Liberty Under Pressure: The Libertarian Jew’s 2025 Highlight Reel

2025 felt like a year where the guardrails of a liberal, pluralistic society where tested from every direction at once. Some governments like Argentina have made serious strides towards freedom. Other trends, like greater protectionism with tariffs and redefining speech, show a downward spiral in a free and democratic society. What made 2025 especially chaotic was not only the events, but the collapsed of shared definitions, such as of harm, of kindness, and of responsibility. In this environment, defending such principles as free speech, voluntary association, and limits on state power seem more urgent than ever. Below summarizes some of my blog's highlights from 2025. 

Trade, Tariffs, and Persistent Economic Nationalism

In a world that ought to know better from past history, tariffs refuse to die. In an effort to double down on his tariff failures from his first term, he increased tariffs so much that it ended up being the largest tax hike in about 40 years. Trump used tariffs to try to tax everything from furniture and tomatoes to movies and automobiles. It permitted him to believe such tariff tomfoolery as the US needs to fight trade deficits, tariffs will help manufacturing, tariffs can replace the income tax, or a tariff dividend. Regardless of where he imposed his tariffs, the outcome is higher consumer prices, lower economic growth, and higher prices. So much for making America great again. 

Culture War: Free Speech on the Fritz

Few issues seemed to get out of hand this year more than the idea of freedom of speech. Disagreements that once played out socially or culturally have now devolved into physical violence, which was illustrated by the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk. We are in a weird age with speech. People increasingly believe in the toxic idea that words are violence. Preferred pronoun usage is being compelled in the name of kindness, not only as a social convention, but is starting to with government force. While the woke Left is the side commonly trying to control speech, the Trump administration decided to wield the weapon of cancel culture when it attempted to silence comedian Jimmy Kimmel. 

Accusing people of Islamophobia when they are merely presenting legitimate criticisms of the Islamic religion also became a trendy way to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech this year. The UK Supreme Court ruling on how biological women are only women showed how much gaslighting around the idea of "trans men are men" and "trans women are women," as well as of how much trans activists rely on censorship. But to tie all these events together, it has me more worried about freedom of speech than I ever have been in my entire life.

A Case for Shrinking the Federal Administrative State

With Trump creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it spurred skepticism from me about whether bureaucratic agencies can be improved with meager reforms, better messaging, or a bigger budget. I called for the elimination of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I also advocated for eliminating funding for PBS and NPR, as well as shrinking the role of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after the CDC ignored science for its anti-vaccine agenda. Abolition or sizable funding cuts are not radicalism for its own sake, but rather a recognition that most problems can be handled elsewhere, whether it is the private sector, civil society, or in certain cases, state or local government. 

Libertarian Pragmatism vs. Ideological Purity

It is true that I spent much of my blogging criticizing government largesse. There were some posts that reminded me that pragmatism matters as much as principle if you want to maximize freedom in this world instead of succumb to the all-or-nothing thinking that can be alluring. I wrote about some narrow, evidence-based health interventions that deliver real benefits without inviting massive state control. I made a libertarian case for PEPFAR on the grounds that it is a focused, effective humanitarian program without sprawling bureaucracy. In spite of legitimate libertarian concerns about autonomy, I also argued that water fluoridation is a scientifically validated, targeted public-health measure that helps dental health. Then there is the opt-out vaccine mandate, which is a policy that balances both individual freedom and protecting vulnerable populations from infectious diseases. 

These health policies are paradoxically libertarian in effect. By implementing narrow, targeted, evidence-based programs, the government addresses specific harms efficiently, which prevents the need for greater , more intrusive government intervention down the road. Without such programs, problems would fester and create pressure for expansive and considerably more coercive government solutions. 

Immigration and Integration: Failure of Immigration Policy on Both Sides of the Pond

In 2025, we saw how immigration policies can fail at both extremes. On the one end, Trump's restrictionism ignored basic facts, such as immigration in the U.S. is good for fiscal health and that immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than natives. As a result, he decided to carry out harmful mass deportation, enact a 1 percent remittances tax, and implement a $100,000 H-1B visa fee. 

Meanwhile, Europe's openness has created the opposite problem. Aside from its rigid labor markets and large welfare states, it has permitted a large influx of Muslim immigrants with illiberal beliefs. This has resulted in greater fragmentation, social tension, and growing intolerance for freedom. It is a stark lesson of what happens when borders are too open but do not have proper mechanisms for integrating its immigrants into greater society. This was not a debate about whether we should have open borders or close them completely, although that is a false dichotomy. Rather, it was showing what optimal conditions for immigration policy look like. 

2025 in Perspective

While these major themes dominated much of 2025, there was a slew of debates that did not neatly fit into categories. Those can be a burqa ban, Argentina's challenge of transitioning to a free-floating currency, equity grading, the fiction of Palestinian statehood, or Trump wanting to buy Greenland. Many of these events look like they are isolated. In fact, they reveal how fragile freedom and democracy are. It felt like a stress test more than anything and remind us how quickly political, cultural, and economic pressures can push institutions and individuals to the crazy extremes of the political spectrum. Freedom is not automatic and it can wither away at any given moment. Unfortunately, this trend of declining freedom worldwide was a result from the recently released Human Freedom Index. For better or worse, freedom needs vigilance and courage to keep it going, and I hope that 2026 brings what we need to reverse this global trend towards illiberalism. 

A Higher Class: Rescheduling Marijuana to Schedule III Is a Welcomed Step Towards Legalization

Marijuana has a peculiar place in American society. In 2024, 22.3 percent of Americans had used marijuana at least once in the past year. Support for marijuana legalization is at 70 percent. Yet because of President Nixon's War on Drugs, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. This is mind-boggling considering that even back in the 1970s, a government report known as the Schafer Commission concluded that cannabis did not constitute a danger to the public. Even so, Nixon went ahead with Schedule I classification anyway. For context, Schedule I is reserved for drugs that have "no current medically accepted use" and high potential for abuse. This put marijuana on the same legal level as heroin and meth. Cocaine is a Schedule II drug, which means from the viewpoint of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), marijuana is worse than cocaine.

Marijuana has retained that scheduling until last week. What happened last week? President Trump rescheduled marijuana to a Schedule III drug. Schedule III drugs are considered to have accepted medical uses while having a low potential for abuse and psychological dependence. I called for rescheduling marijuana a decade ago, but I suppose it is better late than never. Trump's decision has practical ramifications. One positive trend is that the rescheduling can reduce stigmatization of marijuana usage, particularly in terms of recognizing marijuana's legitimate uses. 

One of the biggest benefits will be for medical research. Under Schedule I, it was all but impossible to conduct medical research on marijuana due to the research restrictions. Research could only be done under the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Approval times were slow and the marijuana allowed was not research-grade. This rescheduling removes the NIDA monopoly on marijuana research. Schedule III does not eliminate research barriers. At the same time, Schedule III drugs do not require separate researcher registration; they also have less stringent laboratory controls and more limited reporting requirements. This means that more careful and precise research with fewer barriers can be conducted. What rescheduling will do is strengthen the evidence base. 

I already pointed out how marijuana affects public health in 2023. I bring this up because rescheduling removes the legal fiction that marijuana has no medical use, which by itself will further marijuana legalization because the federal government is recognizing that marijuana is not the boogeyman that it has been made out to be. That would explain why the likes of Heritage Foundation aren't thrilled: because it can no longer be demonized. Schedule III opens the door to marijuana prescriptions. At the same time, it does not allow whole-plant marijuana to be sold. It still needs FDA approval and meet certain requirements on dosing, formulation, and labeling. 

Furthermore, rescheduling has tax implications. Under IRS Code Section 280E, businesses trafficking Schedule I or II drugs cannot deduct business expenses from their gross receipts. According to the Reason Foundation, this has resulted in cannabis businesses paying up to four times as much in taxes as a non-cannabis business. Enabling these deductions will provide greater stability to the cannabis industry. 

Reason Foundation also points out that banking opportunities will improve for cannabis businesses. The PATRIOT Act has strict anti-laundering provisions for Schedule I and II drugs. Since financial institutions were risk-averse, they ended up being more stringent than even under DOJ regulations in order to not get into trouble. Hopefully, this will ease tensions and open transparency enough that cannabis businesses can open up bank accounts. Prior to rescheduling, cannabis businesses had to be cash-based businesses because they did not have access to financial inclusion. Handling large volumes of cash attracted violent crime. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out, greater financial inclusion can remove this temptation. 

Although rescheduling is an improvement, it should go without saying that rescheduling does not make marijuana legal. Federal law still conflicts with state legalization laws. This means that possession, distribution, and sale of marijuana remains a crime under federal law. Even with rescheduling, there are still barriers to medical research, marijuana prescriptions, and financial inclusion. Removing marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances would be the most prudent approach for federal drug law. At the same time, rescheduling is an example of what next-best policy looks like given political reality. I predicted in 2015 that it would be a long road to marijuana legalization, so I still think this is pretty dope.  

He, She, They, or Free Speech: Why Compelling "The Right Pronoun" Is Not Kind

Everyday social life is made more civil by small, unremarkable acts of politeness. Saying "please" and "thank you," holding a door open, or waiting in line instead of cutting in line are habits that reduce friction and make shared spaces more bearable. They are not acts on the level of piety of Mother Theresa, but they function as small acts of kindness nevertheless. In recent years, the use of preferred pronouns has been presented in a similar way: as a simple courtesy, a minimal act of respect, something decent people do without complaining. Questioning the practice is often treated as evidence of cruelty or bigotry rather than mere disagreement. 

This framing has always carried an implicit form of pressure. As I brought up in my 2022 criticism of the practice, pronoun usage is not merely suggested. Even if done so subtly, it is morally demanded and with social consequences for noncompliance. What is changing now is not the underlying logic, but the level of enforcement. A group of Long Island school organizations is in the process of suing New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging that the state is pressuring schools to mandate "the right pronouns," transforming social coercion into government-backed compulsion.   

I will tell you what my qualms and counterarguments are not. This is not a hit piece on transgender people. I have been consistent on this blog for about a decade about the fact that civil rights for all also means for transgender people. I have opposed transgender bathroom bans, transgender military bans, and stripping transgender people of their Second Amendment rights. Those policy positions come from the same place as my opposition to compelling pronoun usage, which is a commitment to individual liberty. 

Freedom of Choice

In a free society, transgender people have the right to live the way they choose, whether that is to medically transition at their own expense (as an adult only), to dress how they want, and to live their life as if they were the opposite biological sex. However, there is an element of "my rights begin where yours end" here. 

Transgender people can do all the things I just mentioned, but freedom for all also means that others are allowed to disagree, to reject another person's identity claims, and to decline such compelled speech as using someone else's preferred pronouns. Liberty does not require agreeing with everyone. Tolerance does not need affirmation to exist. After all, I, as a Jew, do not need to confirm the religious affirmations of a Christian, Muslim, or another religious person in order to treat them with dignity. Moral decency is how we treat people in spite of our disagreements. Being free to claim a certain identity does not mean you get to steamroll another individual's freedom of conscience or freedom of speech in the process.

Kindness Must Be Voluntary

Beyond this political dimension of freedom, framing pronoun usage as kindness obfuscates a certain reality. Kindness, by its very nature, is voluntary and presumes agency: it is not a one-way street. Kindness cannot be defined solely by the desires of the recipient. It requires a choice on the part of the person giving the kindness. If this practice were only about kindness, it would not require shaming, threats, accusations of bigotry, or use of government coercion. That is because much of pronoun usage is not about being kinder, but coercing a worldview. If kindness is coerced, whether by government mandate or social pressure, that is not compassionate or kind. It ceases to be a moral virtue and turns into compliance and ideological enforcement. Coercing pronouns erodes the very kindness that the practice was meant to encourage.  

Compelled Speech and Honesty

Compelled false affirmation compromises honesty because speech is not merely mechanical; it is expressive. Pronouns are not neutral placeholders. They convey claims about sex and gender, as we will see shortly. When someone is forced to use pronouns that affirm a view of sex that they do not believe to be true, they are asked to speak dishonestly, even if no malice is intended. 

Self-Respect and Resentment

This compelled speech also erodes self-respect. Being forced to affirm what one rejects is a form of self-suppression that signals that one's view is not merely wrong, but illegitimate. Over time, that does not breed kindness; it breeds quiet resentment. Psychological reactance theory posits that when people perceive their autonomy threatened by controlling language, they are more likely to resist and form negative attitudes toward the source of the message. This reactance could be contributing to why there is backlash against the trans rights movement, even when there is otherwise an absence of explicit malice. 

Movements that seek broad social acceptance depend on persuasion and goodwill, not compliance. I would argue that this "live and let live" approach was a major component of what made the gay rights movement so successful. When affirmation is extracted instead of earned, you might get the compliance. But it also means withdrawing the sympathy, which undermines the acceptance that such a policy is meant to promote. 

Stable Categories and Legal Clarity

The consequences of this pronoun usage go beyond social resentment and undermining kindness itself. This struggle with pronouns is also about language and reality. This was something I discussed extensively in April when praising the U.K. Supreme Court's decision that only biological women are actually women. Biological sex is not a societal construct nor is it a matter of self-definition. It is a legal category with concrete implications in such areas as sports, medical policy, and sex-segregated spaces. Laws need to be stable and intelligible categories to properly function. This is why I am so critical of gender identity-based legal protections. Creating categories without clear, limiting principles creates confusion about what is being protected and why. Pronoun mandates accelerate this confusion by requiring people to speak in a way that obscures rather than clarifies material distinctions that the law has recognized. When terms rooted in biological sex lose clear meaning, it makes it more difficult to protect gay rights and women's rights.

Truth, Morality, and Language

However, this is not solely about legal concerns. This is about whether people are permitted to speak plainly about biological reality, even when the truth is uncomfortable or inconvenient. Lying or being compelled to express something one knows to be false is neither factually nor morally neutral. Words carry meaning and language is meant to convey ideas in as precise and accurate of a manner as possible. Distorting meanings, especially when to fulfill a political agenda, undermines trust and erodes personal integrity. False statements have real-world consequences, from misapplied laws to confused social expectations. Kindness generally does not go hand in hand with lying or deception. Speaking truthfully, even when difficult, is essential for moral integrity and for preserving a shared understanding of the world. 

Conclusion: Obedience Is Neither Kind Nor Without Cost

Using preferred pronouns may seem effortless or costless. The reality is that this practice comes with the cost of punishing dissent, compromising truth, and violating freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Saying "it costs nothing" is nothing more than linguistic sleight of hand. Kindness cannot be coerced because morality is only meaningful when freely chosen. Language is a primary tool for navigating reality, forming relationships, and creating laws. When language is distorted, all of these facets of life suffer. Respect must be earned, not enforced. If society values honesty, freedom, well-functioning laws, and genuine goodwill, we need to resist the temptation to equate the obedience behind compelling pronouns with kindness. 

Sticks, Stones, and Statutes: Words Are Not Violence and Free Speech Must Never Become a Crime

Imagine a world where saying something controversial would not be considered speech, but rather an act of harm. I am not talking about metaphorical harm as in emotional discomfort, but actual violence. For most of history, that notion would have been considered extreme or exaggerated, but not anymore. Welcome to 2025! According to a recent survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), over 90 percent of college students believe that words are actual violence. 

Harm Is Not the Same Thing as Violence

To understand why these survey findings matter, we must first discuss why words are not violence in any meaningful sense. Those who believe that speech is violence do so under the assumption that harm is sufficient to consider speech violence. Let us think through that for a second. There are many things that can cause psychological harm: job loss, breakups, gossip, divorce, a lousy boss (I have had a couple), or facing failure in life. It would mean that a professor issuing a failing grade, a therapist confronting their patient, a friend talking an addict out of addiction, or a partner breaking up would all be considered acts of violence. This is not to say that words cannot cause harm, whether that is stress, fear, psychological deterioration, or other emotions. Words do matter and they have the potential to wound deeply. At the same time, the existence of harm does not erase the distinction of what makes violence so reprehensible. 

Why Violence Is a Distinct Moral and Legal Category

Violence has been its own distinct moral and legal category, and for good reason. Violence refers to the use of physical force or coercion against someone else. Violence describes a type of action, not an intensity of outcome or effect. It is a definition that matters because there is a fine line: violence bypasses consent and autonomy entirely. A punch to the face does not ask to be debated. Violence does not persuade, argue, or appeal; it overwhelms and removes agency. This is why violent acts have been treated seriously under the law. It is such a bright line that even under a libertarian lens, it justifies defensive force and criminal punishment precisely because it leaves no room for choice or bodily autonomy. 

Speech Preserves Agency, But Violence Eliminates It

One reason that "hate speech is violence" is problematic is because this equivocation undermines personal responsibility. Speech can cause harm, but at least it still allows for moral agency. Moral reasoning implies that individuals can hear words, experience discomfort or even experience harm, and still choose how to respond. As Stoic philosopher Epictetus stated that, "Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt famously said "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Speech can persuade, insult, inspire, or offend, but it does not compel. Even the harshest of rhetoric gives the listener the freedom to reject it, ignore it, or respond in kind. Violence gives people no such quarter. Believing that speech is violence is not a progression in morality. Treating speech as violence implies that people are passive victims of words and have zero agency. It is subtly dehumanizing because it robs people of their dignity and their moral resilience. 

Why Treating Speech as Violence Harms the Law

If the U.S. government were to ever categorize "hate speech" as a category of violence, the country would be screwed because it collapses useful distinctions upon which law, morality, and civil society depend. As I detailed in a previous piece I wrote about gender identity and legal categories, I argued that when the law abandons clear definitions in favor of vague, ever-expanding categories, it cannot protect human rights. The same danger exists here. If there is not a clear legal definition of violence and if the state ever decided that violence included hurtful speech, both the self-defense doctrine and freedom of speech boundaries would crumble. Disagreement would become an act of assault and there would be no distinction between persuasion and coercion. 

This concern is not new. In a 2023 piece I wrote, I warned how the woke Left's attempt to control language was already beginning to erode a sense of clarity. Today, the stakes are even higher. Labeling words as "violence" follows the same pattern, which collapses distinctions that allow society to separate persuasion from coercion, disagreement from assault, and offense from real harm. Without distinguishing between regular communication and assault, the definition of violence would be broken. 

When "Violence" Becomes a Euphemism for Disapproval

This pernicious definition would give the government a carte blanche to police speech. Why? Because especially in our age of fragility, the list of what can trigger or cause emotional distress is subjective and never-ending. Under this framework, violence would simply become a catch-all phrase for "I find this to be unpleasant, offensive, or emotionally distressing." The word no longer defines a uniquely heinous or dangerous act, but rather is a euphemism signaling moral disapproval. Once that happens, nothing is violence in any meaningful sense.

This is why the need to protect speech is more urgent than ever. As I argued in a 2024 piece, with roughly half of Americans openly hostile to certain kinds of speech, society cannot afford to redefine disagreement as assault. Without clear boundaries, we do not only risk misunderstanding. We risk the suppression of dialogue. If we took that authoritarian premise to its logical conclusion and caved into every microaggression or instance of emotional discomfort, freedom of expression would be dead. 

How Calling Words "Violence" Leads to Real Violence

Labeling words as violence would open the door for people to be physically violent towards one another because once words are labeled as "violence,” responding with force can be framed as self-defense rather than retaliation. Counter-violence would be legitimized and there would be a cultural permission for escalation, thereby increasing the risk of a downward spiral towards more violence. After all, this moral flattening and equivocation is how political activist and author Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Violence must mean actual violence, and not merely emotional harm or discomfort. Otherwise, the very concept that justifies society's strongest prohibitions is emptied of any actual substance. In short, saying that words are actual violence would cause society to take a nosedive.  

The Grave Cost of Losing the Meaning of Words

Even after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the vast majority of college students believe that words are violence. I find this to be disturbing. After four years of so-called "education" and tens of thousands of dollars spent in tuition, most students these days cannot understand the difference between conversation and coercion. This is the end-result of an educational culture that values emotional validation over facts, logic, or reason. All violence causes harm, but not all harm causes violence. Losing that distinction between violence and harm means that society cannot tell the difference between force and freedom. It also means that Charlie Kirk will be the first of many to be a victim to the toxic notion that "words are violence." America can and must do better if it is to remain a free, democratic society. Otherwise, do not be surprised when the United States descends into greater political polarization and political violence.

Burning Bright at Any Percentage: The Chanukah Miracle of Light, Effort, and Purpose

Chanukah is a time to reflect on one of the most miraculous moments in Jewish history: the victory of a small group of Jewish warriors over the powerful Seleucid Empire, and the subsequent rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. When Jews around the world light the menorah, which miracle are they celebrating? Is it the military victory itself or is it the fact that the oil that was supposed to last one night lasted eight nights? I asked myself this very question a couple of years ago. Much like the Talmudic rabbis (Talmud, Shabbat 21b), I sided more on the long-lasting oil theory. 

Upon delving further into the miracle of Chanukah, the answer becomes more nuanced than long-lasting oil. Was it merely that the oil lasted for eight nights? If the miracle was that the oil, which was supposed to last only one night, lasted eight nights, we should only celebrate for seven nights since the miracle was the extra seven nights. I was sitting in synagogue this past Saturday and the rabbi mentioned Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, also known as the Beis HaLevi (19 c.), in his sermon (d'var Torah). 

The Beis HaLevi's Reframing of the Miracle

The Beis HaLevi reframed the miracle of Chanukah. The Priests (Kohanim) knew there was only enough oil for one night. The Kohanim divided the oil into eight equal portions with the intent of burning a little each night for the full eight nights. The miracle is that, even with a scarcity of oil, it burned all eight nights and with the same intensity had there been a full supply. This helps explain why we celebrate Chanukah for eight nights and not seven nights. The rabbi I was listening to then emphasized how the miracle of Chanukah was not about quantity so much as it was about quality. 

Quality Over Quantity: A Lesson from the Talmud

We find this idea of quality over quantity in the Talmud (Berachot 5b). Rabbi Elazar fell ill and he was weeping. Rabbi Yochanan asked him why he was weeping. It was not due to the suffering he endured, which makes sense given he had to give up financial security to study Torah (Berachot 28a). Rather, he was not able to study Torah as much as he would like. Rabbi Yochanan comforted him, saying that if one person brought a large sacrifice to the Temple and another one a meager one, they are both equally meritorious if their heart was directed towards Heaven. If anything, I would argue that it was because of his strife that his sacrifice was more meaningful. 

The Shema: Wholehearted and Imperfect Devotion

The connection between the menorah shining brightly in spite of limited oil and Rabbi Elazar's heartfelt effort in Torah learning is that both can shine brightly if there is the quality, i.e., devotion. But what do we do when we are not at 100 percent? The menorah in the Chanukah story did not operate at 100 percent and yet it still shone. We see this concept in one of the most iconic of Jewish texts, the Shema. In the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:5), Jews are told to love G-d with all their heart, soul, and might. The Shema's call to love G-d is not about being perfect or operating at full throttle. It is about giving your best at every moment, no matter where we are at in life. By accepting that perfection is not the goal, the Shema offers us a sigh of relief. It allows us to engage with spiritual practice not as a burden of flawless performance, but as an opportunity to be present and genuine, regardless of where we are at in life. 

Wax versus Oil: Authenticity in Action

This lesson of being our best selves finds resonance in the way we light the menorah. I brought this up in 2016 when I examined the tension between the oil candles and the wax candles. The oil candles symbolize the ideal, the pure, and unwavering devotion. As the Shema teaches us, we cannot be perfect all the time. This is where the wax candles come into play. Wax candles, like so many of us, represent that we are not pure or perfect, but that our light can shine just as bright and authentic as the oil candles. The oil candles represent the spiritual aspiration, whereas the wax candles represent the reality of doing our best within the context of our imperfections and limitations. There are moments when we burn like the oil candle and others like the wax candle. We have to remember that our life circumstances mean that we have a bit of each in our lives. 

Finding Light in Imperfection

Much like wax candles, Rabbi Elazar was unable to offer perfection, but he offered sincere and earnest devotion. This reflects the message of the Shema, which is that we are to love G-d with all of our heart, soul, and might. We are not meant to be perfectly performing automatons. What matters is that we give wholeheartedly. We do not give our best 100 percent of the time because no one is capable of that feat. We give the best in every moment, whether it is at our peak or having reached rock bottom. 

This brings us to the heart of the Chanukah miracle as understood by the Beis HaLevi. The oil that survived warfare did not merely endure. It shone just as brightly as a full supply of oil. Like the menorah, our actions can burn just as brightly if offered with sincerity and intention. Whether we burn like pure, unwavering oil or like the imperfect wax candle, the light we offer is still meaningful. This Chanukah, may we shine with the authenticity, sincerity, and effort to wholeheartedly do our best, even in the darkest of times. 

Two Years of Milei: Is Argentina's Libertarian Gamble a Miracle or Mayhem?

Two years into President Javier Milei's presidency, Argentina remains in the midst of one of the most ambitious economic overhauls attempted by any modern democracy. What began as shock therapy for an ailing economy evolved into a test of whether a country long plagued by populism, interventionism, and government spending can reinvent itself and be thriving again. 

Argentina is moving past the initial chaos of Milei's early reforms. Expectations, results, and political reality are all colliding into an interesting intersection, especially in light of the recent midterm elections giving Milei a bigger mandate than I imagine Milei himself was anticipating. With yesterday marking the two-year anniversary of Milei getting elected into office, it is time to see where Milei stands and whether his libertarian gamble has paid off. 

Milei's Successes 

Much like I did during Milei's one-year anniversary, here are some of the indicators that show that Argentina is faring better than it was before Milei assumed the presidency: 

Inflation rate - Argentina has had a chronic inflation problem, as the country's inflation data from El Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC) indicates. The increase in inflation that Argentina goes through in a month is what a typical Western nation goes through in a year, which gives an idea of the economic pain that Argentina endures. For the most recent month available, October 2025, that number was an increase of 2.3 percent. However, this is much lower than the peak of 25.5 percent that Argentina reached in December 2023 (Reuters). Argentina's annual inflation rate has not been this low since 2018. If Milei can continue with reducing inflation, it will show durable growth, investment, and social-economic stability.

GDP - As INDEC GDP data indicate, Argentina's GDP has been on an overall growth trajectory since Q4 2024. It cooled off a bit in Q2 2025 at -0.1 percent, but on a year-to-year basis, Argentina's economy expanded by 6.3 percent. Why did it not start growing before Q4 2024? Because Milei implemented shock therapy to the economy, including massive cuts to public spending, removing subsidies, a 54 percent devaluation, and tight monetary policy. These were all necessary measures to get hyperinflation under control, but they do mess with short-term economic output. 

Fiscal consolidation - Fiscal consolidation, which is the reduction of deficits through spending restraint, subsidy cuts, and  improved revenue discipline, has been one of the clearest markers of Argentina's policy shift under Milei. As this OECD report shows, Argentina achieving a primary surplus after years of chronic imbalances sharply reduced the need for money printing. Fiscal consolidation helps stabilize prices and expectations. These moves signal to investors and markets that Argentina is laying the groundwork for a more sustainable and growth-oriented economy. 

Capital markets - An August 2025 IMF report shows that Argentina regained access to capital markets ahead of schedule. Decades of defaults, capital controls, and runaway inflation effectively closed off Argentina from the global capital markets, leaving the country more reliant on domestic financing. According to the IMF, fiscal consolidation, monetary tightening, and foreign exchange rate liberalization rebuilt investor confidence enough to start opening up access once more. The reason why this is important is that it suggests restored and improving investor confidence, which is a key precondition for foreign investment, external financing, and sustainable growth. As long as there are not renewed or external shocks, this should hold for Argentina.

Areas for Improvement

While I commend Milei for these accomplishments, there is still work that needs to be done for Argentina to truly reform. I am not going to be able to cover everything, but these are a few that caught my eye.

Labor Market Pressure - INDEC measures what is "labor market pressure," which is a combination of unemployed, underemployed, and those seeking another job. This aggregate figure is at 30.5 percent, when it was at 29.7 percent the year before. This figure is concerning for Milei because it signals labor stress beyond the official unemployment rate. Essentially, it implies that Milei's reforms have yet to translate into widespread labor market confidence. This is an issue because without contracts, benefits, or stable incomes to make formal employment more attractive, Milei's economic growth will happen more slowly than he would like. 

Corruption and Civil Liberties - There was no improvement of Argentina's scoring in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). This can suggest that Milei's approach has not translated into stronger accountability, transparency, or control over corruption. PEN International also expressed concerns about freedom of expression declining since Milei came into power. On the other hand, Argentina's Freedom House score remains steady at 85 and Argentina is still classified as a Free Nation. Considering that Argentina was run by a military junta that was kidnapping citizens about half a century ago, this is a good thing. 

Cost of Living Pain - Even as inflation has decreased considerably by Argentinean standards, that does not mean that everything is hunky-dory. This was a paradox I experienced when I visited Argentina a couple of months ago, that the macroeconomic figures looked good, but things are still quite unaffordable. First, lower price increases do not ignore that prices continue to rise and that it's still expensive. Second, there are certain goods that skyrocketed. For example, the public services basket, which includes gas, transport, water, and electricity, increased by about 526 percent since December 2023. This is in contrast to the 164 percent by which the overall Consumer Price Index increased. In other words, the public services basket increased about three times the overall inflation. 

Food Prices and the Poor - This is also the case for food prices. Meat, dairy, and bread saw particular spikes in 2025. Food inflation is a persistent problem in Argentina, especially for the poor and those working in the informal labor market. Since these staples remain expensive for many households, it does not feel like gains are being made. Food prices rose to a new high plateau during the initial economic shock therapy in 2024, which hits the poor harder because a larger percent of their income goes to food. Milei is fixing the macroeconomy and doing so faster than anticipated. This is not unique to Argentina's economic shock therapy. It follows the same moral geometry that happens with any economic shock therapy. Why? The poor feel the costs the most because they are the least able to absorb those shocks. The question is how longer it will take for Milei to complete the transition, and how longer the poor can endure the associated costs.

Postscript

Given the mess that Milei inherited, I would say that he has done an outstanding job. Milei's first two years have shown that fiscal consolidation, tight monetary policy, and reducing public spending can bring inflation down, balance the budget, and increase economic growth. While these are major successes in comparison to what Argentina was like in 2023, there are still considerable challenges. The formal labor market has shrunk, informal labor remains large, and many households face economic stress, regardless of what official poverty statistics have to say. 

I brought this up when analyzing Argentina's monetary policy vis-à-vis the crawling band last October. Argentina needs to go beyond macroeconomic headline numbers. For Argentina to have long-term growth, Milei will need to address deep structural challenges alongside his macroeconomic reforms. This includes deregulating labor to encourage more formal hiring, simplifying the tax code, liberalizing trade to boost competitiveness, and phasing out subsidies and price controls, to name a few. Even with a stronger mandate from the midterms, Milei's reforms still face political pushback, social resistance, and institutional inertia that could slow or complicate the path to longer-term stability. But If Milei can navigate the landmines entailed in implementing these next steps, the foundations for long-term prosperity will be established and economic stability will become a norm for Argentina.

¡Viva la libertad, carajo! 

Another Silent Cost of Lockdowns: Language and Social-Cognitive Delays That Threaten Children’s Potential

It is hard to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic began nearly six years ago. In some respects, it feels like it happened yesterday. I remember shortly before the lockdowns started to take effect in the United States, I wrote about how we should have relied more on voluntary social distancing instead of lockdowns. Unfortunately, politicians across the country (and indeed the world) panicked and imposed lockdowns in the name of "following the science," even in spite of the fact that pandemic guidance from the likes of the World Health Organization and Johns Hopkins was to not implement lockdowns. 

Children Paid the Price

Many warned that such unprecedented restrictions would come with considerable costs, myself included. Years later, the ramifications of those lockdowns are playing out. I wrote a three-parter on it earlier this year (see here, here, and here). What is sad is that children bore the brunt of these costs. I first discussed in 2022 how lockdowns, school closures, and other pandemic measures would impose heavy costs on children. Sadly, the evidence continues to mount. 

Scotland's Shock: The Lancet Study

A study published at the Lancet (Hardie et al., 2025) last month adds something more alarming to the ledger, even more so when I covered a British study in 2023 about lockdowns and social-emotional development. It examined the relationship between COVID-19 public & social health measures (PSHM) and developmental concerns among about 258,000 Scottish children. This is significant since it is the largest known analysis of population-level statistics to assess the relationship between PSHM and development concerns in Europe, which is a great sample size. What did the study find? The study's most pronounced findings were a reduction in language acquisition and social-cognitive skills. These delays were more pronounced in children from families with fewer resources, i.e., the poor. The proportion of toddlers flagged with at least one developmental concern increased by up to 6.6 percentage points compared with pre-lockdown trends.

Not an Isolated Incident: A Global Problem

You can say that this was an observational study, so it is not as good as an experimental study in respect to proving causation. You can also say that it was limited to Scotland, so you cannot extrapolate too much. Here's the thing. This is not the only study to find such delays:

• A cohort comparison study found that 3.5-5.5-year-old children tested after the lockdowns performed significantly worse on "false-belief" tasks (a measure of social cognition) the similar pre-pandemic children, even after controlling for age and language ability (Scott et al., 2024).
• A meta-analysis of 10 studies across six countries from the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics found significant impairment of language and communication skills in early childhood development (O'Connor et al., 2025).
• A cross-sectional study conducted in Turkey of 709 children found incidents of increased delays in linguistic and personal-social skills in children assessed during the pandemic relative to pre-pandemic (Özkan, 2025).
• A study from South Korea found that children aged 30-36 months during the pandemic had a higher risk of neuro-developmental delays in the communication and social interaction domains compared with pre-pandemic children, especially for those of low socio-economic status (Lee et al., 2024).
• A broad systemic review of lockdowns in the U.S. generally found detrimental effects on child development (Taylor et al., 2025).

Why Early Development Matters

There is increased evidence of the adverse effects that lockdowns and school closures had on early childhood development. This is serious because these sorts of delays are not temporary. Developmental psychology research suggests that early language and social-communication deficits correlate with persistent behavioral, social, and academic difficulties later in life. 

Socioeconomic Inequality Widened

As some of these studies indicate, the impact was disproportionately felt among lower-income households. That makes intuitive sense. Most people of low socioeconomic status are not part of the "laptop class." They faced greater economic stressors during the pandemic. For children in lower-income families, lockdowns were compounded by smaller living spaces, limited access to digital learning tools, heightened parental stress, and fewer extracurricular opportunities. When you couple the unequal starting point imposed by socioeconomic differences with delays in foundational developmental skills, this creates a feedback loop that magnifies inequality. 

The Left and the Lockdown Lovers

I remember a time before the pandemic when income inequality was a cause célèbre for many on the Left. During the pandemic, those on the Left were more supportive of strict COVID measures than those on the Right (Pew Research). I bring this up because there is a sad irony here. During the pandemic, there was a strong correlation between political leanings and support for lockdown policies. Many of those who decried income inequality before the pandemic were some of the most enthusiastic of the Lockdown Lovers. Yet they overlooked how these COVID measures widened the very gaps they claimed to oppose. In effect, the group of people most concerned with income inequality were the ones who supported interventions that deepened the intergenerational divide that they had opposed pre-pandemic.

Lockdowns: A Disaster for Children and Society 

This brings us to the tragic punchline. The Lancet study, with a growing mountain of research, shows that lockdowns simply did not slow down child development. They did so most for the kids whose families had the fewest resources to weather the pandemic. These early delays increase the likelihood of reduced educational attainment, higher rates of special educational needs, and potential long-term economic consequences. These early developmental delays can echo through a child's entire life, affecting academic achievement, social skills, mental health, and even future economic productivity, with consequences that could persist for decades. While not all children will experience these outcomes, these risks are real, measurable, and consequential. Meanwhile, the lockdowns and the subsequent developmental delays directly widened the socioeconomic gaps that had historically been derided by the Left. The "lockdowns should protect the vulnerable" narrative did not simply fail. It harmed the people it was meant to protect. 

To call the lockdowns a policy misstep would be a woeful understatement. They were one of the worst peacetime public-policy decisions enacted in human history because it was an unprecedented social experiment recklessly implemented with disastrous results and very few benefits. At this point, what we as a society can do is acknowledge the harm done, do our utmost to help the children whose developmental skills were delayed with mitigation and remediation programs, hold decision-makers accountable for their failures, raise awareness of how public policy enacted in an emergency and done in the name of fear can backfire, and make sure that we never hand over power to people who are so addicted to their moral superiority that they cannot even be bothered to do a basic risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis before wreaking havoc on the people they swore to serve and protect.