There are concepts that, while seemingly abstract, possess a profound and often insidious power to shape our lives, our societies, and the very future of human liberty: Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Extremism. These are not mere political labels; they are pathologies of power, each representing a regression from the nuanced, individual-centric flourishing that defines true civilization.

Let us begin with Extremism. What is it, at its core? It is, as I see it, the inability to tolerate difference. It is the fervent, often zealous, conviction that there is but one voice, one truth, one correct path to be permitted, and all others must be silenced or eradicated. Consider the passionate advocate, utterly convinced of their singular truth. While passion can fuel progress, when it metastasizes into the belief that their truth is the only truth, and that all deviation is heresy, then we witness the birth of extremism.

I am a skeptic. I believe truth exists, but it does not reside solely within the domain of secular human beings, nor can any single individual or group claim its exclusive dominion. A philosophical inquiry into epistemology reveals a myriad of pathways to understanding. To assume one's own beliefs are universally and perpetually true is a dangerous hubris. Extremism, in this light, is the most perilous form of collectivism, It is a mindset that cannot abide the tiniest divergence, seeking either to coerce assimilation or to utterly annihilate dissent.

From extremism, we turn to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, systems that embody this collective impulse at the governmental level.

Totalitarianism, in its most chilling form, seeks total control. It is a system of governance that infiltrates every conceivable aspect of human existence – what we wear, what we do, what we see, what we hear. It is not merely a restriction of freedom, but an absolute subjugation of the individual to the state, a relentless flattening of human experience into a singular, state-sanctioned mold. Every private corner of life, every personal choice, becomes a matter of public decree, enforced by the pervasive hand of the ruling power.

Authoritarianism, while perhaps less all-encompassing, is no less dangerous in its implications. It usurps the domain of right versus wrong, wresting it from the individual and placing it in the hands of those in positions of power. Herein lies a critical distinction: the difference between truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. My preference for a certain food, your aesthetic choice – these are matters of individual taste, not universal judgment. Yet, under an authoritarian regime, such personal preferences can be elevated to matters of "right" or "wrong," stripping away individual autonomy and fostering a culture of compliance.

The slippery slope here is terrifyingly steep. When matters of personal choice become matters of right and wrong, they can then be transmuted into matters of truth itself. Those holding differing beliefs, those practicing alternative ways of life, are then deemed "untrue," "unhuman." This dehumanization is the fertile ground from which the most horrific atrocities spring, fundamentally altering how we perceive and treat our fellow human beings.

The mechanics of control, particularly in politics, are deceptively simple: how a small cohort can manipulate a vast populace into compliance, even into serving their narrow interests. Often, it's not brute force alone. It is the cultivation of fear, the narrative that the "weak" must seek protection from a "strongman" or an omnipotent state. Yet, the stark reality is often the inverse: the collective, driven by fear and dependency, becomes the unwitting bulwark for the very "strongmen" who exploit their anxieties.

Consider the role of Ideology and Identity. These are intimately intertwined. What we believe often defines who we are. Contemporary politics is rife with "identity politics," just as the 19th century saw "class struggle." These are attempts to categorize, to group individuals based on shared characteristics or economic status, and then, crucially, to antagonize these groups against one another. It becomes a simplistic "we versus them" narrative, obliterating the rich tapestry of individual identity.

But each of us is more than a member of a single group. We are, at once, independent individuals and members of myriad associations: family, profession, hobbies, language, shared geography. The critical question for a free society is where we draw the boundary between our individuality and the rest of the world. It is not an antagonistic relationship; it is not "I against the world." Rather, it is "I, existing as a complete individual, also belonging to diverse groups that may cooperate or conflict." The danger arises when totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and extremist organizations, forbid this multiplicity of identity, seeking to flatten complexity into a simple, fanatical "we versus them."

So, how do we safeguard against such insidious forces? The answer lies not merely in the ritual of elections, though they serve the vital purpose of ensuring no one clings to power indefinitely. Democracy is far more profound than mere electoral politics. It is, first and foremost, about the respect for differences. We must accept that in a free and open society, disagreement is not merely inevitable, but essential. The challenge lies in where we draw the boundaries of this disagreement. If a matter does not involve us, if it does not infringe upon our fundamental rights, it is simply not our business to dictate the choices of others. This is the essence of subsidiarity: that power and decision-making should reside at the level closest to the individual, wherever possible and necessary.

Beyond elections and subsidiarity, the true bastions of a democratic society are:

Firstly, free speech absolutism. There will always be speech we deem hateful or foolish. But once we open the Pandora's Box of censorship, we embark upon a perilous slippery slope, where more and more ideas become forbidden, and the very marketplace of thought is choked. We must tolerate speech we disagree with, for the alternative is intellectual tyranny.

Secondly, the free market. Believe it or not, the financial market, in all its chaotic glory, is often the most potent check on governmental overreach. Governments, particularly modern ones, are deeply dependent on financial markets for public financing. Without this lifeblood, ruling coalitions falter, and even the most tyrannical aspirations cannot be sustained. A free market, therefore, is not merely a means to accumulate wealth, but a crucial bulwark against unchecked state power.

Thirdly, and intrinsically linked, is an independent judiciary. A functioning free market, built on competition and cooperation, demands an impartial arbiter of disputes, particularly commercial ones. A judiciary free from political interference is the very avatar of fairness and predictability, allowing the complex dance of commerce and innovation to flourish.

Finally, and perhaps most profoundly, lies the cultivation of civil society. This is not a government program or a political party; it is a state of mind. It is when individuals, unbidden and uncoerced, ask themselves: "What can I do? What can we, voluntarily, do to make the world a better place?" It is a psychological state of self-belief, a rejection of the culture of dependency that leads societies to become subservient to the state. We must believe in ourselves, in our neighbors, and in the power of voluntary action to mend, to build, and to uplift.

Young people today face immense anxieties, particularly in a world transformed by economic and technological shifts that displace traditional certainties. But the government is not a savior; it can, indeed, be the very source of the problem. Fear, whether among the young or reflected in the media, can easily drive us into the arms of "strongmen" – figures who are not truly strong, but rather exploit our anxieties to fortify their own regimes.

True civilization is built on individuals who believe in themselves, who resist the psychological urge to surrender their autonomy to external powers. It is a continuous act of self-reliance, of voluntary engagement, and of a steadfast commitment to the values of liberty, skepticism, and the tolerance of difference. Let us embrace these principles, for they are our most powerful defenses against the encroaching shadows of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and extremism.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

It has been some time since the last update.

The seismic shifts following the events of early 2020 have left many feeling adrift. Subsequently, the trade war destabilized markets. The push for deglobalization is a worrying retreat from the principles of comparative advantage and global cooperation that have historically driven prosperity.

Yet, from a historical and free-market perspective, perhaps we should have anticipated some of this.

Social discontent is perennial. The siren call to employ governmental coercion never truly fades. These impulses intensify during periods of rapid technological and societal change, as anxieties about individual circumstances rise. The working class often blames globalization for job losses, failing to recognize that these very forces of free trade have expanded access to a higher standard of living. Similarly, the fear of technological unemployment, while understandable, overlooks the creation of new opportunities. This climate of uncertainty bears a striking resemblance to the populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where similar anxieties fueled demands for protectionist policies and increased state control, at the expense of peace and liberty.

The transition from the fractured and belligerent nationalism of the early 20th century to the rules-based system of the post-World War II era resulted from deliberate efforts to build international institutions – such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, and later the World Trade Organization. In many ways, the past seventy-odd years have represented a triumph of core liberal ideals on a global scale: the emphasis on free trade, peaceful resolution of disputes, and the rule of law instead of the law of the jungle.

In the optimistic aftermath of the Cold War during the 1990s, a sense of finality, an "end of history," permeated intellectual discourse, with the triumph of liberal democracy seemingly assured. Nevertheless, this perspective significantly downplayed the enduring and often insurmountable role of geopolitics in shaping the destinies of nations. The underlying dynamics of power, competition, and national interest were never fully extinguished by ideological victory alone.

Rules-based systems, for all their merits, remain inherently fragile. Their efficacy hinges on the adherence of even the most powerful nations to the core tenets of classical liberalism, particularly the safeguarding of individual liberty. When these foundational principles are compromised by leading states – as witnessed, for example, when the American government itself infringes upon personal freedoms – the very legitimacy and stability of the international order are undermined.

The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks marked a significant turning point. The perceived exigencies of national security led the United States to increasingly curtail personal liberties in ways that would have been unthinkable just a decade prior. Surveillance programs expanded, due process was questioned, and the very definition of individual freedom seemed to contract under the weight of fear.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 further eroded faith in the principles of free markets and limited government intervention. Government bailouts across the developed world signaled a decisive shift towards greater state involvement in the economy. This interventionist turn further weakened the ideological consistency of the prevailing international order.

This weakening of the ideological foundations of the liberal international order created a vacuum, which China, with its rapidly growing economic and geopolitical influence, has been increasingly eager to fill.

Rather than adhering to the set of broadly free-market economic policies championed by the USA and international financial institutions for decades (often termed the "Washington Consensus"), China has promoted an alternative vision often termed the "Beijing Consensus." The Beijing Consensus, while not always explicitly defined, generally emphasizes state-led economic development, authoritarian political control, and a focus on national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. China’s growing economic power, fueled by its blend of state capitalism and export-oriented growth, has allowed it to project its influence and forge partnerships with nations.

As an authoritarian regime, the Chinese Communist Party’s motivations extend beyond mere economic development; a significant geopolitical agenda is at play. The Belt and Road Initiative, in part, aims to cultivate a bloc of nations that are more aligned with China’s authoritarian model of governance, fostering a geopolitical sphere of influence composed of similarly structured regimes.

From this perspective, the optimism surrounding the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, with its perceived triumph of liberalism, may have been premature. While the Soviet Union collapsed, the underlying currents of geopolitical tension never truly vanished. As great power competition intensifies and different ideological blocs solidify, nations may increasingly turn inward, emphasizing national identity and security in response to perceived external pressures and the shifting balance of power.

The COVID-19 crisis, erupting in early 2020, served as another powerful accelerant to the trends we've been discussing. The pandemic and the subsequent global response further fueled discontent amongst populations worldwide and significantly eroded trust in established institutions, both domestic and international. When people feel that traditional authorities – whether political, scientific, or economic – have failed them, they become more susceptible to simplistic narratives and charismatic leaders promising radical change.

This erosion of trust in institutions created a fertile ground for populist sentiments to take root and flourish. As Eric Hoffer observed in The True Believer, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." Subsequent waves of crises since the 9/11 terrorist attacks have generated widespread anxiety and a sense of societal breakdown, inadvertently creating fertile ground for the identification of such "devils." Whether it was a virus, specific social groups, or perceived institutional failures, these crises provided readily available targets for blame and fueled the kind of collective animosity that often underpins populist movements.

Another, perhaps less conventionally discussed, episode during the COVID-19 crisis that illuminated the rising tide of populist sentiment and the erosion of trust in established financial institutions was the meme-stock frenzy, exemplified by the dramatic GameStop saga. Fueled by hype and a populist call to arms orchestrated by Reddit users on platforms like r/WallStreetBets, this movement saw a surge of individual investors banding together to challenge institutional investors – specifically hedge funds that had bet against these companies.

The narrative that emerged was one of a David-versus-Goliath battle: ordinary retail investors uniting to defeat the perceived "corrupt elite" of Wall Street. This resonated deeply with a population already feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of traditional financial systems in the wake of the 2008 crisis and the economic uncertainties of the pandemic. The call to "arm" oneself with stock purchases to inflict financial pain on institutional investors became a form of populist rebellion, a way for the "common person" to strike back against a system they felt was rigged against them.

As we consider the trajectory of these populist movements, Eric Hoffer's framework in The True Believer offers further insight: "A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action." The intense fervor of populist movements, often driven by rhetoric, will eventually subside as the limitations of simplistic solutions become apparent and the "men of words" exhaust themselves.

However, this does not mean the end to societal discontent. Just as one wave recedes, another is brewing. History rarely progresses in a straight line. It is a tapestry woven with conflicting views and values, marked by periods of both advancement and regression. New forms and flavors of populism, fueled by different grievances, will emerge.

It is not the absence of conflict, nor the guarantee of immediate consensus, that defines a resilient society. But rather its ability for diverse perspectives to contend, to be scrutinized, and to evolve through free exchange remains the most reliable compass. As old certainties crumble and new anxieties emerge, the seeds of progress, however unconventional or challenging in their inception, will take root and shape the world to come, emerging from the cacophony of competing voices.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

As a free marketeer, I typically do not publicly support candidates for political office.

The following interview with the leader of the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, was recorded in March. I also want to be transparent and disclose that my friend Mimi Lee is running for the Markham-Thornhill seat in Ontario, and Mr. Bernier and I also have mutual friends within libertarian and classical liberal circles. Despite these connections, the focus of this interview remains on exploring current Canadian economic and social issues from a non-mainstream liberal perspective.

* Productivity and Economic Growth:

* Bernier argues Canada's productivity has significantly slowed due to excessive government regulation, high taxes, and business subsidies.

* He proposes deregulation, lower business taxes (a 15% flat tax), eliminating capital gains tax, and ending business subsidies to stimulate investment and productivity.

* He also argues that mass immigration has lowered GDP per capita, creating an illusion of growth while making individuals poorer.

* He suggests a pause on immigration to force businesses to reinvest in automation, and therefore increase productivity.1

* Government Spending and Deficit:

* Bernier criticizes the combined federal, provincial, and municipal deficits, advocating for a balanced budget within a year.

* He proposes cutting foreign aid and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and UN migration compact.2

* Trade and International Relations:

* He advocates for free trade, including eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement to include the removal of supply management cartels in dairy, poultry, and eggs.

* He supports an open, not isolationist, Canada.

* He expresses concern about Chinese and Indian interference in Canadian politics and advocates for stricter controls on foreign investment, particularly from China, in natural resources.

* Immigration:

* Bernier proposes a temporary pause on immigration to address housing and healthcare crises.3

* He advocates for a streamlined immigration process with face-to-face interviews and a focus on immigrants who share Western civilization values.

* He is against the current system where people use student visas or temporary work permits as back door ways to become permanent residents.

* People's Party of Canada:

* Bernier describes the party as a populist, free-market party aiming to increase its vote share.

* He emphasizes the party's commitment to individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect, and fairness.

* He claims that he is principled, and that his party does not focus on polls.4

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

A few days ago, I attended an event where someone asked, "Why doesn’t the CCP just ‘take care’ of Jimmy Lai? Wouldn't that be the simplest solution?"

It was the launch of Mark Clifford’s new book, The Troublemaker. I was there as an audience to show support. During the discussion, the topic of how authoritarian regimes deal with dissidents came up. Everyone understood the implications of "take care" in this context.

After the book launch, I stayed behind with a few acquaintances to discuss the issue further. My take is this: "A living, breathing Jimmy Lai is far more useful to the CCP."

Why is that?

The CCP's goal is to destroy the symbol of Jimmy Lai. What does Jimmy Lai represent? He embodies a certain kind of Hongkonger — someone who fled Communist China’s oppression, found freedom and opportunity in Hong Kong, and ultimately dedicated himself to defending the city’s freedom and universal values. Back in the 1950s and 60s, there were many people like him in Hong Kong — people who chose to become Hongkongers. Life in Hong Kong wasn’t easy back then, but after decades of hard work, the city became the place we all grew to know and love.

If the CCP were to act "without thinking" and permanently eliminate Jimmy Lai, the only message they'd be sending to the world is: "So what?" But the bigger problem for them is that such an act would immortalize him. He would be elevated from a mortal being to a spiritual figure — a "Hong Kong version of Martin Luther King" — remembered and revered for generations.

Sure, some might argue that in a decade or so, people will forget who Jimmy was. But in today’s world, thanks to the information revolution, the half-life of collective memory has grown much longer. People live longer too, and many are dedicated to preserving these histories. It’s been five years since 2019, and yet, many of the events of that year remain vivid in people's memories. Ten, twenty, or even fifty years from now, Hong Kong’s history will still not be forgotten.

That’s why the CCP’s strategy is not to simply erase people. CCP wants to rewrite history. And to rewrite history, you must first change the people within it. That means forcing them to publicly confess, discrediting them, and obliterating their dignity and reputation. Once that’s achieved, these people lose all symbolic value. By then, whether or not they remain alive becomes irrelevant.

That’s why, in the Apple Daily case, the authorities pressured other employees to become witnesses against Jimmy Lai. The goal was to make it appear as though even his own people had betrayed him.

The CCP's ultimate goal is for Jimmy Lai to surrender and confess. But they have gravely underestimated him.

Frankly, I understand why our former colleagues might seek leniency through compromise. But they’re being naive. After they testify, they will have exhausted their usefulness to the CCP. They will have no bargaining power left.

I even suspect that because Jimmy Lai remains resilient, he is inadvertently protecting his former colleagues. The CCP might still see value in using them to push the narrative further — telling even more outlandish lies — just to reinforce the image of Jimmy Lai as a villain. In doing so, these witnesses maintain some utility to the regime.

From a game theory perspective, Jimmy’s best option is to stand firm. It’s not just a moral decision or an act of self-loyalty — it’s also the optimal choice for everyone involved.

Meanwhile, the CCP will continue to use every tactic they can think of to crush Jimmy Lai as a person and reshape the world's perception of him.

In chess, this scenario is known as a stalemate. When your opponent assumes you’ve already lost, but you deny them the ability to win, you create a stalemate.

I’m sharing this idea because I believe CCP needs to recognize this for what it is: a stalemate. Only then will there be a chance for it to end.

At Mark Clifford’s book launch, he made a remark that resonated deeply with me. He said he hadn’t had the chance to see Jimmy Lai in the past four years. Yet, from his court appearances, it’s clear that his years of ascetic living had only made him stronger and more faithful to himself.

Jimmy’s religious faith has given him wisdom. He was baptized after the 1997 handover, as he felt that one day he would need the support of faith to endure what was to come.

For the record, I am not a Christian. Nor am I an atheist. I identify as an agnostic. I believe that humanity will never be able to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. From a philosophical and logical standpoint, such questions are inherently unanswerable.

But I do understand the power of beliefs — whether it’s religious faith or secular belief. Faith has meaning for individuals and society alike. Our personal sense of morality is often rooted in these beliefs. Some people claim to believe in "nothing," but in truth, they simply aren’t aware of what they believe in.

There are several verses from the Bible that, despite my secular disposition, I find profoundly powerful:

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34)

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)

These words probably come to Jimmy’s mind when he thinks of our former colleagues who testified against him. Of course, he must challenge their lies directly, but he can still focus his response on the claims rather than the people.

The judges and prosecutors are both attempting to prove that Jimmy "incited hatred." Jimmy’s response, however, is to speak about his belief in freedom and his love for Hong Kong.

Everything he does is born from faith and gratitude. There is no hatred in him — not for the regime, not for the judges, and not for his former colleagues who testified falsely against him.

I also want to clarify something: Jimmy Lai never once asked that anyone "resist to the end." I, for one, am an example of someone who walked away, and he never blamed me for it.

I remember the first time I resigned in 2010 to move back to the U.S. Back then, Hong Kong was still relatively safe. He told me, "Simon, your future is in Hong Kong. It would be a wrong move for you to leave."

But when I left for good in 2020, he fully supported my decision. He didn’t tell me what to do or how to live my life.

"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him." (Luke 12:4-5)

For those with religious faith, especially Christians, this passage has deeper meaning — such as who truly holds "authority" and what "hell" represents. But as an ordinary layperson, I don’t know what happens after we die. I don’t know if there’s a soul or what form it might take.

I can only interpret the passage at face value. To me, the message is this: Ideas are bulletproof. Beliefs cannot be destroyed by bullets. If you betray your beliefs, you surrender even the few inches of freedom that exist between your two ears.

Allow me to conclude with the words of another "worldly" philosopher, Marcus Aurelius:

"The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury."

Today is Jimmy’s birthday, and here’s my message for him:

Dear Jimmy, I wish you peace. We will meet again — not in heaven, but in the U.K. or the U.S. When that day comes, we’ll go out for a good meal together.

The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong's Greatest Dissident, and China's Most Feared Critic

Alternatively, here’s the link to kindle version of the book and the audio book.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

For those familiar with the 2019 resistance movement in Hong Kong, images of mass protest and calls for freedom remain vivid. What is less known is the aftermath, the events that unfolded once the global spotlight faded. Among these developments, the trial of Apple Daily and its founder, Jimmy Lai, stands as a stark example of the changing political and legal landscape in Hong Kong.

Since its founding in 1995, Apple Daily was celebrated for its fearless journalism and outspoken pro-freedom stance. The newspaper played a pivotal role during the 2019 protests, becoming a symbol of free speech.

However, in 2021, the paper ceased operations after its assets were frozen under the National Security Law.

Jimmy Lai, a prominent businessman-turned-activist, is now on trial, accused of using Apple Daily as a platform to undermine national security.

The trial, which has been ongoing for nearly a year, has reached its 96th day.

Overview of the Case

The prosecution's case hinges on five key allegations, each focusing on Lai's role as the founder of Apple Daily and his political activities.

One. Lai’s Role in Apple Daily

The prosecution argues that Lai held ultimate control over the newspaper’s editorial direction, using it to further his pro-democracy agenda. Witnesses described the so-called "lunchbox meetings," where Lai allegedly provided direct instructions to senior editors.

A former executive characterized these meetings:

"Lai would set the tone for the week’s reporting, often focusing on maximizing coverage of key protests or international events. He was strong-willed, and his instructions were seen as final."

While some senior editorial staff testified that they had some autonomy, they also noted this autonomy was constrained within what they described as a "caged autonomy," with Lai as the ultimate decision-maker.

Two. Content of Apple Daily

The prosecution scrutinized Apple Daily’s editorial policies, particularly its English-language edition launched in 2020, alleging it was crafted to influence U.S. policymakers and stoke anti-China sentiment.

Former editor-in-chief of Apple Daily English News, Lo Fung, testified that Lai instructed the editorial team:

"Focus only on China’s negative stories. We’re not here to balance the narrative—we’re here to tell the world what they don’t want you to know."

Prosecutors presented this as evidence that Apple Daily functioned as a propaganda tool rather than a journalistic outlet.

Three. "One Person, One Letter, Save Hong Kong" Campaign

The "One Person, One Letter, Save Hong Kong" campaign, initiated by Apple Daily, was presented as evidence of collusion with foreign forces. The campaign encouraged readers to write to then-U.S. President Donald Trump, urging intervention against the National Security Law's implementation.

Four. Connections with International Figures

Lai’s online interview program featuring foreign commentators was another focal point. The prosecution argued that Lai used this platform to discuss sensitive political topics and potentially solicit foreign intervention.

The prosecution also highlighted Lai's meetings with U.S. officials, including former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as part of his alleged efforts to seek international support for sanctions against China.

Five. Financial Support for Activism

Lai’s alleged financial backing of pro-democracy groups like Stand with Hong Kong (SWHK) was scrutinized. SWHK played a key role in global advocacy for the movement, including lobbying for sanctions against Chinese officials.

A former activist testified:

"Lai’s companies provided crucial support for our ad campaigns. Without that funding, we couldn’t have achieved the global impact we did."

The prosecution contends this financial support constitutes collusion with foreign forces, a core charge under the National Security Law.

Jimmy Lai’s Testimony

Day 93

Day 93 marked the beginning of Lai's testimony in his own defense. The session focused heavily on Lai's background, the core values and editorial processes of Apple Daily, and his relationships with various individuals, including foreign politicians and dignitaries.

Lai explained his decision to transition from a successful career in fashion with Giordano to the media industry stemmed from the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. He stated that, as a businessman who had achieved some financial success, he saw starting a newspaper as a way to promote freedom. He believed access to information was key to achieving greater freedom, stating:

"The more information you have, the more you are in the know, the freer you are."

Lai described the core values of Apple Daily as reflecting those of the Hong Kong people, particularly those who valued democracy and freedom. He stated that these values included the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and opposition to violence and opposition to Hong Kong independence. Lai stated he believed these values stemmed from Hong Kong's history under British governance.

Lai emphasized his opposition to Hong Kong independence, calling it a "conspiracy" designed to entrap people. He stated he considered the idea "too crazy" to even consider and forbade his staff from mentioning it in the newspaper. He said:

"The advocacy of independence of Hong Kong is a conspiracy because people just want us to get us into the trap. That was never a reality. That was too crazy to think about this, that’s why I never allow any of our staff or the newspaper to mention about this."

Responding to accusations of "poisoning" readers, Lai said, "I don’t think I have ability to pollute or corrupt the mind of the Hong Kong people just by my writing."

Lai acknowledged donating to think tanks in the US but denied that these donations were intended to influence US policy towards China. He asserted that his donations were relatively small compared to others and made without any expectation of a return. He stated, "If I ask for something in return that will be too presumptuous... I think this is crazy."

Day 94

Day 94 of the trial continued Lai's testimony under examination by his defense counsel. The focus of the day's proceedings shifted from Lai's personal background and political beliefs to his role in Apple Daily's editorial processes and his relationships with key staff members.

In response to the defense's reference to his May 29, 2020, article published in New York Times, titled "Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?" Lai elaborated on his grave concerns regarding the National Security Law. He explained that the provisions were sweeping and ambiguously worded, granting authorities significant leeway for arbitrary interpretation. This ambiguity, he noted, created a chilling effect, suppressing free speech and enabling the prosecution of individuals for dissenting views. he emphasized that the law’s vague language would severely restrict freedom of expression, leading to widespread self-censorship and eroding Hong Kong's tradition of robust civil liberties.

As a leading pro-democracy publication, Apple Daily was particularly susceptible to the law's expansive reach. Lai expressed his fear that the NSL could be weaponized to silence the newspaper, either through direct legal action or by intimidating its staff and contributors. These concerns, he argued, underscored the existential threat the NSL posed to Apple Daily and Hong Kong's free press.

The defense team highlighted testimony from former Apple Daily CEO Cheung Kim-Hung, who alleged that Lai had instructed him to continue operating the newspaper as usual while Lai was in custody. Lai vehemently denied this accusation, asserting that issuing such instructions under the constraints of the National Security Law would have been both irresponsible and reckless. To support his position, Lai pointed to a letter he had written to the newspaper's staff, emphasizing caution and prioritizing their safety. He argued that this letter was consistent with his stance and demonstrated that he would not have encouraged actions that could endanger his colleagues.

The defense then referenced communications between Lai and Apple Daily’s former Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man, highlighting Lai’s practice of forwarding articles and suggestions for editorial consideration. Lai testified that he forwarded an article written by Benedict Rogers, the head of Hong Kong Watch, to Chan, leaving it to her discretion to determine its relevance. Lai stated that he often shared articles from others if he believed they might be useful but stressed that the ultimate decision always rested with the editorial staff.

The defense also cited messages exchanged between Lai and Chan regarding the July 1 Legislative Council incident. Lai expressed his concern over the impact of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex by young protesters, stating,

"The young people storming Legislative Council weighed heavily on my heart. What do you think the pro-democracy camp can do afterward to ensure the movement continues? Fortunately, the public seems to have some sympathy for the young people breaking into Legislative Council Complex, so the damage might not be too severe. What do you think?"

In court, Lai clarified that his comments were not editorial directives but suggestions. He explained that he was worried the incident might harm the broader movement and wanted to highlight the perspectives of young protesters to garner public understanding and sympathy. Lai reiterated that his intention was to focus on reporting the thoughts and motivations of the youth, rather than issuing any orders about how the story should be covered.

"Some people may subjectively interpret this as an instruction, but I emphasize that it was merely a suggestion," said Lai.

He also emphasized that, while he did not consider the Legislative Council Complex storming an act of severe violence, citing the absence of injuries, the incident still involved vandalism and illegal actions, which he did not condone.

Lai also addressed a message he sent to Chan after the implementation of the National Security Law, which included a link to Trump's executive order on Hong Kong and the suggestion to "work up a s**t list on those involved in censorship."

Lai explained in court that he receives numerous messages daily, many of which he does not have the time to thoroughly read. He stated that he only fully read the message for the first time during the trial. He noted that the message in question, containing a reference to a "s**t list," and emphasized that the language used in the message was not his own, saying, “it’s not the kind of language that I would use.” He added that the message was forwarded to Chan without any follow-up or acknowledgment from her, and it was possible she had not even read it.

Lai further testified that he also forwarded the same message to other pro-democracy figures, including former Democratic Party chairman Yeung Sum and former Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan. When the defense asked if Lai had instructed these individuals to create a "s**t list," Lai dismissed the notion as "ridiculous." The court also reviewed evidence showing Lai had sent the same message to multiple contacts, reinforcing his claim that he merely passed on the information without specific instructions or intentions tied to the message.

The prosecution questioned Lai about his use of the encrypted messaging app Signal and his decision to forward messages he had described as "confidential." Lai clarified that his use of the term "confidential" referred to the app's encrypted nature, acknowledging that this might not have been the most precise choice of words. He emphasized that he only shared information through Signal with close friends and trusted individuals, underscoring that these communications were not meant for broader dissemination.

In response to questions about his April 28, 2019, article, "Stand Up for Our Last Line of Defense" Jimmy Lai denied intending to incite hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction toward the Hong Kong government. He explained that the article merely projected potential consequences of implementing the extradition law and argued that many of his predictions had come true. Lai described the law as creating an environment of fear and compliance among Hong Kong citizens, undermining the city’s rule of law and replacing it with authoritarian rule.

Lai also addressed his May 5, 2019, article, "Think About Emigrating or Protesting," in which he called for mass protests against the extradition bill. He argued that peaceful demonstrations could pressure officials to reconsider the law. Lai maintained that he did not seek to incite hatred but used examples to encourage lawful protest, emphasizing his opposition to violence.

Day 95

Day 95 of the trial saw Lai continue his testimony, with the defense focusing on articles Lai wrote for his Apple Daily column and the newspaper's English edition.

Regarding the "One Person, One Letter, Save Hong Kong" campaign and his use of the term "lobbying" in his newspaper column, Lai asserted that it referred to advocating for peaceful, non-violent, and patient protests against the extradition bill. He denied that "lobbying" included any requests for sanctions.

The defense addressed a column dated October 27, 2019, titled "What Americans Tell Us", written by Apple Daily editorial staff in a Q&A style. In the article, Lai discussed the importance of “constant lobbying” to garner international support for Hong Kong.

Here's a quote from the column, highlighting the use of the word "lobbying":

"To get the support of foreigners, we need to keep lobbying. Plus media reports, let them understand our morality, courage, conscience, let them speak out in their lives, support will only grow, not decrease, as long as we do our part, to touch their conscience with moral force."

Lai also added that:

"If anyone construes as otherwise, they have right to be wrong, and I’m not to gainsay it. For truth prevails in God’s kingdom, and that’s good enough for me. So do we have to review and question each and every article if my position is like this?"

The defense then highlighted an article published on December 22, 2019, in which Lai discussed the importance of the district council election victory, describing it as a source of hope to reduce violence among young protesters. He wrote:

"The best landslide which we totally had in the district council that gave the young people hope. You know, if we unite together, we can be together, become a great political resistance force. And this will give them hope to reduce violence in the street."

The defense questioned Lai on a comment he made in a January 5, 2020, article where he expressed admiration for a young girl who shouted obscenities at the police, stating, "With youngsters like this, we cannot lose." Lai acknowledged that the comment, made in the heat of the moment, was in "bad taste" and offensive, expressed regret and apologized for it.

In another article, Our Finest Hour, Lai quoted Winston Churchill:

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

The prosecution argued that invoking the wartime context of Churchill's speech implied an encouragement of violence in Hong Kong. Lai, however, firmly disagreed. He explained that, in the Hong Kong context, the "enemy" referred to China's encroachment on Hong Kong's freedoms rather than a military foe, and the resistance he advocated was entirely peaceful. Lai stated:

"Hong Kong is not at war. My use of Churchill’s words was meant to inspire courage and resilience in the face of oppression, not violence."

On the topic of Apple Daily’s English News, Lai explained that the initial suggestion came from Christian Whiton, a former U.S. State Department advisor. Whiton proposed publishing an English-language newspaper and distributing it globally, but Lai initially dismissed the idea as impractical and prohibitively costly. However, Lai later reconsidered and opted for an online edition of Apple Daily English News. He envisioned the platform as a way to fill critical gaps left by other outlets, such as the South China Morning Post, particularly in covering human rights and governance issues with greater transparency and focus.

Lai emphasized the English News’ dedication to truthful reporting, denying accusations that it deliberately suppressed balanced perspectives, or provoke hostility toward the Chinese or Hong Kong governments.

Lai acknowledged that he suggested focusing on the perspectives of Hong Kong people, particularly those critical of the government and China. He explained that the English edition had to prioritize certain news items. He stated:

"We have like maybe 20 items of news… so, you know, we have to choose what is to the point or what we want."

Day 96

On Day 96 of the trial of Jimmy Lai, the defense focused on refuting testimony from prosecution witnesses, clarifying Lai's role in editorial decisions, and addressing his use of communication platforms such as Slack and Twitter.

Lai acknowledged the need for a distinctive voice in English news to break the monopoly of outlets like the South China Morning Post. Lai admitted that Apple Daily prioritized content aligned with the pro-democracy movement and critical of Beijing but denied that this constituted propaganda. He explained:

"Reporting the truth is not the same as balanced reporting. Our responsibility was to reflect the reality of Hong Kong’s struggle for freedom."

In a WhatsApp message presented as evidence, Lai wrote:

"We’re not trying to balance perspectives but to amplify the voice of those protecting Hong Kong. This is the voice the world wants to know."

Lai also suggested using big data to fact-check exaggerated claims about China, whether positive or negative. However, he admitted these plans were not fully realized due to technical challenges.

"The aim was to use data to reveal the truth about China, not to distort or manipulate reporting."

Former Apple Daily CEO Cheung Kim-Hung had testified that Lai directed the English edition to focus on topics like "resistance, protests, and sanctions." Lai firmly denied the claim, and stated:

"I never discussed sanctions with Cheung. His testimony is fabricated."

The defense introduced Slack records to counter allegations that Lai gave specific editorial directives during “lunchbox meetings.” These records show Lai frequently solicited suggestions from attendees rather than issuing instructions. The Slack messages demonstrated a collaborative process where participants exchanged ideas, and meeting summaries were prepared afterward.

Lai reiterated:

"In all lunchbox meetings, I never discussed specific editorial instructions. The meeting records already summarize all feasible suggestions."

Lai explained that the Slack platform, used by Apple Daily for internal communications, was managed by his secretary, Julie, who set up groups and facilitated discussions.

The defense team also noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s timeline regarding lunchbox meetings and Slack communications, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence lacked contextual accuracy.

Regarding Lai’s twitter activities, his account was managed by Simon Lee, an assistant CEO at Apple Daily and Lai's mentee. Lai described Lee's role as primarily logistical, such as editing tweets, adding hashtags, and managing follower lists. Lai acknowledged discussions about hashtags like #HongKongNeedsHelp but emphasized that these were coordinated by Lee and not directly crafted by him.

In case you are wondering who is the "Simon Lee" managing Jimmy Lai's twitter account. That's me. Thank you for joining me today to follow the ongoing trial of Jimmy Lai. I’ll be back with more updates. Until next time, take care and stay informed.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Yes, you heard me. There are people in the United States and Canada who support Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. I’m not surprised, though I can hardly see how imposing tariffs on all imports could magically make Fentanyl disappear from our streets.

As a father of a high school teenager, I often receive emails from the principal about student tragedies, including overdoses. These stories hit close to home and serve as grim reminders of the Fentanyl crisis affecting so many communities. So, when Trump links tariffs to the Fentanyl crisis, I understand why some people see his proposal as a solution. Some argue that Canada’s leniency on crime justifies the U.S. using tariffs as leverage to force Canada to act.

But let’s pause for a moment. Canada is grappling with its own Fentanyl crisis. In fact, recent reports reveal that Canadian-made Fentanyl is being exported. If the Canadian government had the ability to fully address the issue, wouldn’t they have acted by now?

The frustration among conservative voters in both the U.S. and Canada is understandable. Issues like inner-city crime, substance abuse, and the troubling state of mental health are very real concerns. But when it comes to drug use, the solution isn’t as simple as targeting supply. Substance abuse also has a demand side.

Why are so many people—especially young people—turning to drugs in the first place? Why is despair so pervasive in societies like ours, where opportunities and resources should abound? Sociological research identifies family dysfunction, peer pressure, and academic stress as primary drivers of drug use. Psychological studies show that a belief in a positive future can deter substance abuse, while hopelessness often pushes people toward drugs as a coping mechanism. Stress and despair are potent triggers, and they’re far more widespread than we might want to admit.

Tariffs on Canadian exports won’t fix the Fentanyl crisis any more than waving a wand will solve all our social ills. Instead of looking for shortcuts, we need to ask deeper questions: What kind of society are we building? How can we offer young people a sense of purpose and hope? Governments cannot solve the root causes of drug use—despair, stress, and alienation—by focusing solely on supply-side measures.

I empathize with those who feel strongly about combating drug use—it’s a destructive force. But who’s to blame for the underlying problems? Progressives blame conservatives, conservatives blame progressives, and the cycle continues.

Ultimately, individuals make their own choices, and those choices have consequences. While I support harm reduction and legalization as pragmatic approaches, I recognize that no government policy can stop someone determined to engage in self-destructive behavior.

In fact, enforcement policies that focus exclusively on supply often backfire. By ignoring demand, they inadvertently hand criminal cartels a lucrative monopoly.

The demand side of the problem is harder to address, and that’s precisely why many politicians avoid it. Voters often prefer quick fixes, and tariffs might seem like one. But simple answers rarely solve complex problems. There is no magic wand for societal issues—not for substance abuse, not for despair, and certainly not for the broader challenges we face.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

"What exactly is populism?”

A listener asked me this after my recent Cantonese podcast. It's such a simple question, but it really made me think. We throw this word around all the time, don't we? Populism this, populism that. But what does it actually mean?

I started looking into it, and here's what struck me: almost everyone uses 'populism' as a label to attack their opponents. If you're on the left, you call the right populist. If you're on the right, you point to left-wing populism. It's become just another political weapon. But here's the thing - populism isn't limited to any one side. It's everywhere in politics today.

So what is it really? Here's what I've come to understand: populism is when we focus on leaders instead of the quality of the solutions. It's when we believe that if we just find the right hero, all our problems will magically disappear.

Think about it - we love hero stories, don't we? Hollywood makes billions selling us tales of heroes saving the day. And every four years, our political system tries to sell us the same story - just elect this hero, and everything will be fine.

But here's the catch - every hero needs a villain. As writer Eric Hoffer once said, you don't need people to believe in a god to start a movement, but you absolutely need them to believe in a devil. Without someone to blame, who needs a hero?

And this is where things get really interesting. These political 'heroes' love to talk about 'power to the people.' But what are they actually doing? They're taking advantage of people who feel powerless and scared about all the changes happening in our world.

Let me give you an example: immigration. It's an easy target, right? Got problems with crime? Blame immigrants. Economy not doing well? Must be the immigrants. It's a simple story that makes people feel better. But let me share something I've seen firsthand.

After the Communist Party took over China, millions of people fled to Hong Kong. Now, what did Hong Kong do? The British colonial government let them stay. Not because they were being nice - they did it because Hong Kong's factories needed workers. And you know what happened? When everyone could find work, nobody complained about refugees stealing jobs or causing crime. Actually, these immigrants helped make Hong Kong's economy boom.

Here's the really fascinating part: when did people stop coming illegally to Hong Kong? After China started its economic reforms in the 1980s. When people could make a decent living at home, they stayed home. Simple as that.

Now, I know what you're thinking - the U.S. and Europe can't control what other governments do. True. But this tells us something important about how to actually solve problems. Instead of just building walls and making threats, maybe we should be thinking about why people leave their homes in the first place. My friends working in different free market think tanks are trying to propose solutions. We need more people like them working on the solutions, not looking for people to blame.

We hear a lot of talk about an 'invasion' of immigrants these days. But let's think about this: when people can't feed their families, they'll do whatever it takes to find opportunities. The next administration says they'll kick out all illegal immigrants. Sounds tough, right? But here's the reality - it'll cost a fortune, and it won't work. Worse, it'll just push people into the shadows where criminals can exploit them.

We see the same pattern with the economy. Things getting expensive? Must be those greedy businesses or foreign countries! Just let the government control everything and prices will magically go down. Except that's not how the real world works, is it?

Here's what bothers me most about populism. While these leaders claim they've the solutions, they're actually doing the opposite. Real solutions don't come from some hero on a white horse. They come from millions of people making their own choices, working together, trading freely, solving problems in ways no central planner could ever imagine.

I know this isn't a popular message right now. Everyone wants simple answers. Everyone wants someone to blame. But sometimes speaking freely means saying things people don't want to hear. Yes, we have real problems. But we won't solve them by giving up our power to think for ourselves.

So next time someone offers you a simple solution or tells you exactly who to blame for all your problems, remember this: true power doesn't come from leaders who claim to speak for 'the people.' It comes from people like you and me, making our own choices, working together freely, finding real solutions to real problems.

That's not just democracy - that's freedom.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

This year, 64 countries, representing 2 billion voters, held national elections—a density of political activity unparalleled in history. As we reflect on these global political shifts, one trend is particularly striking: the widespread struggles of incumbent governments.

Across various regions, ruling parties faced significant setbacks. In the United States, the Democratic Party not only lost the presidency but also ceded control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Republican Party. Similarly, the United Kingdom saw the Conservative Party ousted by Labour, which returned to power after a 15-year hiatus.

France’s Renaissance Party, led by President Emmanuel Macron, suffered a major blow, losing dozens of parliamentary seats. Though Macron’s presidency continues, his weakened position requires him to form coalitions to govern effectively, illustrating the vulnerability of even strong leaders in fragmented political landscapes.

Elsewhere in Europe—Portugal, Lithuania, Austria—the trend persisted, with incumbent parties losing their dominance or being forced into coalition governments. In Asia, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost its parliamentary majority, while its traditional ally, Komeito, also faced electoral losses. South Korea experienced similar instability.

Even in India, a country where Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have maintained strong influence for years, the BJP managed only 240 out of 543 parliamentary seats in this year’s elections, falling short of a majority.

Africa was not immune to this wave. South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC), long the dominant force, was compelled to form its first-ever coalition government.

To understand why so many incumbents are losing ground, we must consider two key questions:

1. What factors are contributing to this global trend?

2. Is this a temporary cycle or a structural shift?

The economy is a significant common denominator. Since 2022, high inflation has plagued countries worldwide, eroding public trust in governments. While inflation is difficult for any administration to control, the perception of economic mismanagement often leads to electoral backlash.

Looking back at the pandemic, governments across the globe significantly increased public spending to mitigate its impact. While GDP figures may not have reflected drastic declines during the pandemic, much of this "growth" was driven by government expenditure rather than private-sector productivity. This overreliance on public spending has created long-term inflationary pressures.

In addition, the war in Ukraine disrupted global economies, hitting Europe particularly hard. Energy crises, rising costs, and economic stagnation have intensified dissatisfaction with incumbent parties.

Beyond economic cycles, we may be witnessing a deeper structural shift. Modern societies are increasingly shaped by information technology, social media, and the decentralization of traditional media. Platforms like Twitter and YouTube have amplified the voices of influencers and KOLs (key opinion leaders), reshaping public opinion and political engagement.

Interestingly, even the ultra-wealthy, such as Elon Musk and Ray Dalio, are heavily investing in building their social media presence. The convergence of wealth, influence, and power is becoming more apparent, as these individuals leverage their platforms to shape political narratives.

Musk’s public support for Donald Trump, including reported donations exceeding $100 million, illustrates the growing connection between digital influence and political power. This trend underscores a shift in the balance of power: from traditional media to decentralized, individual-driven networks.

As populist sentiments rise in democratic societies, authoritarian regimes face their own challenges. Leaders in countries like China, Russia, and Iran are increasingly paranoid about losing control. They tighten their grip on power, fearing the ripple effects of global instability and dissent.

However, the rise of populism also raises concerns about the long-term viability of democratic systems. In politically polarized societies, many citizens tie their identities to their political affiliations, which fuels divisiveness and undermines objective discourse.

We cannot overlook the profound impact of technology on how societies function. Historian Yuval Noah Harari has extensively discussed the role of imagination in human evolution—the ability to construct shared beliefs and societal structures. In today’s world, technology is reshaping these shared constructs, influencing how people perceive their roles within society.

Social media, in particular, has heightened the importance of visibility and influence. Unlike traditional media, where a few controlled narratives, today’s decentralized platforms allow anyone to command an audience. This democratization of influence creates new opportunities but also amplifies division and misinformation.

As a firm believer in open and constructive dialogue, I welcome high-quality criticism and diverse perspectives. I also reflect on my own belief and mindful of my actions on social media. In this complex environment, it is vital to resist simplistic binaries of left versus right, or red versus blue. Instead, we should strive for nuanced understanding and thoughtful engagement with the issues at hand.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."

Lord Acton

As election day approaches, friends and readers ask how I am going to vote.

Rather than endorsing any particular candidate or political party, I want to propose a more systematic strategy for preserving our democracy:

Vote against incumbents, regardless of party or performance.

Let's reflect on the real meaning of a free, democratic society. Is an election primarily about putting someone in power, or is it a means to ensure that no one becomes too powerful for too long?

Many people go to the ballot box wishing for a great leader to carry out policies that will benefit them. But I believe the essence of electoral democracy is to prevent the accumulation of unchecked power.

When Xi Jinping removed term limits to extend his leadership in China indefinitely, even some CCP members condemned this blatant power grab. Yet, in democracies, we often overlook how repeatedly voting for the same party or politicians, election after election, can also lead to the accumulation of power. The key difference, of course, is that democracies have built-in mechanisms for peaceful power transitions. But what truly distinguishes a leader-for-life from a party that never relinquishes its grip on power?

Consider the consequences of prolonged one-party rule. California, despite its progressive image, grapples with a severe housing and homelessness crisis, exacerbated by zoning laws and entrenched political interests after decades of Democratic control. Similarly, Chicago's long history of Democratic governance has struggled to address deep-rooted urban challenges like segregation, poverty, and gun violence.

On the other end of the spectrum, Utah, a Republican stronghold, demonstrates how dominant parties can exert undue influence, as seen in the intertwining of religious and governmental affairs.

If you agree that one-party rule is bad, then you should not vote for just one party.

In addition, there are several practical benefits to making "Vote Against the Incumbent" a movement:

First, regular rotations in office help prevent the entrenchment of corruption and the abuse of authority. Incumbent entrenchment often leads to regulatory capture, where government regulations become tools for established interests to suppress competition. Regular power transitions can help break up these cozy relationships, promoting more dynamic and competitive markets.

Second, while elected officials come and go, career bureaucrats often wield significant influence within government. Introducing new political leadership forces bureaucracies to stay politically neutral. Whenever there is a new boss, bureaucrats need to defend their operations, budgets, and priorities, thus promoting efficiency and transparency. Regular changes in leadership ensure that no one becomes too comfortable or unaccountable.

Third, when parties anticipate regular alternation between governing and opposition roles, they are incentivized to be more realistic, pragmatic, and less ideological.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned:

"The spirit of party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection."

Political parties create career politicians, and politicians role-play to appeal to voters. This is how politicians get elected and parties become entrenched. However, I see no reason why voters should think and behave in a partisan manner and even adopt partisanship as their identity.

I understand some people may find the idea of voting against incumbents regardless of their partisanship or performance absurd. For instance, some may argue that if the incumbent is doing a good job, votes should positively reinforce good governance and policies. But bear in mind that the goal isn't to reward good performance but to safeguard against the insidious nature of power. Even the most well-intentioned leaders can be corrupted by extended authority. History is replete with examples of benevolent rulers who, over time, became tyrants or grew complacent.

Another question people may have is, "Won't this create instability?" Paradoxically, regular and peaceful transitions of power foster greater resilience than prolonged one-party rule. A truly functional democracy doesn't need great leaders; it needs robust systems that prevent any leader from becoming indispensable. By consistently voting against incumbents, we can help maintain the democratic churn that keeps power in check and forces a regular renewal of the social contract.

Lastly, some might ask, "Isn't this throwing away my vote?" No – it's a strategic use of your vote to safeguard the health of our democracy. Every vote against an incumbent sends a powerful message: power must be earned anew in each election, not taken for granted. Ironically, mass media often reinforces incumbent advantages through familiar narratives and established relationships. Established parties and incumbents enjoy built-in name recognition and easier access to coverage. A consistent anti-incumbent voting bloc would force media outlets to pay more attention to challengers and fresh perspectives, potentially breaking up the echo chambers that reinforce political polarization.

I hope by now you are convinced that the goal of electoral politics isn't to elect someone specific; it's to preserve a system where anyone can be removed from power peacefully. That's the true genius of democracy that we must strive to protect.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

A mentor figure sent me an email about one of my latest blog posts. He said he stopped reading after the first line because I had used the left-right paradigm to frame my argument.

My initial reaction was a mix of emotions – first, the pleasant surprise that people are actually reading my work, then a deeper reflection on how I express my ideas. This interaction challenged me to examine how I, too, sometimes fall into the trap of oversimplified thinking.

I don't actually like the left-right paradigm, or even the four-quadrants political compass model. While these frameworks can be useful tools in academic research or media analysis, they often do more harm than good in our everyday discourse. Human beings are far more complex – our views shaped by countless experiences, relationships, and circumstances that can't be reduced to simple categories like "progressive" or "conservative," "collectivist" or "individualist."

Consider how this oversimplification plays out in current debates. When we discuss immigration, or abortion, for instances, people are quickly labeled either "pro" or "anti," leaving no room for nuanced positions. These labels then become shields behind which we stop engaging with the actual complexity of the issue.

This tendency to oversimplify extends beyond political labels. I've noticed how many people, myself included, sometimes fall into seeing the world as a story of heroes fighting villains. This isn't new – you can find this pattern in our oldest myths and stories. But when we apply this framework to modern politics, whether domestic or international, we lose something crucial: our ability to understand each other.

Sure, there are people who do things most of us would condemn. But here's what's interesting: almost everyone believes they're on the right side of history. This creates a peculiar situation where large parts of society view the other half as either evil or foolish. Think about that for a moment – when you dismiss people who disagree with you as evil or stupid, they're likely thinking exactly the same about you. I've experienced this myself: times when I quickly judged someone's position, only to later understand the valid concerns underlying their perspective.

This brings me to another thought-provoking conversation. While in India for the Mont Pelerin Society meeting, I met with my old friend Barun Mitra, who spent decades as an activist for freedom and classical liberalism. Over time, his thinking has evolved significantly, much like my own. Through our long discussions, we explored how our earlier certainties about political ideologies had given way to something more valuable: a recognition that what our world needs most is compassion and curiosity – the willingness to see through others' eyes and find ways to thrive together.

This evolution in thinking suggests something fundamental about living in an open society: the strength of democracy lies not in everyone agreeing, but in our ability to disagree productively. When we encounter different viewpoints, perhaps we could approach them with curiosity rather than judgment. What experiences shaped this person's perspective? What valid concerns might they have that I haven't considered?

Even as we value individual freedom and personal conviction, we must recognize that no one is truly an island. The idea of living in a completely isolated environment, like a hermit, isn't just unrealistic – it misses something fundamental about human nature. In our pursuit of individual freedom, we shouldn't forget that we naturally seek companions and community. Maybe this is the balance we need to find: celebrating our differences while acknowledging our deep need for connection, understanding, and acknowledgement.

I invite you to reflect on your own experiences: When was the last time you changed your mind after truly listening to someone with a different perspective? How might our public discourse change if we approached disagreements with curiosity instead of judgment? Your comments and engagement with these ideas continue to challenge and refine my thinking. Together, perhaps we can work toward a more nuanced understanding of our complex world, one conversation at a time.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe