Consequential Actions Podcast

Jeff Kellick
  • 5.0 (1)
  • News
  • Weekly

Our standard is simple: we evaluate every policy, every leader, every turning point by asking the founders’ question updated for our time—Did this leave people more free or more governed?

  1. 23h ago

    From a League of Friendship to We the People: The Constitutional Convention of 1787

    From a League of Friendship to We the People: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 Philadelphia, Monday, July 2, 1787. The states answer one motion in turn, an equal vote for every state in the second branch of the new legislature, and the tally comes back five to five, with Georgia divided. Roger Sherman of Connecticut names what the vote has shown: "We are now at a full stop." James Madison went to Philadelphia asking for a national veto over every law of every state, "in all cases whatsoever," the same words Parliament had used to claim its power over the colonies. He came home with a federal union. The companion article is free, with every source in its endnotes, and a new one arrives every Sunday. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could make war and borrow money, but it could not lay a tax, and nothing in the Articles could change without every state's consent. After Shays's Rebellion, a convention met in May 1787 "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." What it proposed was a new government: a House apportioned mainly by population, a Senate in which the states were equal, a list of the powers Congress would have, ratification by conventions chosen by the people, and, in place of Madison's veto, federal law made supreme over conflicting state law, binding the state judges. The Great Compromise passed by the margin of a single state. The delegates' own words carry the story, from Washington's "Influence is no government" to Franklin's rising sun on September 17, when thirty-nine men signed and three refused, by way of the three clauses that accommodated and protected slaveholding interests. The Skeptic's Case takes up Charles Beard, the charge of usurpation, and the reliability of Madison's own notes. Companion to Article 19, published October 25, 2026. Was the Confederation's inability to tax a failure of government, or a protection of liberty? And did the Constitution leave Americans more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 — Cold Open: A Full Stop, July 2, 1787 2:21 — How a League Became a Government 5:10 — A Firm League of Friendship 7:46 — A Congress That Could Not Tax 8:41 — Was the Confederation a Failure? 10:33 — Shays's Rebellion 13:09 — Annapolis and the Call to Philadelphia 13:51 — Madison's Remedy: A Veto Over the States 16:01 — Behind Closed Doors 18:49 — Enlarge the Sphere 19:45 — Madison Tries for the Veto 21:26 — Conclude Nothing, Propose Anything 22:43 — Hamilton's British Model 23:34 — The Great Compromise 26:40 — The Bargain Stands 27:41 — Federal Law Made Supreme 28:27 — One Executive or Three 30:39 — Consent Across a Continent 32:27 — Limits That Hold Against a Majority 34:11 — What Was on the Delegates' Bookshelf 36:34 — The Honest Reckoning: Three-Fifths 41:44 — The Slave Trade Bargain 44:48 — The Fugitive Clause 46:54 — The Skeptic's Case: Was It About Money? 48:19 — The Skeptic's Case: A Usurpation? 49:58 — The Skeptic's Case: Madison's Notes 51:10 — The Liberty Test 52:18 — September 17, 1787: The Signing 55:10 — "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" 55:47 — What Came Out of the Room 📚 Article 19, "The Convention": https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/the-convention-from-a-league-of-friendship-to-we-the-people 📚 Every article, free each Sunday: https://www.consequentialactions.com/subscribe 🎙️ Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 — Episode 19: "The Convention" | Consequential Actions Podcast Next: Episode 19B, Tuesday, November 3, carries the Convention's argument into our own time. Episode 20, "The Loyal Opposition," Saturday, November 7. — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #selfevident #constitutionalconvention #usconstitution #jamesmadison #articlesofconfederation #greatcompromise #foundingfathers #americanhistory #libertarian #consequentialactions

  2. 3d ago

    Chris Gambino, Independent for PA House District 143 | Closed Primaries

    Chris Gambino, Independent for PA House District 143 | Closed Primaries In some Bucks County homes, a husband and wife register in opposite parties before every primary. They do not disagree: in Pennsylvania only party members may vote in a party's primary, and where one party is sure to win, the primary decides the seat. More than one Pennsylvania voter in eight belongs to neither party. Chris Gambino, an independent candidate for the Pennsylvania House in the 143rd District, reached the November 3 ballot by petition. Five days out, Jeff Kellick asks what a citizen can ask of a system that also decides whether his name goes on the ballot. The interview episode for Week 18, closing the week of Saturday's Episode 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," and Article 18, published October 18. In 1765 the ministry told the colonists that a man without a vote could still be virtually represented. Chris Gambino is a scientist with a doctorate in animal sciences and a former professor, and works as a senior monitoring, evaluation and learning officer at a national foundation. His nomination papers were challenged, and the Commonwealth Court and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court kept him on the ballot. They cover the challenge to his petitions, open primaries and who pays for closed ones, redistricting, an independent in a closely divided House, and pricing crop insurance to a farm's risk. Afterward, Jeff weighs California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) against Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) and House Bill 280, which passed the state House on September 29. The question underneath all of it: did this leave Americans more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00:00 — The split household 0:01:15 — Week 18: from asking to stopping asking 0:03:34 — Petitions, 1765 to 2026, and introducing Chris Gambino 0:05:38 — Reaching the ballot by petition 0:08:52 — The challenge to his nomination papers 0:12:40 — A list of grievances for Harrisburg 0:13:55 — Who pays for the primary 0:14:50 — Ballot access and the signature gap 0:15:44 — Gerrymandering and independent districts 0:18:02 — Party loyalty and accountability 0:23:13 — Virtual representation in 1765 0:25:21 — Is a voter with no party represented? 0:29:18 — Splitting registrations across the kitchen table 0:32:02 — Closed and open primaries explained 0:34:22 — The club-membership argument 0:35:00 — Who does a party legislator owe? 0:38:38 — An independent in a divided House 0:41:05 — Committee seats and Pennsylvania agriculture 0:42:14 — Two of everything in Harrisburg 0:43:20 — Aligning farm production with environmental outcomes 0:47:17 — Pricing crop insurance to risk 0:49:47 — Working lands and food security 0:51:18 — A Speaker vote that comes down to one member 0:54:20 — Education, outcomes and humility 0:56:43 — Lessons from the wrestling mat 1:02:00 — Where to find the campaign 1:04:47 — Voting as an affirmative act 1:05:25 — Dulany's test, turned around 1:06:29 — Crop insurance and the subsidy 1:07:18 — The Liberty Test: who pays for a closed primary? 1:10:22 — Next: Episode 19, "The Convention" 📚 Article 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," free with every source in its endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/the-revolutionary-argument-from-the-rights-of-englishmen-to-the-laws-of-nature 🗳️ Chris Gambino's campaign, with his policies: https://gambinoforpa.com The wrestling ad he mentions is on his About page: https://gambinoforpa.com/about-chris 🎙️ Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 — Episode 18i: Chris Gambino Next: Episode 19, "The Convention," Saturday, October 31. — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #pennsylvania #openprimaries #closedprimaries #independent #ballotaccess #buckscounty #statehouse #libertarian #selfevident #consequentialactions

  3. 5d ago

    In All Cases Whatsoever: The Case Against Nationalizing SpaceX

    Starlink, Ukraine and the Call to Nationalize SpaceX | Youngstown v. Sawyer In October, the satellite link guiding Ukraine's drones began dropping out above about 100 miles per hour, and no one would own the decision. Elon Musk wrote that the U.S. military and ultimately the President decide the limits on Starshield; Secretary of State Marco Rubio said no one at the White House ordered a slowdown. After service returned on October 24, Musk wrote that SpaceX had enforced Starlink's terms of service. Then former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called for nationalizing Starlink and SpaceX. When a government claims a private man's property for a war, whose consent does it need, and who answers for what is done with it? Companion to Saturday's Episode 18 and Article 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," published October 18. In 1766 Parliament declared its power to bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," and the colonists objected before anything had been seized. Jeff Kellick sets the competing accounts side by side, then follows the line between private firms and the government through Intel, U.S. Steel, MP Materials, Microsoft, and years of requests to switch Starlink on and off. He makes the owner's case for SpaceX and names its limit, Starshield, then turns to Montgomery Ward in 1944 and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court struck down Truman's steel seizure 6–3. Three objections follow: one man's control, the taxpayers' claim, and the cost in lives. The question underneath all of it: did this leave Americans more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 — Drones dropping out of the sky 2:43 — Whose consent does a government need? 4:15 — Private power and military reach 5:39 — Starlink in Ukraine since 2022 7:37 — Russian drones and the February whitelist 8:24 — October: the restrictions and the first accounts 9:34 — Service restored, and Musk's terms-of-service account 10:38 — Ukraine's answer: Starlink or Starshield? 11:41 — Every account comes from someone with a stake 12:36 — The timing: refineries, fuel prices and the midterms 13:41 — Senator Blumenthal's inquiry 14:25 — The Sugar Act and the Declaratory Act 15:19 — Robert Reich: "Nationalize it" 16:53 — Trump, Bannon, and the government as shareholder 18:39 — SpaceX's public shareholders and Musk's voting control 19:44 — The colonists of 1765 20:14 — The Pentagon's cloud and a handful of owners 20:40 — Years of requests to switch Starlink on and off 21:32 — Amazon moves Ukraine's data 22:27 — Microsoft and Unit 8200 23:30 — The principle has to work both ways 24:23 — The owner's case for SpaceX 25:58 — Jeff's own reading 26:55 — The limit of the owner's case: Starshield 28:51 — Seizing a company for a war: Montgomery Ward, 1944 30:11 — Truman's steel seizure and Youngstown v. Sawyer 31:09 — Justice Jackson's three categories 32:09 — The Defense Production Act and the Takings Clause 33:34 — The Honest Reckoning 35:35 — Objection one: one man's network 37:27 — Objection two: the taxpayers' claim 38:39 — Objection three: the cost in lives 41:39 — The Liberty Test: the man with the truck 43:18 — November 3 and the power of Congress 44:43 — Next: Episode 19, "The Convention" 📚 Article 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," free with every source in its endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/the-revolutionary-argument-from-the-rights-of-englishmen-to-the-laws-of-nature 🎙️ Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 — Episode 18B: "In All Cases Whatsoever" Next: Episode 19, "The Convention," Saturday, October 31. — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #starlink #spacex #ukraine #nationalization #privateproperty #youngstown #declaratoryact #constitution #libertarian #selfevident

  4. Oct 25

    From the Rights of Englishmen to the Laws of Nature: The Road to the Declaration

    From the Rights of Englishmen to the Laws of Nature: The Road to the Declaration In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration called its truths "sacred and undeniable." Those two words were struck through, and a new one was written above them: self-evident. A self-evident truth needs no charter, no statute, and no ancient constitution. In 1765 the colonists stood on their charters as Englishmen. By 1776 they claimed rights from the laws of nature. That appeal was there from the start, in James Otis's 1764 pamphlet, beside his pledge to obey Parliament. What changed was its place. The record runs from the Proclamation of 1763 through the Stamp Act, virtual representation and Daniel Dulany's answer, the committees of correspondence, the Congress of 1774, Common Sense, and George Mason's draft set beside Jefferson's. Then the bookshelf, sorted three ways: what the founders named, what they owned, and what had passed into the language without citation. The Honest Reckoning takes up the slave-trade passage Congress struck, the Prince Hall petition of 1777, the frontier, and the loyalists. The Skeptic's Case puts three objections at full strength. Companion to Article 18, published Sunday, October 18. On Tuesday, Episode 18B carries the Declaration's argument into our own time. Did the Revolution leave Americans more free, or more governed? And does the answer depend on which Americans you count? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 — Jefferson's rough draft, June 1776 1:09 — "Sacred and undeniable" struck through 2:18 — Introduction: The Revolutionary Argument 4:43 — The Proclamation of 1763 5:33 — The Sugar Act and Boston's answer 6:48 — James Otis, 1764 7:45 — "We must obey" 8:26 — The writs of assistance, 1761 9:02 — Coke and Bonham's Case 9:29 — Who said "taxation without representation"? 10:20 — The Stamp Act 11:14 — The third Virginia resolve 11:43 — Patrick Henry and the French traveler 12:58 — Hutchinson's house 13:31 — The Stamp Act Congress 14:29 — Virtual representation 15:04 — Dulany: "a mere cobweb" 15:35 — The Declaratory Act 16:20 — Adams and the law of nature 17:02 — Dickinson and the Townshend duties 17:54 — The committees of correspondence 18:34 — "Among the natural rights of the colonists" 19:56 — The tea and the Coercive Acts 20:20 — Jefferson's Summary View 21:05 — James Wilson: "equal and free" 22:25 — The Continental Congress, 1774 23:03 — Hamilton: "as with a sunbeam" 23:36 — Novanglus names the bookshelf 24:07 — How thirteen colonies became one cause 25:52 — Common Sense 28:07 — Adams and Inglis answer Paine 28:43 — The spring of 1776 29:27 — Lee's resolution 30:14 — Mason's draft and Jefferson's 31:34 — July 1 and July 2 32:51 — Congress edits the draft 33:04 — Where the second paragraph came from 34:06 — The bookshelf: what they named 35:57 — What they owned 37:31 — What the language carried 39:17 — The Levellers 40:20 — The Scots: Wills and Hamowy 41:57 — "The harmonizing sentiments of the day" 43:35 — The struck passage on the slave trade 45:35 — Johnson and the Prince Hall petition 46:36 — The frontier and the loyalists 48:16 — Skeptic's Case: a tool, or a belief? 49:45 — Skeptic's Case: the loyalists' law 51:29 — Skeptic's Case: the shelf itself 52:50 — The Liberty Test 53:49 — What changed was the order 54:46 — Next: Episode 19, "The Convention" 📚 Article 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," with full endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/the-revolutionary-argument-from-the-rights-of-englishmen-to-the-laws-of-nature Consequential Actions Podcast · Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 · Episode 18: "The Revolutionary Argument" — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #selfevident #consequentialactions #declarationofindependence #naturalrights #thomasjefferson #americanrevolution #stampact #johnlocke #americanhistory #libertarian

  5. Oct 22

    Liberty by Default: Ken Krawchuk's Education Plan and the Governor's Veto

    Ken Krawchuk Interview: The Libertarian Running for Pennsylvania Governor Twelve days before Pennsylvania chooses a governor, Libertarian nominee Ken Krawchuk takes up the history of the week: New England towns that voted their own taxes and refused one laid by a governor they had not chosen. This is the interview episode for Week 17 of Self-Evident: The Road to 1776, "Self-Government Before Theory." Ken is on the ballot November 3 with his running mate, John Thomas, our Week 6 guest. He has spent a career as a computer programmer and business systems architect, and he is the author of Atlas Snubbed. We begin in Ipswich in 1687, with what a governor should do alone: the veto, a cabinet cut to six departments, and pardons through the Board of Pardons. Then the wasted-vote objection, ballot access, consent and the veto, who decides what a township allows, from data centers to the newcomer Ipswich turned away in 1639, school choice, the National Guard, where Ken and Jeff want the same thing and part on how to get it, the emergency clock, license-plate cameras, and incorporation. Did this leave us more free, or more governed? Jeff puts the question to Ken's "can't license": liberty as the default, restricted only after an abuse, by a sentence before a jury. ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00:00 — Cold open: the race by its numbers 0:02:14 — Introduction: Week 17 and a candidate on the record 0:04:04 — Three threads for the hour 0:05:10 — Meet Ken Krawchuk 0:06:40 — Ipswich, 1687: what should a governor do alone? 0:09:24 — Cutting the cabinet to six 0:11:04 — Drug policy and the Board of Pardons 0:13:13 — The wasted-vote objection 0:16:15 — Approve, approve, disapprove voting 0:18:37 — "Free and equal" elections and ballot access 0:21:46 — The Ballot Access Coalition 0:23:09 — Consent and the veto 0:24:56 — The Municipal Planning Code and data centers 0:27:37 — Who speaks for the landowner? 0:29:07 — Ipswich, 1639: "the town was full" 0:31:20 — Fund the child, not the system 0:38:04 — The National Guard and Defend the Guard 0:41:53 — Statute or constitution? Where Ken differs 0:42:30 — The 21-day limit on emergency declarations 0:48:19 — License-plate cameras and Flock 0:50:40 — "The Flocked Up Blues" and the campaign songs 0:52:35 — Atlas Snubbed: the separation of society and state 0:56:36 — The "can't license" 0:58:07 — A court without coercive power 1:00:42 — Incorporation: where does the line belong? 1:02:46 — Ken's answer: the Supremacy Clause 1:05:30 — A message to the voter on the fence 1:07:27 — Where to find Atlas Snubbed 1:08:34 — Closing: what came out of the hour 1:09:27 — Where we part on the Guard 1:11:09 — From Tuesday: Ken on incorporation 1:11:44 — A correction: Heller and McDonald 1:12:16 — The Liberty Test: the "can't license" 1:14:44 — Next: Episode 18, "The Revolutionary Argument" 📚 Article 17, "Self-Government Before Theory," with every source in its endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/self-government-before-theory-a-hundred-and-fifty-years-of-practice 🗳️ Ken Krawchuk for Governor: https://www.kenk4pa.com 🎵 Ken's campaign songs, including "The Flocked Up Blues": https://www.kenk4pa.com/1726-2/ 📖 Atlas Snubbed: https://atlassnubbed.com/ 🎙️ Jamie Frost Remmey, our Week 7 guest, running for Pennsylvania's First Congressional District: https://www.jamiefrostremmey.com 🎙️ Consequential Actions · Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 · Episode 17i Next: Episode 18, "The Revolutionary Argument," Saturday, October 24. — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #kenkrawchuk #pennsylvania #pagovernor #libertarian #defendtheguard #ballotaccess #schoolchoice #propertytax #consequentialactions

  6. Oct 20

    Incorporation: Does the Bill of Rights Bind the States? Kian v. Florida

    Incorporation: Does the Bill of Rights Bind the States? Kian v. Florida In 1789 James Madison asked Congress to bar the states from violating the rights of conscience, the freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. He called it the most valuable amendment on the list. The Senate struck it out. This term the Supreme Court decides whether Florida may convict a man of a felony with a jury of six. Hamed Kian was convicted on five felony counts by six jurors. In federal court he would have faced twelve. On Saturday, in Episode 17 and Article 17, New England towns governed themselves for a century and a half, and by the same authority taxed for the minister and hanged Quakers. The question that history leaves: when a near government and a distant one disagree about a person's rights, which one gets the last word? Jeff traces incorporation from Barron v. Baltimore through the Fourteenth Amendment, Colfax and the Slaughter-House Cases to Duncan and Ramos, and sets Kian beside the Zenger trial of 1735. Two libertarian answers point down opposite paths, the Honest Reckoning names two failures of the liberty movement, and the Skeptic's Case takes three objections at full strength. Did this leave us more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 — Madison's lost amendment, 1789 1:43 — A felony and a jury of six 2:20 — Saturday's towns, today's question 3:36 — Two commitments in conflict 4:51 — "Congress shall make no law" 5:28 — The states' own bills of rights 6:06 — Madison's fear, Georgia's bounty 7:33 — Barron v. Baltimore 8:53 — Massachusetts, 1833 9:41 — The Fourteenth Amendment 10:24 — Howard and Bingham 11:53 — Colfax and Slaughter-House, 1873 13:52 — United States v. Cruikshank 14:35 — Due process, one right at a time 15:33 — Palko and double jeopardy 15:58 — Black's dissent in Adamson 16:27 — Duncan v. Louisiana 17:25 — Heller and McDonald 17:55 — Timbs and Humboldt County 18:24 — Ramos and the convention of 1898 19:04 — What remains, and Saenz v. Roe 20:18 — Kian v. Florida 21:45 — The Zenger trial, 1735 22:42 — Andrew Hamilton's argument 23:50 — The jury in 1776 24:32 — Ramos against Williams 24:55 — Florida's answer 25:20 — The scholars, and the reach 26:32 — Who stands on each side 27:06 — Not left against right 27:38 — Florida's business, or Kian's? 28:43 — Barnett and Bernick 29:47 — Power close enough to watch 31:29 — A floor, not a ceiling 32:03 — Saturday's two statements 32:44 — The Honest Reckoning 34:26 — The historical objection 36:01 — The federalism objection 37:20 — Who decides? 38:02 — Privileges or Immunities 38:51 — The Liberty Test 40:37 — Thursday and Saturday 📚 Article 17, "Self-Government Before Theory," with every source in its endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/self-government-before-theory-a-hundred-and-fifty-years-of-practice 📚 Week 14, Jared McClain of the Institute for Justice on the civil jury: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/humboldt-county-s-cannabis-fines-the-civil-jury-jared-mcclain-institute-for-justice 🎙️ Consequential Actions Podcast · Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 · Episode 17B, "No State Shall" Next: Thursday, Ken Krawchuk, the Libertarian nominee for governor of Pennsylvania. Saturday, Episode 18, "The Revolutionary Argument." — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #billofrights #fourteenthamendment #incorporation #jurytrial #supremecourt #kianvflorida #federalism #libertarian #consequentialactions

  7. Oct 17

    The Mayflower Compact to the Town Meeting: How Colonial New England Governed Itself. “Self-Government Before Theory”

    The Mayflower Compact to the Town Meeting: How Colonial New England Governed Itself In November 1620, the Mayflower dropped anchor far outside the only patent its passengers held. Before anyone went ashore, forty-one men promised to make just and equal laws and to obey them. The paper named no office and stated no right. The habit it began lasted a century and a half. New Englanders elected their officers, voted their own taxes, wrote down their laws, and ran their own churches long before one of their ministers explained the practice in the language of natural law. The record runs from the Massachusetts Bay charter through the May 1631 court that widened the vote and narrowed it in one sitting, the Body of Liberties of 1641, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and Rhode Island's "lively experiment" of 1663. When the Dominion of New England laid a tax without an assembly, the Ipswich town meeting refused it in 1687, and its leaders pleaded Magna Carta at trial. Thirty years later their minister, John Wise, recast the practice through Pufendorf in his Vindication of 1717. Jonathan Mayhew's 1750 sermon on Romans 13 and Edmund Burke's 1775 "salutary neglect" complete the record. The Honest Reckoning counts who stood how far from the meetinghouse door: women and non-members, the banished, the Quakers hanged in Boston, the people Liberty 91 let the colony hold as property, and the Pequot and Narragansett. Samuel Appleton, jailed for his town's right of consent in 1687, had commanded Massachusetts troops at the Great Swamp in 1675. Companion to Article 17, published Sunday, October 11. On Tuesday, Episode 17B carries the question into the present day. Did it leave people more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 — A ship outside its patent, 1620 1:27 — The Mayflower Compact 3:02 — Introduction: Self-Government Before Theory 4:30 — Jamestown, 1619, and the short answer 6:48 — The Massachusetts Bay charter 8:08 — Winthrop on civil liberty 8:48 — May 1631: the vote widened and narrowed 10:09 — 1634: the freemen read the charter 10:53 — The Body of Liberties, 1641 12:06 — Magna Carta and Coke's books 12:41 — The town: Dedham and the selectmen 13:48 — Liberty 12: the right to speak 14:19 — 1647: non-freemen in town affairs 15:25 — The church covenant and the meetinghouse 16:36 — Hooker and the Fundamental Orders 17:25 — Rhode Island's "lively experiment" 18:18 — The Dominion of New England 19:12 — Ipswich refuses the tax, 1687 20:39 — Samuel Appleton's winter 21:09 — 1689: Boston rises 21:49 — John Wise and Pufendorf 23:44 — Adams, Gridley, and the 1772 reprint 24:40 — The Great Awakening and its name 25:53 — Mayhew's sermon of 1750 27:53 — Burke and "salutary neglect" 28:57 — What distance did and did not do 29:47 — The Honest Reckoning: inside the room 30:16 — The disfranchised and the banished 31:04 — The Quaker executions 31:49 — Liberty 91 32:53 — Mystic, 1637 34:41 — What London did not stop 35:20 — King Philip's War and Samuel Appleton 36:33 — Skeptic's Case: only neglect? 38:18 — Skeptic's Case: a standard it never held? 39:57 — The Liberty Test 41:19 — Incorporation, and two interviews 43:34 — The answer 44:56 — 1763, and the road ahead 📚 Article 17, with full endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/self-government-before-theory-a-hundred-and-fifty-years-of-practice 🎙️ The John Thomas (Week 6) and Jared McClain (Week 14) interviews: https://www.consequentialactions.com/posts/categories/podcast--the-interviews Consequential Actions Podcast · Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 · Episode 17: "Self-Government Before Theory" — Consequential Actions is a libertarian, non-interventionist analysis of American constitutional and foreign policy. New episodes weekly. 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #selfevident #consequentialactions #mayflowercompact #townmeeting #colonialamerica #puritans #selfgovernment #americanhistory #libertarian #johnwise

  8. Oct 13

    The Houthis vs. Saudi Arabia: Who Can End Yemen’s War?

    The Houthis vs. Saudi Arabia: Who Can End Yemen's War? On Saturday a Houthi missile struck Riyadh's airport and killed thirteen people, one of them an American. In Yemen, tribal mediators have spent the whole war bringing the dead home to their families before anyone speaks of terms. Episode 16B sets the war in Yemen and over Saudi Arabia beside the condolence rite of the Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace, the rite that answered a grieving man's loss before anyone asked him to make law. Who carries that condolence today: a patron, an interpreter with a stake, or a peacemaker? This is the contemporary application of Saturday's Episode 16, "The Great Law of Peace," and of Article 16 in our written series, posted October 5. Saturday followed the Six Nations (the Iroquois Confederacy) as a union that began by ending a blood feud. Today asks what that history has to say about a feud being fought right now. Jeff traces the House of Saud and Yemen's Zaydi imams from 1902 to the war that began in 2015, and the outside powers, from Britain to Iran to the United States, that courted and armed them. He sets Washington's warning against passionate attachments and Jefferson's "entangling alliances with none" beside a partnership with Riyadh that no Senate ever ratified. He follows Saudi oil through its two threatened doors, Hormuz and Yanbu, to a record September at American gas pumps. Then he turns to the peace that almost happened: Nadwa al-Dawsari's study of Yemen's tribal ceasefires, the Omani-carried talks of 2022 and 2023, and what broke them. The Honest Reckoning names two failures of the liberty movement, and the Skeptic's Case takes three objections at full strength, including the cost of staying out. Did it leave people more free, or more governed? ⏱️ CHAPTERS 0:00 A missile on Riyadh, a rite in Marib 2:29 Episode 16B: who carries the condolence? 3:31 Article 16, and why this week 5:19 Yemen in plain words: the three camps 8:04 The House of Saud and the British 9:46 Yemen's old house: the Zaydi imams 11:00 The expulsion, the bin Ladens, and the border 11:57 Native houses, courted by empires 12:40 The war of 2015 and its record 13:37 The cost on both sides 14:55 How the war came back in 2026 15:44 The Six Nations stay neutral, 1701 16:45 Washington's Farewell Address 17:36 Entangling alliances with none 18:17 The Quincy and the Carter Doctrine 19:20 Saudi Arabia's eastern door: Hormuz 19:58 The western door: Yanbu and the pipeline 20:45 What it costs at the pump 22:16 Interceptors, deficits, and a personal note 23:46 Two forecasts: Ritter and Malik 25:22 Conrad Weiser, the interpreter with a stake 25:57 The American posture: intelligence and Muscat 27:11 The case for doing more 27:36 Oman, the house where enemies meet 28:08 The Mecca defense pact 28:50 A union made for war 29:19 Yemen's own condolence rite 30:51 The limits of tribal mediation 32:03 Stockholm and the central process 33:01 The truce, Riyadh in Sanaa, the roadmap 33:54 What broke the roadmap 34:38 Tadodaho: not defeated, seated 35:09 Seating the Houthis 36:30 The Honest Reckoning 38:23 The Skeptic's Case: three objections 41:41 The Liberty Test 43:03 Next: Episode 17 📚 Article 16, "The Great Law of Peace," with every source in its endnotes: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/the-great-law-of-peace-the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-question-of-influence 📚 The backstory, from our Empire of Liberty series: "Lines in the Sand," on Sykes-Picot, Balfour, and the creation of the modern Middle East: https://www.consequentialactions.com/post/lines-in-the-sand-sykes-picot-balfour-and-the-creation-of-the-modern-middle-east 🎙️ Consequential Actions Podcast · Self-Evident: The Road to 1776 · Episode 16B, "Who Carries the Condolence" 🌐 https://www.consequentialactions.com #yemen #saudiarabia #houthis #greatlawofpeace #haudenosaunee #foreignpolicy #libertarian #noninterventionism #middleeast #consequentialactions

See All (100)

About

Our standard is simple: we evaluate every policy, every leader, every turning point by asking the founders’ question updated for our time—Did this leave people more free or more governed?

Information