At the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2026, the facade of the Bulgarian National Bank in Sofia was lit up with the display of a golden Euro coin. Crowds gathered in sub-zero temperatures to watch the Bulgarian lev—meaning “lion,” the state currency since 1880—relegated to history. By morning, Bulgaria had become the Eurozone’s 21st member state: a decision which, at first glance, appears nothing more than a technical monetary change. But any change as momentous as this is loaded with deep historical symbolism, economic consequences, and political tensions within the European Union (EU). As a result, whether this change is also a wise one is a live debate.

To understand the significance of Bulgaria becoming the latest economy to join the euro—marking a continual expansion of the eurozone into the post-Soviet sphere—it is important to recount some of the euro’s history. Introduced in 1999 and entering physical circulation in 2002, the euro is the shared currency of the EU, and intentionally designed to achieve the apotheosis of the original aim of the European Coal and Steel Community (1952), which was to bind European economies together so tightly that the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries would become structurally impossible.

Consequently, joining the euro is not simply swapping one currency for another. It means surrendering monetary policy and submitting to the European Central Bank (ECB)—but getting, in return, access to the full machinery of European financial integration, which include lower borrowing costs, frictionless trade, and a chance to contribute to decisions over the economic future of the continent.

That last one was the most salient for the ECB itself, with President Christine Lagarde saying Bulgaria will now have “a view, a voice, a vote.” Bulgaria’s National Bank governor will be entitled to a full seat at the ECB’s governing council, which determines the interest rates for the entire eurozone. For a nation of just over 6 million citizens, and an economy that sends nearly two-thirds (64%) of its exports to the rest of the continent, this is a qualitative leap in institutional power.

Moreover, choosing to join the eurozone is not simply economic, but political. Bulgarian Prime Minister Rossen Zhelyakov said it himself when he declared in November that joining the euro is “not just a currency but a strategic choice.” This strategic dimension is central to understanding Bulgaria’s modern identity, as both a post-imperial nation during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and a post-communist nation.

Bulgaria emerged from the post-Soviet bloc in 1989 following Mikhail Gorbachev’s abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which had kept communist governments propped up by Moscow’s willingness to intervene. Not only this, but as a member of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, Bulgaria’s economy was almost fully integrated into the Soviet system.

The divorce from the Soviet Union was not, therefore, a clean one, but a prolonged and painful transition—but it did eventually lead to free-market capitalism. During the 1990s, Bulgaria experienced hyperinflation, banking collapse, and political instability. But in 1997, after a devastating financial crisis saw inflation soar into quadruple digits, and was “so deep that [it] quickly crippled the real sector and finally culminated in a political crisis,” the lev was stabilized by a currency board system that pegged it to the Deutsche Mark and, eventually, the euro itself. Bulgaria’s journey to alignment with the West had begun.

This decision to tie the lev to the Deutsch Mark and later the euro means that, in practical terms, Bulgaria has been operating under euro-monetary policy for nearly three decades, only without any capacity to shape the decision-making that accession to the euro now confers. Moreover, this journey continued with Bulgaria’s accession to the EU itself in 2007, along with full membership of the Schengen Area in 2025, the zone that allows the free movement of labor and goods.

Retiring the lev voluntarily is, to reaffirm the point here, a political choice—and a statement. Since its introduction in 1880, the lev has outlasted two empires and a communist government, both of which were imposed on Bulgaria from outside and without any popular support. To choose to surrender currency autonomy willingly is, seemingly paradoxically, an act of national determination. But since it is in many ways codifying the economic reality of the last 30 years, it is a move that enhances the political sovereignty of the nation: it is not for nothing that Dimitar Radev, head of the Bulgarian National Bank, referred to it as a “sign of belonging: that [Bulgaria’s] place is not on the periphery, but in a space of common rules, trust, and responsibility.”

At least, so go the arguments in favor. The celebrations in Sofia were nearly overshadowed by something the official imagery and government statements preferred not to dwell on: deep and persistent—and entirely legitimate—public opposition, and the lack of any obvious mandate for the shift.

Bulgaria’s own Ministry of Finance commissioned a survey, published in June 2025, that showed the Bulgarian public almost perfectly divided: 46.8% opposed the euro, while 46.5% were in favor. Likewise, in November 2025, a Eurobarometer poll showed that 49% of Bulgarians opposed the euro, with 42% in favor. There are real anxieties at play in the country that are not fringe worries here.

Chief among anxieties are inflation and the political divisions that come with European integration. Food prices in Bulgaria rose by 5% year-on-year in November 2025—more than double the eurozone average. Small business owners in cities like Haskovo warned that while economic indicators might improve, the population would become poorer while larger enterprises prospered. EU investment since 2007 has totaled €16.3 billion, but much of it flowed to Sofia and Plovdiv; rural Bulgaria has felt the benefit far less clearly.

These concerns were compounded by a profound sense of democratic grievance. President Rumen Radev repeatedly called for a referendum before adoption, which the parliament dismissed. But civic engagement in Bulgaria is remarkably high: in December 2025, anti-corruption protests brought down the conservative government entirely, sending the country toward its eighth parliamentary election in five years even as euro coins were being loaded into ATMs.

Joining the euro is both a genuine milestone for Bulgaria—and a genuine wound at once. The economic case is strong: lower transaction costs, greater investment stability, improved credit ratings, and (most significantly) a formal voice in monetary policy. The symbolism matters. But durable European integration has never been built on elite consensus alone—just look at Brexit. The protests, the polls, the fallen government are all obstacles, and not ones easily managed. Bulgaria must tread lightly here, and the citizens must feel a genuine sense of improvement in their lives if economic integration is to be successful.

When you think of self-driving cars, you may imagine scenes from a sci-fi movie, with sleek silver cars sliding perfectly into and out of the flow of traffic. Pedestrians simply express their desire for a car, and in moments one appears.

Just as easily, you might also think of media reports you’ve seen about crashes and other malfunctions of these vehicles in the recent past. You may even think of both and think that the sci-fi depiction is far-fetched and unlikely. The reality is actually simpler: self-driving cars are inevitable.

In the US, we love our cars. Nearly 92% of households have access to a motor vehicle. We have car shows, car racing, car dealerships everywhere, and even TV shows about cars. It’s an accepted part of our society. In a geographically expansive country like ours, cars are essential for many. Along with car culture, we also have a cultural acceptance of the dangers and even fatalities that come from car accidents. The US (human) accident rate is approximately 2,000 per million miles driven. Around 40,000 people are killed each year in auto accidents. Right now, hardly anyone talks about these deaths. There are few news articles, and it is generally accepted as the price of driving.

What if we could reduce the number of injuries and fatalities to 50% of what they are now? Or even further, what about 80%? Would it be worth it to switch to self-driving cars then? Interestingly enough, preliminary numbers from Waymo indicate that they already are 80% safer. The media rushes to report any accidents caused by these cars, which may give the impression that they are much more dangerous. The truth is, they actually promise a safer world for all.

Imagine a world with safe, self-driving cars. Mothers would feel more comfortable about their children. Parents’ dreadful fears about having a 16-year-old out on the streets would be almost completely relieved. People wouldn’t worry about the vision and dexterity loss of the elderly when they get into a vehicle. Drunk driving would be a thing of the past. Road rage would almost be eliminated—self-driving cars won’t cut off or tailgate other self-driving cars. Tens of thousands of lives would be saved per year, in the US alone.

Currently, most people do not realize that these autonomous vehicles are safer than a human driver. Concurrently, it is also not well understood that the performance of AI across most domains is growing at a staggering rate. This means that these cars that already outperform human drivers will keep getting better and better. At some point, it will be obvious that the best choice will be to give up our keys. Other factors will contribute to this as well; safety is only one of the reasons to switch.

For a while, there will be a mix of self-driving cars and manned vehicles on the road. As we move toward a majority of autonomous cars on the road, we will increasingly see the benefits:

Autonomous vehicles will drive without being heavy on the gas pedal. They will be able to coordinate with other vehicles to have smooth lane changes and predict routes and congestion based on shared information. People going to work will simply step into a car and can relax with a coffee, start reading email, or even get a little extra sleep.

What’s more, with fleets of these cars on the roads, you won’t even need to own one. If you don’t own a car, there is no need for individual insurance; you’ll simply share a minor cost every time you ride. You can be tired or intoxicated and get right in. The blind and elderly and many others who have difficulty driving will now have the same option as everyone else. If you rent from a service, you never have to pay for parking.

Even if you own your own self-driving car, you can just have it go back home or park far away and then come pick you up when you’re done. No long walks to the car, no paying parking fees. Imagine this: no more parking tickets. While we’re at it: no more speeding tickets or traffic violations. Waymo and Tesla’s planned Robotaxi networks are already betting on this being our future. Uber is launching its own self-driving taxi service this year.

If there were 80% fewer accidents overall, it would save over 30,000 American lives per year. At some point, the benefits will far outweigh our desire to keep driving. Right now, these cars still have their challenges, such as difficult weather, construction zones, and complex urban environments, but it won’t be long until these challenges are solved. The real barriers are regulation and public sentiment. Once governments and the public realize the avalanche of benefits from these vehicles, the tipping point will occur, and we will begin our transition. Welcome to the future.

The experience of being bombed is even more terrifying because the government is sharing little information and sending few alerts, said Ali, an engineer in Tehran. Ordinary Iranians are cut off from the internet, and Ali said people had resorted to calling friends and relatives in areas where they saw fighter jets headed.

The ferocity of the attacks has divided sentiment among opponents of the government after a brutal crackdown on nationwide protests by security forces last January. Thousands were killed.

"Some people are comfortable with the bombings - I know that may sound strange," said Ali. "They are upset if there is a night without bombing, and fear the war might end while the regime remains. You can see this clearly. People say we have already paid enough of a price and the Islamic republic must go."

Ali said he was sympathetic to that view. "Our lives have no value for the Islamic republic," he said. "We are the government's human shields."

The post Anthropic vs. Trump: The Moral Responsibility of Tech Companies appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.