Onward! A Personal Tribute To Ed Feulner (1941-2025)
Dr. Edwin J. Feulner Jr. was such a significant policy player for over 50 years that, although numerous leaders have already shared memories of how he influenced their lives, there is ample room for further tributes. I first heard of Ed, as he liked to be called, as an immigrant from Argentina in the late 70s. For me Ed was an immense inspiration and later an extremely generous mentor and advisor.
I came to the United States in 1978 to study under Dr. Hans F. Sennholz at Grove City College. Sennholz had been a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and, though of course primarily a teacher, was very active as a speaker in conservative free-market circles. He introduced me to the work of Feulner at the Heritage Foundation. I finally met Feulner in September 1980, when I was invited to the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) meeting held at the Hoover Institution. Feulner became a key member of the MPS, occupying several leadership positions.
My acquaintance with Ed deepened starting in 1985 when I joined Antony Fisher, the founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and later founder of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Fisher attempted to hire Feulner to lead the International Center for Economic Policy Studies (ICEPS, today the Manhattan Institute). In 1978, Fisher had been discussing the creation of a New York-based think tank with his friend William J. "Bill" Casey, then a New York lawyer. Just as Feulner was about to start his new job, the recently established Heritage Foundation made him a much better offer, and the rest is history.
Although disappointed at not being able to hire him, Fisher remained friends with Feulner and invited him to speak at Atlas events. As in its early days Atlas was located in San Francisco, far from Heritage, at first, I mostly saw Feulner at the meetings of the Mont Pelerin Society. At one of those meetings, in Guatemala, I as a member of the program committee was able to invite Fr. Robert Sirico to speak. Sir John Templeton, who worked closely with Antony Fisher, attended the meeting as well. Following conversations during the meeting, Fr. Sirico decided to establish the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and both Feulner and I were asked to be on Acton's founding board.
At the end of our first Acton board retreat, I drove to the airport together with Ed. When I am with influential people, I ask the same questions: Whom do you always read? Who is doing great work, and should we support them more? And: What is the biggest problem we face today in our battle for freedom? I recall his answer to the latter vividly. It was in the mid 90's and Ed said: 'The young people who are joining the movement have a very shallow and superficial understanding of the principles of the free society. They join our think tanks, but they never went through the process of studying all the main works, the Founding Fathers, the great economists, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk.' Feulner invested his time in organizations such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), where he served as a long-standing trustee and chairman. ISI aims to fill the void Feulner spoke of by creating fellowships and academic programs for talented young people.
In addition to his role as a think tank leader, Ed Feulner also played a significant role in grant-giving foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which supports dozens of policy think tanks. He also served as an inspiration for other foundations. A little-known fact is that Sir John Templeton, in starting his organization, included Feulner on its charter as one of the authors who should serve as a guide for its grants in the realm of free enterprise. The other authors who preceded him are Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, William E. Simon, and Antony Fisher. Ideas never die, and Ed Feulner's views and legacy will continue to inspire many of us.
In addition to his leadership at think tanks and philanthropic organizations, Dr. Feulner played a role in various political campaigns. He worked alongside Jack Kemp when he was vice presidential candidate with Bob Dole. He also joined the campaign for Trump's 2016 presidential run. In 2016, at a private meeting with freedom fighters from around the world, Ed told us: 'Trump put one condition, that if we disagree with a policy, like I did on tariffs, we keep our disagreement private.'
Dr. Ed Feulner being recognized for his service to the Mont Pelerin Society during the Hong Kong ... More general meeting in 2014. Dr. Allan H. Meltzer (1928-2017), then president of the Society, at his side
When in 2014 the Mont Pelerin Society asked me to help choose a gift for Ed Feulner, I had a unique opportunity to learn about what inspired him. Without revealing my intention, I asked him during a private meeting at his office which intellectuals had had the greatest impact on his life. He was quick to answer G.K. Chesterton, Russell Kirk, and F.A. Hayek. An artist who knew him well, Debby Beisner, captured his response in a beautiful painting.
Books will be written about Ed Feulner and his legacy. For now, one of his favorite words suffices to remember his spirit: Onward!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
2 Healthcare Stocks That Are Losing to the S&P 500 This Year
Key Points Novo Nordisk and Regeneron have encountered challenges recently. Both companies are significantly trailing the market this year. These healthcare leaders still could perform well in the long run. 10 stocks we like better than Novo Nordisk › Even with all the volatility and the flirting with bear-market territory, the S&P 500 index is well in the green this year, up about 8% since early January. Some stocks haven't been so lucky, though. Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: REGN), two leading drugmakers, have underperformed for most of the year, significantly lagging the broader market. These healthcare giants are facing some headwinds, but does that mean investors should steer clear of them? Let's find out. 1. Novo Nordisk Novo Nordisk has been facing several challenges that predate this year. It encountered a clinical setback for what Wall Street thought was a promising weight management candidate. Furthermore, the company's financial results, although strong when compared to its similarly sized peers, were not seen as sufficient because it's held to a higher standard. These challenges have led to a terrible performance this year. Novo Nordisk's shares are down by 18% year to date, significantly lagging the S&P 500. However, the stock might be a steal right now. The company has made several moves that should allow it to recover. Novo Nordisk's pipeline, especially in diabetes and weight management, remains one of the strongest in the industry. It recently initiated a phase 3 study for amycretin -- its next-generation GLP-1 medicine -- in both subcutaneous and oral formulations. It requested regulatory approval in the U.S. for an oral version of semaglutide, its well-known medicine marketed as Wegovy for weight loss and as Ozempic for diabetes management. Novo Nordisk has also penned several licensing deals that have expanded its pipeline in weight management. The company should launch at least one new medicine in its core therapeutic area within the next few years. Financial results should remain strong as Ozempic and Wegovy continue driving solid revenue growth. Considering the stock's sell-off over the past years, shares now look more than reasonably valued relative to Novo Nordisk's growth potential. Their forward price-to-earnings ratio of 16.9 is in line with the healthcare industry's average of 16.5 as of this writing. However, Novo Nordisk typically grows its revenue and earnings faster than its peers. That makes its stock attractive at current levels, based on its growth potential. 2. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Regeneron is facing biosimilar competition for Eylea, a medicine for wet age-related macular degeneration that was once one of its biggest growth drivers. Sales of the medicine have dropped, dragging total revenue down with them. That's the most important reason why Regeneron's shares are down by 19% since the year started. However, the stock is still attractive. The biotech might go through a period of its top line declining, but it can still recover. Here are three reasons why. First, the company's newer, higher-dose (HD) formulation of Eylea is taking market share away from its previous version. HD Eylea is performing well and will grow even faster once it earns some label expansions. Second, Regeneron has a deep pipeline that's expected to yield new brand approvals. Earlier this month, it earned the green light for Lynozyfic, a cancer medicine, in the U.S. One of its more promising candidates is a gene therapy for one type of genetic deafness, which is showing incredible potential in clinical trials. Regeneron should move beyond Eylea thanks to newer approvals. Third, the company's most important product, Dupixent, an eczema treatment, is performing exceptionally well. The medicine has earned important label expansions in recent years, including in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a rare skin condition called bullous pemphigoid. Dupixent will maintain its upward growth trajectory for a while. Here's one more reason to invest in Regeneron: The company is committed to returning capital to shareholders. It recently initiated a dividend and has a robust share-buyback program in place. The stock might be moving in the wrong direction right now, but those willing to hold onto it for five years or more could see superior returns over the long run. Should you invest $1,000 in Novo Nordisk right now? Before you buy stock in Novo Nordisk, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Novo Nordisk wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Healthcare Stocks That Are Losing to the S&P 500 This Year was originally published by The Motley Fool Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG): The $5 Meal Line Was ‘Abhorrent,' Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE:CMG) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE:CMG) has appeared on Cramer's morning show several times in 2025. He has praised the firm's CEO, Scott Boatwright, commented on high menu prices, and outlined that he prefers Texas Roadhouse instead. This time, Cramer didn't hold back after Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE:CMG)'s latest earnings results: '[On how year-to-date losses were getting material] Yeah, 4%, minus 4% comps, now they did try to put a good face on by saying that, the cadence was better. Otherwise, the stock would probably be down ten. But there was a moment on the call which was just very, very painful. Scott Boatwright talked about what the other guys were doing, the five dollar meal. Well I don't want to hear that. Cause the five dollar meal is not anything I ever want to eat. But at the same time he goes like, look with our competitors with snack occasion of five dollar meal, that's where the consumer is drifting. Towards value as a price point. Wow. I never know that this was a situation that McDonald's versus Chipotle. Now there's McDonald's down here in the scrum and Chipotle's up here. But that showed, either there's something structurally wrong with the company or they got to rethink about their pricing. I was disappointed. Photo by LikeMeat on Unsplash '[On whether the troubles were a reflection of poor management] I don't want it to be. I like him very much. That line was abhorrent. I didn't want to hear it. That the five dollar meal company that you would never eat at, cause it's just chemicals, is beating a company that's clean. That's how I felt.' While we acknowledge the potential of CMG as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
