Amazon’s purchase of high-end grocery retailer Whole Foods was approved last week. That the federal government had any role at all in the combination of two private companies is on its own an offense to common sense. Government barriers erected to mergers trample on property rights, restrain economic progress for crucial information about the good or bad of tie-ups needlessly reaching markets late, plus readers must consider the unseen: the economic activity not taking place thanks to the forced duplication of effort that is an effect of antitrust.

Modern stock-market commentary is always amusing. Maybe it’s the desire among writers to secure clicks in the age of the internet, but so much of the media chatter about markets focuses on the coming “boom,” “crash,” or the always “eerie” similarities to 1929, 1987, or 2008. That it does is a sign of how worthless most equity commentary is.

Since it went commercial roughly 20 years ago, the internet has become a part of our daily lives, from entertainment to shopping to social networking. Today’s internet is a vibrant global network connecting more than 3.5 billion users worldwide through 224 million websites. Every day, users send almost 270 million emails worldwide and 2 billion users connect with each other through Facebook, the most popular social media platform. That the United States is the dominant force in all of this is not an accident. America’s tech giants emerged from a policy framework that fostered innovation and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, these bedrock principles are under attack today as lawmakers ponder expansive new liability laws that would profoundly alter the way the internet works. The latest effort to rewire the internet comes in the noble sounding “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017” (SESTA). While the goals are laudable, it would have a significant adverse impact on how we use the internet, but little impact on sex trafficking.

Sigh. Here we go again. The House Republican Conference is quietly discussing the possibility of bringing back earmarks, or dedicated federal funds in appropriations bills usually for pet projects in a member’s district or state. The organizations or projects for which these funds are earmarked aren’t the subject to committee hearings and serve some special interest. Earmarks are pork-barrel spending by another name.