Mutiny watch: The ‘Illegal Orders’ Minefield

Joshua Braver, writing for The Wall Street Journal, highlights the complex nature of military obedience. He notes that while service members are permitted to disobey unlawful orders, the system heavily incentivizes compliance. This creates a challenging environment where the consequences of disobedience loom large.

Disobeying a lawful order carries severe repercussions, including the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, imprisonment, or even the death penalty. In cases where the legality of an order is unclear, only a court-martial can ultimately resolve its legitimacy.

Braver further explains that there is no overarching legal obligation to defy an unlawful order. The Nuremberg principle, which was pertinent during the trials of Nazi officials, has since been significantly narrowed in scope. As a result, the legal system sends a straightforward message: compliance is generally protected, whereas defiance places the burden of risk on the individual.

Meanwhile, Ronald Bailey from Reason offers a different perspective, celebrating the economic progress over the past century. He notes with enthusiasm that the proportion of income that the average American spends on food has dramatically decreased over the last 100 years.

In sum, “the law’s message is simple: Obey and you are likely protected; disobey and you shoulder the risk.”

Libertarian: A Food-Price Win for Americans

“The share of their incomes that average Americans devote to paying for food has fallen steeply over the last 100 years,” cheers Reason’s Ronald Bailey.

“This happy development stems from two long-term trends: rising incomes and falling food prices.”

“In 1929, Americans spent 23.4 percent of their after tax-personal disposable income buying food”; today, “Americans spend 4.9 percent of their incomes on food at home and 5.5 percent on food away from home, such as dining out at restaurants.”

Thus: “As their incomes rise, Americans spend more money on food but it represents a smaller share of their income.”

So, despite the 2020-’24 jump in food prices, “the century-long trend has been falling prices for food staples.”

Conservative: In Immigration Policy, Facts Matter

“Progressives have suggested” that reporting “about widespread fraud committed by Somalis in Minnesota” is “racist,” notes City Journal’s Chris Rufo, especially because it led the White House to revoke protected status for Somali migrants.

But “facts should not be measured as ‘racist or not racist,’” when it is true that a small Somali community “stole billions in funds.”

Until recently, “Americans have been loath to address” the question of “different behaviors and outcomes between different groups,” but “different groups have different cultural characteristics.”

America has “expected Somalis to play by the rules”; some “have certainly done so,” but many have not. “A rational government would amend its policies accordingly.”

We should “recognize cultural norms as a reasonable measure of capacity to assimilate and to contribute.”

Liberal: Voters Want Affordability Solutions

“It’s easy to campaign on angry sentiments about the economy and affordability,” but harder to craft policies that “help voters cope with high costs in a timely fashion and reduce overall anxiety,” cautions The Liberal Patriot’s John Halpin.

A year after electing President Trump and a Republican Congress, “voters are still mad about inflation and the overall state of the economy” even as “American politics has been stuck in an endless cycle of partisan blame and talk about ‘doing something.’ ”

Expect voters next year to nonetheless turn to “candidates running on affordability” and “shifting partisan control of government in response” to the unresolved “affordability” crisis — but beware: As The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip warns: “There is nothing any elected official can do to ‘solve’ the affordability crisis” without making things worse.

Space beat: The Commercial Race Is On

“After a couple of scrubs and a few aggravating holds, the Blue Origin New Glenn finally rocketed into the clear, blue Florida sky,” cheers Mark R. Whittington at The Hill.

The successful launch not only rocketed a “pair of ESCAPADE probes” Mars-bound, “it also ushered in a new phase in the development of the commercial space sector.”

But to truly compete with SpaceX, Blue Origin must reuse its first stages “multiple times with the same rocket” and “greatly increase its flight rate.”

Ultimately, SpaceX and Blue Origin have plans for moon missions involving “a human landing system.”

The rivals share three goals: “return to the moon by 2028,” “beat the Chinese” and give President Trump “an event to ring out his presidency.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board