All government agencies intervene in people’s lives and liberty. The entire government bureaucracy exists precisely to do that. These agencies have an impact on social life and facilitate government spending. Whoever holds these positions, with matching differences in power and relevance levels, will serve at least a minimally statist agenda. In consequence, unless an agency and everything to do with its inner workings is completely abolished, the impact of the agencies can only increase, maintain or decrease.

As this election cycle has demonstrated yet again, Democrats are not shy about calling for tax increases. In every election cycle they call for more taxes, whether through corporate taxes or through taxes on unrealized capital gains. 

Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to cut some taxes. I say “some” because Trump has also pledged to raise taxes on imports.

Nonetheless, Trump ran on the idea that he would reduce the tax burden on Americans if elected.  

Both presidential campaigns are making outlandish promises in the waning hours before election day. Kamala Harris claims she will stop corporate price gouging with government force. The legislative mechanics of how she would do this are unknown. Prices distribute goods. A high price is a signal that more of that particular good should be produced. Increases in the level of all prices is caused by inflation of the money supply. Price inflation indicates a drop in the purchasing power of money. Murray Rothbard explains what will result with Harris price controls:

Within the social order, characterized by the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production, there exists instances of human action—purposeful behavior—whose origins consist in the motive and choice to attain one’s ends. In entrepreneurial endeavors this entails outperforming fellow participants in serving consumers. Acting man in his entrepreneurial capacity, striving to expand the boundaries of attractive opportunities available to consumers in the market, much more than his competitors.

States do not have rights. States, after all, are just organizations with a monopoly on the means of coercion within a certain territory. They are not natural, and certainly do not enjoy any natural rights. At their best, states can be used to protect the rights of the people who live within their borders. States are usually not at their best, however. Usually, state powers are employed to violate the rights of the people unfortunate enough to live under the power of state operatives.

Donald Trump is the projected winner of the 2024 presidential election. After winning back states he had lost in 2020, Trump performed well in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—states Kamala Harris needed to win. Trump has won more than enough electoral votes to win back the White House and, as of early Wednesday morning, is projected to win the popular vote. 

Republicans have also retaken control of the Senate. Control over the House of Representatives is still up for grabs but, so far, Republicans are on pace to take that too. 

Both the current President and his predecessor claim credit for low unemployment. To what extent are recent lows in unemployment rates due to the policies of these two Presidents’ policies?