You're supposed to have lots of votes, where the votes freely reflect your will representing the people back home. But instead, in Congress today, a few leaders are deciding what the final product is and then they're not bringing it to the floor until they know they have the votes. So there's no actual discovery process. Nancy Pelosi used to brag about this; she wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless she knew it was going to pass. Which is the opposite of how Congress should work.

Gillespie: What are some of the ways to decentralize power within Congress? When you were in Congress, you founded the Freedom Caucus, which was supposed to be kind of a redoubt of people who believed in limited government and libertarian and conservative principles and actually even some liberal principles, but decentralizing authority. You got kicked out of the Freedom Caucus, right?

Amash: Well, I resigned from it.

Gillespie: Well, you were asked to leave. The police sirens were coming, and it's like, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to go," right? But even places like that, that were explicitly designed to act as a countervailing force to this unified Congress, how can that happen? What can you do or what can somebody do to make that happen?

Amash: Well, it does take people with strong will. I think that when we go to vote for our elected officials, when you go to vote for a representative, when you go to vote for a senator, you have to know that that person is willing to stand up to the leadership team. And if that person's not willing to break from the leadership team on a consistent basis—and this doesn't mean they have to be mean or anything like that; it just means that they have to be independent enough where you know they're willing to break from their leadership team. If they're not willing to do that, it doesn't matter how much they agree with you on the issues, don't vote for them because that person is going to sell out. There's no chance they're going to stand up for you when it counts. I think you need to have people who have a strong will, who are going to go there and actually represent you and are willing to stand up to the leaders.

Gillespie: If you are interested in Congressman Amash's commentary on contemporary issues, go to his substack Justin Amash. The tagline is: "A former congressman spills on Congress and makes the practical case for the principles of liberty." It's a great read, particularly on issues you mentioned.

Can you tell us how you discovered libertarian ideas? You got elected in 2010, which was a wave election. It was part of the Tea Party reaction to eight years of Bush, and more problems during the financial crisis and the reaction of the government to that. Where did you first encounter the ideas of liberty, and how did that motivate you to get into Congress?

Amash: The ideas of liberty are something that have been with me since I was a child. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where they came from. I think they came from my parents' immigrant experience, coming to the United States. My dad came here as a refugee from Palestine. He was born in Palestine in 1940. And when the state of Israel was created in '48, he became a refugee. My mom is a Syrian immigrant. 

When my parents came here, they weren't wealthy. My dad was a very poor refugee. He was so poor that the Palestinians made fun of him. So that's really poor. When he came here, he didn't have much, but he felt he had an opportunity. He felt he had a chance to start a new life, a chance to make it, even though he came from a different background from a lot of people, even though his English wasn't great compared to a lot of people. So he came here and he worked hard, and he built a business. When we were young, he used to tell us that America is the greatest place on earth, where someone can come here as a refugee like he did and start a new life and have the chance to be successful. It doesn't matter what your background is. It doesn't matter what obstacles you face. You have a chance here and you don't have that chance in so many places around the world. 

I think that's where that spirit of liberty came from. It was from my dad's experience especially, my mom as well, coming here as a young immigrant. So I was always a little bit anti-authoritarian as a child. I rebelled against teachers at times. I didn't like arbitrary authority, let's put it that way. When someone would just make up a rule, like this is the rule, "I just say so/" Well, tell me why. 

Gillespie: Have you rethought that as a parent?

Amash: No, I mean, I let my kids think very freely.

Gillespie: As long as they follow the rules.

Amash: I don't mind when they are a little bit rebellious. I think it doesn't hurt for kids to have some independence. I encourage them to challenge their teachers, even when they think the teacher is wrong about something. I think that it's a good thing for people to go out there and not just accept everything as it is.

Gillespie: You famously, as a congressman, explained all of your votes on Facebook, which is a rare concession by authority to say, okay, this is why I did what I did.

Amash: Yeah. Actually, a lot of the people in leadership and in Congress didn't like that I was doing that because I was giving people at home the power to challenge them. Instead of just being told this is the way it is, now I was revealing what was going on.

Gillespie: You grew up in Michigan. You went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad and for law school. Was it there that you started coming across names like Hayek, and Mises, and Friedman, Rand, and Rothbard?

Amash: Not really, no. My background is in economics, my degree is in economics. I did well in economics at Michigan, but we sure didn't study Austrian economics. We didn't study Hayek. I think he might have been mentioned in one class. Very briefly he was mentioned, like there was one day where he was mentioned. But I'd say that what happened is, as I went through my economics degree, and then I got a law degree at Michigan as well, I started to realize that I had a lot of differences from other people who were otherwise aligned with me. I was a Republican. I aligned with them on a lot of things, but there were a number of issues where we didn't align— some of the foreign policy issues, but certainly a lot of civil liberties issues. 

I started to wonder, what am I? What's going on here? I just thought of myself as a Republican, and I would read the platform and hear what they're saying. They believe in limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty. 

But when push came to shove on a lot of issues, they didn't believe those things. They'd say they believe those things, but they didn't. I've told this story before, I just typed some of my views into a Google search, and up popped Hayek's Wikipedia page. Literally, it was like the top thing on Google. So I clicked on that, started reading about them, and I was already in my mid-20s at this time. And I was like, yes, this is what I believe.

Gillespie: It is interesting because you would have been coming of age during a time when the Republicans were ascendant. But they were the war party. And we were told after 9/11 that you should not speak freely. That was kind of a problem, right?

Amash: Yeah, sure. Throughout my life, I believed in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. These are critical values. Maybe they're the essence of everything that makes this country work. The idea that we come from a lot of places—there's an incredible amount of diversity in the United States. I think diversity is always treated or often treated like a bad word these days. But it's a blessing to our country that we have people who come from so many backgrounds. Actually, the principle of liberty is about utilizing that diversity.

It's in centrally planned systems where diversity is not utilized, where someone at the top dictates to everyone else and doesn't take advantage of any of the diversity. They say no, a few of us at the top, we know everything. It doesn't matter. All of your backgrounds, all of your skills, all of your talents, that doesn't matter. What matters is we've got a few people in a room somewhere, and they're going to decide everything. And they know best because they're experts.

Gillespie: You came into office in 2011, and it seemed like there was a real libertarian insurgency within the Republican Party. But more nationally in discourse, people were tired of continued centralization, and government secrecy—famously, a lot of Bush's activities and particularly war spending early on was done in supplemental and emergency preparations, not really open to full discussions.

All of the stuff coming out of the Patriot Act, somebody like Dick Cheney kind of saying we're in control. But then Obama also promised the most transparent administration ever and plainly did not deliver on that. 

That energy pushing back on centralization and government power and government secrecy that helped bring you and other people like you to Congress seems to have dissipated. Do you agree with that? And if so, what took that away?

Amash: Yeah, I agree with that. When I was running for office, both for State House in 2009 and when I got to Congress in 2011, there was a lot of energy behind a limited government, libertarian-ish republicanism. I felt like libertarianism was really rising. There was a chance for libertarian ideals to get a lot of traction. A lot of people who used to be more like Bush conservatives were coming around to the libertarian way. 

I felt really good about where things were heading. And for the first, I'd say three or four years that I was in Congress, I felt like we continued to move in the right direction. The creation of the Freedom Caucus was kind of a dream of bringing people together to challenge the leadership. They weren't all libertarians or anything like that. There are a few who are libertarian-leaning, but the idea that a group of Republican members—it wasn't determined that it was going to be only Republicans, but it ended up being Republicans—got together and said, "Hey, we're going to challenge the status quo. We're going to challenge the establishment." That was kind of a dream that had come together. 

Then when Donald Trump came on the scene, I think a lot of that just fell apart because he's such a strong personality and character, and had so much hold over a lot of the public, especially on the Republican side, that it was very hard for my colleagues to be able to challenge him. 

Gillespie: What's the essential appeal of Trump? Is it his personality? Is that that he said he could win and he ended up doing that at least once? Is it a cult of personality? What's the core of his appeal to you?

Amash: I think he is definitely a unique character. He has a certain charisma that is probably unmatched in politics. I don't think I've ever seen someone who campaigns as effectively as he does. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of the ethics of what he does or any of that, or the substance. 

Gillespie: To keep it in Michigan, he's a rock star. He's Iggy Pop. You may not like what he's doing on the stage, but you can't take your eyes off it.

Amash: That's right. He holds court. When he's out there, people pay attention. He really understands the essence of campaigning, and how to win a campaign. He understands how to effectively go after opponents. Now, again, I'm not saying that all of these things are necessarily ethical or that other people should do the same things, but he really understands how to lead a populist movement. 

Gillespie: How important do you think in his appeal is a politics of resentment, that somehow he is going to get back what was taken from you?

Amash: The whole Make America Great Again, there's a whole idea there of "someone is destroying your life, and I'm going to get it back for you." That's a very powerful thing to a lot of people. For a lot of people out there, it is more important to get back at others than necessarily to have some kind of vision of how this is all going to work going forward. It's not appealing to me because I understand, we live in one country. We have people of all sorts of backgrounds. And if you're going to persuade people, you have to be able to live with them and work with them, regardless of your differences. It doesn't mean that you can't be upset, be angry about what some other people are doing or saying. But there has to be an effort to live together here as one country. We have too much in common in this country.

Gillespie: Michigan was a massive swing state when he won the election. You voted to impeach Donald Trump. What went into that calculation? What was the reaction like to that? That's a profile in courage.

Amash: Well, I don't think that's my most courageous vote, not even by a long shot. 

Gillespie: What was? Naming the post office after your father?

Amash: I didn't name any post offices after my father, to be clear. I think that the courageous votes are the ones where everyone is against you. And I don't mean just one party. It's one thing to vote for impeachment and half the country loves what you did and half the country doesn't like what you did. That's, in my mind, not that challenging or difficult. It's when you take a vote and you know that 99 percent of the public is going to misconstrue this, misunderstand it, be against it. The vote is going to be something like 433 to 1 in the House or something like that. Those are the tough votes. And there are plenty of those votes out there, where you're taking a principled stand and you're doing it to protect people's rights. But it's not the typical narrative. 

Gillespie: Is there an example that, in your legislative record, you would put forth for that?

Amash: One of the ones I've talked about before is, they tried to pass some anti-lynching legislation at the federal level and everyone's against lynching, obviously, but the legislation itself was bad and would actually harm a lot of people, including harming a lot of black Americans. There was this idea that this legislation was good and parroted by a lot of people in the media. They didn't read the legislation. In fact, I complained about it and it mysteriously did not pass both houses of Congress after I pointed out all the problems with it. It did pass the House of Representatives. Did not pass both Houses and get signed by the president. Mysteriously, the next Congress, they reintroduced it and rewrote it in a way that took into consideration all of my complaints, and they tried to pass it off like they were just reintroducing the same legislation. I pointed out: They actually saw that there was a problem here and then tried to pretend like, "Oh, we're just passing it again." Those kinds of votes are tough because when you take the vote, everyone thinks you're wrong. Everyone. And you have to go home and you have to explain it. Those are the ones that are tricky. 

Back to the impeachment point. Look, I'd impeach every president. Let's be clear. I'm not the kind of person who's going to introduce impeachment legislation over every little thing that a president does wrong. When you introduce legislation to impeach a president, you have to have some backing for it. It can't just be one person saying, let's impeach. 

For example, I would definitely impeach President Biden over these unconstitutional wars 100 percent. But the idea of introducing impeachment legislation suggests there's other people who will join you. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in futility. You introduce it. It doesn't go anywhere. It just sits there. If we're going to impeach people, there has to be some public backing, which is why I try to make the case all the time for these impeachable offenses, why some legislation should be brought forth. But you've got to get the public behind you on that kind of stuff. I think that every president should be impeached, every recent president at least. 

Gillespie: If Trump's populism, national conservatism, and politics of resentment are sucking up a lot of energy on the right, how do we deal with the rise of identity politics and a kind of woke progressivism on the left? Where is that coming from? And what is the best way to combat that?

Amash: I think a lot of it is just repackaged socialist ideas, collectivist ideas. The idea of equity, for example, is really like a perversion of the idea of equality. In most respects, when people say equity, they mean the opposite of equality. It means you're going to have the government or some central authority decide what the outcomes should be, how much each person should have, rather than some system of equality before the law, where the government is not some kind of arbiter of who deserves what. When you think about it, there is no way for the government to do this. There's no way for the government to properly assess all of our lives. This is in many ways the point of diversity: we're all so different. There's no way that a central authority can decide how to manage all that. 

For many of the people on the woke left who say they care about diversity, they don't care about diversity if they're talking about equity. These things are in conflict with each other. The idea that you're going to decide that someone is more deserving than another based on some superficial characteristics. As an example—I've talked about this and I've talked about this earlier in this conversation—my dad came here with nothing as a poor refugee. Yet, in a lot of cases, he might be classified as just a white American. Even though he came here as an extremely poor Palestinian refugee. The New York Times, for example, classifies me as white. They might classify someone else who's Middle Eastern as a person of color.

I think a lot of this is just, someone is making decisions at the top saying, "Well, we think this person is more like this or that, and we're going to decide they're more deserving." But they don't know our backgrounds. They don't know anything about us. They don't know who deserves this or who deserves that. No central authority could figure that out. The best thing we can do is have a system of equality before the law, where the law treats everyone the same. It doesn't give an advantage to any person over another person. It may not be fair in some sense to some people. Some people might say, "well, that's not fair." 

Some people, instead of having a dad who's a Palestinian refugee, their dad was some Silicon Valley billionaire. Some person might have a dad who was a professor. Another person might have a dad who worked at a fast-food restaurant. You don't know what the differences are. The government can't figure all of this out and say who is more deserving than someone else. So I really think that the woke left, when they pushed this idea of equity, they're really pushing against diversity. They're saying, a few people at the top are gonna decide who's valuable and who's not valuable, and they're not going to actually take into consideration any of our differences, because no central authority could take it into consideration.

Gillespie: You are a libertarian, not an anarchist. You believe there is a role for government, but it should be obviously much more limited. You are also an Orthodox Christian. Could you talk a little bit about how in a world of limited government, a libertarian world, the government wouldn't be doing everything for everybody, but placing organizations and institutions like the church or other types of intervening, countervailing, mediating institutions would help to fill the gaps that are left by the government?

Amash: The place for these organizations is to help society, not to have government deciding it. When you have some central authority deciding it, you are really limiting the opportunities for the public. You're limiting the opportunities for assisting people. You're deciding that a few people are going to make all the decisions, rather than having a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals making decisions. 

When you centralize it all, there are a lot of people who are going to be missed, a lot of people who are going to be ignored. When you let the marketplace work this out, when you let private organizations work this out, there is a lot more opportunity for people who need help to get help. I think that's really important.

Gillespie: There was a libertarian wave—I like to call it a libertarian moment—which I think we're still living in, but we don't understand, rhetoric aside. What are the best ways to get libertarian ideas and sensibilities in front of young people, to really energize Gen Z? The world is getting young again. How do we make sure that these people are hearing and understanding and maybe being persuaded by libertarian ideas?

Amash: For one thing, we have to meet them where they are. I spend a lot of time, for example, asking my kids, which social media kids use these days? They're in a lot of places that the adults aren't. We might be on Facebook—I mean, my generation, your generation. Other people are on X or Twitter. And there are other people on TikTok. 

You have to meet them where they are and if they're not on X and—it's still weird to call it X—if they're not on X and you are, well, they're not hearing your message. That's an issue. That's something we all have to work on. I'm probably reaching primarily Gen X and millennial people on X, and I'm probably not reaching Gen Z people as well. I think we need to work on getting them in those places.

Also, I think people who have libertarian instincts, people who want to present libertarianism and have an opportunity, go speak to students at schools. I used to do this as a member of Congress. I used that opportunity as much as I could. When schools would invite me, I'd say, "Yes, I'd be happy to come to the school to speak to the students" and take all their questions and be open about being a libertarian. Tell them frankly that your philosophy is libertarianism and talk to them about it. I think it's great. A lot of teachers end up surprised. I've had many teachers walk up to me and whisper to me, "I think I'm a libertarian, too," after having the conversation because they have stereotypes about what it might mean to be a libertarian and you have the opportunity to change their mind.

Gillespie: I have seen a lot of chatter. I have actually helped publish a lot of chatter that you may be running for the U.S. Senate from the mediocre state of Michigan. Do you have an announcement that you would like to make?

Amash: As a part of the national championship-winning state of Michigan this year, I am exploring a run for Senate. The [Federal Election Commission] FEC requires me to state that I am not a candidate for Senate, but I am exploring a run for Senate. 

If you're interested in checking it out, go to https://exploratory.justinamash.com/. I'm giving it serious thought. I think that there is an opportunity for libertarians this year, and there's an opportunity to win a Republican Senate seat this year. So I'm looking at the Republican primary. I think this is probably the best shot libertarians have had in a long time in the state of Michigan.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

Photo Credits: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom

• Video Editor: Adam Czarnecki
• Audio Production: Ian Keyser
• Motion Graphics: Isaac Reese
• Cameras: Students For Liberty

The post Justin Amash: 'I'd Impeach Every President' appeared first on Reason.com.

PAX East is an expo that celebrates all things gaming as well as the gaming culture. The latest iteration of the event is all set to take place on March 21, 2024. At this event, CD Projekt Red has announced that they will take the community through the making of …