The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh and attorney Francis Menton debate the resolution, "The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease."Taking the affirmative is Nowrasteh, the vice president of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, where most of his work has focused on immigration. He's the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions. A native of Southern California, Nowrasteh received a master's degree in economic history from the London School of Economics.Taking the negative is Menton, who writes at manhattancontrarian.com and was a litigation partner at Willkie Farr &amp; Gallagher LLP before retiring in December 2015 after over 40 years with the firm.The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this site.Audio editing by John Osterhoudt.The post Should the U.S. Have Free Immigration? appeared first on Reason.com.

The Cato Institute's <a href="https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alex Nowrasteh</a> and attorney <a href="https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/about/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Francis Menton</a> debate the resolution, "The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease."Taking the affirmative is Nowrasteh, the vice president of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, where most of his work has focused on immigration. He's the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1108477631/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions</a>. A native of Southern California, Nowrasteh received a master's degree in economic history from the London School of Economics.Taking the negative is Menton, who writes at <a href="http://manhattancontrarian.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">manhattancontrarian.com</a> and was a litigation partner at Willkie Farr &amp; Gallagher LLP before retiring in December 2015 after over 40 years with the firm.The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by <a href="http://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this site.Audio editing by John Osterhoudt.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/07/28/should-the-u-s-have-free-immigration/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Should the U.S. Have Free Immigration?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Should the U.S. Have Free Immigration?

Economist and libertarian David Friedman and Soho Forum Director and libertarian Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "The right way to persuade people of libertarianism is by showing them that its outcomes are superior by their standards, without any resort to the flawed nonaggression principle."Coincidentally, both Friedman and Epstein are 78 years old and Jewish. But as Epstein pointed out in his opening remarks, the comparison ends there. Friedman is the son of the famous free market Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman and his wife and collaborator, economist Rose Friedman, and was schooled intensely in the art of debate while growing up. Epstein, by contrast, can claim nothing comparable in his own lineage.Taking the affirmative, Friedman reviewed key arguments set forth in his book, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, originally published in 1973 but issued in updated editions since then. Though he does not believe that the libertarian's nonaggression principle, or NAP, is a coherent principle, he also explained that one can do without the NAP in convincing nonlibertarians to accept libertarian solutions to society's problems.Taking the negative, Epstein argued that what he preferred to call the zero-aggression principle, or ZAP, often plays an essential role in defending the libertarian case for radical reform. He provided examples, including abolishing both drug laws and government's interference with free international trade. He also addressed various aspects of Friedman's view that ZAP is an incoherent principle.  The debate was held before a live audience at noon on June 23 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival ("PorcFest") in Lancaster, New Hampshire. It was moderated by PorcFest leader Dennis Pratt. As Pratt has said, the primary purpose of the six-day event is to induce libertarians to move to the "free state" of New Hampshire. The post Is the Nonaggression Principle Incoherent? appeared first on Reason.com.

Economist and libertarian David Friedman and <a href="http://thesohoforum.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum</a> Director and libertarian <a href="https://reason.com/people/gene-epstein/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Gene Epstein</a> debate the resolution, "The right way to persuade people of libertarianism is by showing them that its outcomes are superior by their standards, without any resort to the flawed <a href="https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">nonaggression principle</a>."Coincidentally, both Friedman and Epstein are 78 years old and Jewish. But as Epstein pointed out in his opening remarks, the comparison ends there. Friedman is the son of the famous free market Nobel laureate economist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Milton-Friedman" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Milton Friedman</a> and his wife and collaborator, economist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Friedman" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rose Friedman</a>, and was schooled intensely in the art of debate while growing up. Epstein, by contrast, can claim nothing comparable in his own lineage.Taking the affirmative, Friedman reviewed key arguments set forth in his book, <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism</a>, originally published in 1973 but issued in updated editions since then. Though he does not believe that the libertarian's nonaggression principle, or NAP, is a coherent principle, he also explained that one can do without the NAP in convincing nonlibertarians to accept libertarian solutions to society's problems.Taking the negative, Epstein argued that what he preferred to call the zero-aggression principle, or ZAP, often plays an essential role in defending the libertarian case for radical reform. He provided examples, including abolishing both drug laws and government's interference with free international trade. He also addressed various aspects of Friedman's view that ZAP is an incoherent principle.  The debate was held before a live audience at noon on June 23 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival ("<a href="https://porcfest.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PorcFest</a>") in Lancaster, New Hampshire. It was moderated by PorcFest leader <a href="https://mises.org/profile/dennis-pratt" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dennis Pratt</a>. As Pratt has said, the primary purpose of the six-day event is to induce libertarians to move to the "free state" of New Hampshire. The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/06/30/is-the-nonaggression-principle-incoherent/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is the Nonaggression Principle Incoherent?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Is the Nonaggression Principle Incoherent?

Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Libertarianism has been thoroughly corrupted by delusion, greed, and disdain for the weak."Taking the affirmative is Koppelman, John Paul Stevens professor of law and professor of political science at Northwestern University. He received the Walder Award for Research Excellence from Northwestern, the Hart-Dworkin Award in Legal Philosophy from the Association of American Law Schools, and the Edward S. Corwin Prize from the American Political Science Association. He has written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books, most recently Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. You can find his recent work at andrewkoppelman.com.Arguing for the negative is Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor at Barron's. He's the author of Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard D. Wolff has gained almost 6 million views on Youtube.The post Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional? appeared first on Reason.com.

Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Libertarianism has been thoroughly corrupted by delusion, greed, and disdain for the weak."Taking the affirmative is <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2022/11/16/andrew-koppelman-delusion-and-greed-have-destroyed-libertarianism/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Koppelman</a>, John Paul Stevens professor of law and professor of political science at Northwestern University. He received the Walder Award for Research Excellence from Northwestern, the Hart-Dworkin Award in Legal Philosophy from the Association of American Law Schools, and the Edward S. Corwin Prize from the American Political Science Association. He has written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books, most recently <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1250280133/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed</a>. You can find his recent work at <a href="https://andrewkoppelman.com/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">andrewkoppelman.com</a>.Arguing for the negative is <a href="https://reason.com/people/gene-epstein/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Epstein</a>, the director of the <a href="http://thesohoforum.org" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum</a> and former economics and books editor at <a href="https://www.barrons.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Barron's</a>. He's the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471735132/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers</a>. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His <a href="https://youtu.be/YJQSuUZdcV4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">November 2019 debate</a> on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard D. Wolff has gained almost 6 million views on Youtube.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/05/26/are-libertarians-greedy-and-delusional/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional?

Woody Holton, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, and Phillip Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, debate the resolution, "The New York Times book The 1619 Project, and the Hulu video series based on it, are important contributions to our understanding of slavery and the role of African Americans in American history."The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was Holton, who is the author of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia, which won the Organization of American Historians' Merle Curti Social History Award; Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, a finalist for the National Book Award; Abigail Adams, which won the Bancroft Prize; and Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution, which Holton wrote as The Huntington Library's Los Angeles Times distinguished fellow and as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.Arguing against the resolution was Magness, the author of The 1619 Project: A Critique. He holds a Ph.D. and master's from George Mason University's School of Public Policy and a bachelor's from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Magness' work encompasses the economic history of the United States, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. In addition to his scholarship, Magness' writings have appeared in numerous venues, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.The post Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us? appeared first on Reason.com.

<a href="https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/history/our_people/directory/holton_woody.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Woody Holton</a>, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, and <a href="https://www.aier.org/people/phillip-w-magness/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Phillip Magness</a>, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, debate the resolution, "The New York Times book The 1619 Project, and the Hulu video series based on it, are important contributions to our understanding of slavery and the role of African Americans in American history."The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by <a href="http://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was Holton, who is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807847844/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia</a>, which won the Organization of American Historians' Merle Curti Social History Award; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809016435/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution</a>, a finalist for the National Book Award; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416546804/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Abigail Adams</a>, which won the Bancroft Prize; and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1476750378/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution</a>, which Holton wrote as The Huntington Library's Los Angeles Times distinguished fellow and as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.Arguing against the resolution was Magness, the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1630692018/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">The 1619 Project: A Critique</a>. He holds a Ph.D. and master's from George Mason University's School of Public Policy and a bachelor's from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Magness' work encompasses the economic history of the United States, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. In addition to his scholarship, Magness' writings have appeared in numerous venues, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, <a href="https://reason.com/people/philip-magness/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Reason</a>, National Review, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/04/21/does-the-1619-project-have-anything-to-teach-us/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?

Nikhil Pal Singh

Jason L. Riley

On March 30, the Manhattan Institute's Jason L. Riley and New York University (NYU) professor Nikhil Pal Singh debated the resolution, "Upward mobility for black Americans lies in rejecting the policies of progressive government, while making the most of the opportunities offered by American society." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, where he has written about politics, economics, education, immigration, and social inequality for more than 25 years. He's also a frequent public speaker and provides commentary for television and radio news outlets. Riley is the author of five books, including Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, False Black Power?, Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell, and The Black Boom.Arguing for the negative was Singh, professor of social and cultural analysis and history at NYU and the founding faculty director of the university's Prison Education Program. He is author, most recently, of Race and America's Long War, and of the forthcoming Reconstructing Democracy: Black Intellectuals in the American Century. His essays have appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, The New Statesman, n+1, and Boston Review. His November 2018 Soho Forum debate on "anti-racism," opposite John McWhorter, has received more than a quarter-million YouTube views.The post Black America and Progressivism: Jason L. Riley vs. Nikhil Pal Singh appeared first on Reason.com.

On March 30, the Manhattan Institute's <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/jason-l-riley" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Jason L. Riley</a> and New York University (NYU) professor <a href="https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/nikhil-singh.html" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Nikhil Pal Singh</a> debated the resolution, "Upward mobility for black Americans lies in rejecting the policies of progressive government, while making the most of the opportunities offered by American society." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by <a href="http://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/news/author/jason-l-riley" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">columnist</a> for The Wall Street Journal, where he has written about politics, economics, education, immigration, and social inequality for more than 25 years. He's also a frequent public speaker and provides commentary for television and radio news outlets. Riley is the author of five books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1501209574/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B071WS1MVT/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">False Black Power?</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1541619684/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1599475898/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">The Black Boom</a>.Arguing for the negative was Singh, professor of social and cultural analysis and history at NYU and the founding faculty director of the university's <a href="https://prisoneducation.nyu.edu/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Prison Education Program</a>. He is author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520318307/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Race and America's Long War</a>, and of the forthcoming Reconstructing Democracy: Black Intellectuals in the American Century. His essays have appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, The New Statesman, n+1, and Boston Review. His November 2018 <a href="https://youtu.be/mzPKk19t3Kw" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum debate</a> on "anti-racism," opposite John McWhorter, has received more than a quarter-million YouTube views.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/03/31/black-america-and-progressivism-jason-l-riley-vs-nikhil-pal-singh/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Black America and Progressivism: Jason L. Riley vs. Nikhil Pal Singh</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Black America and Progressivism: Jason L. Riley vs. Nikhil Pal Singh

On February 21, law professor F.H. Buckley and Libertarian Party activist Jonathan Casey debated the resolution, "The breakup of the United States into different regions is a workable option likely to bring a marked improvement in human affairs." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was Buckley, a foundation professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is a frequent media guest, a senior editor at The American Spectator, and a columnist for the New York Post. He is the author of the 2020 book American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. Some of his other books include Progressive Conservatism, Curiosity and Its Twelve Rules for Life, and The Republican Workers Party.Taking the negative was Casey, the founder and chair of the Libertarian Party Classical Liberal Caucus. He has worked and volunteered in the liberty movement for several years, specializing in communication. He founded the Classical Liberal Caucus to promote a professional and policy-based message from within the Libertarian Party.The post National Divorce? appeared first on Reason.com.

On February 21, law professor F.H. Buckley and Libertarian Party activist Jonathan Casey debated the resolution, "The breakup of the United States into different regions is a workable option likely to bring a marked improvement in human affairs." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by <a href="http://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Taking the affirmative was <a href="http://fhbuckley.com/biography/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Buckley</a>, a foundation professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is a frequent media guest, a senior editor at The American Spectator, and a columnist for the New York Post. He is the author of the 2020 book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1641770805/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup</a>. Some of his other books include <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0999Q97P4/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Progressive Conservatism</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B08CHL2VRR/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Curiosity and Its Twelve Rules for Life</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0795YN9PC/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">The Republican Workers Party</a>.Taking the negative was <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTCasey" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Casey</a>, the founder and chair of the Libertarian Party Classical Liberal Caucus. He has worked and volunteered in the liberty movement for several years, specializing in communication. He founded the Classical Liberal Caucus to promote a professional and policy-based message from within the Libertarian Party.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/02/24/national-divorce/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">National Divorce?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

National Divorce?

On January 26, economists Lawrence H. White and Frederic Mishkin debated the resolution, "Replacing the Federal Reserve with free market institutions would significantly improve the economy's money, banking, and financial systems." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Arguing the affirmative was White, a professor of economics at George Mason University. His forthcoming book Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin? (Cambridge University Press, 2023) compares and contrasts alternative monetary standards. Best known for his work on market-based monetary systems, White is the author of Free Banking in Britain (1984), Competition and Currency (1989), and The Theory of Monetary Institutions (1999), and co-editor of Renewing the Search for a Monetary Constitution (2015). His research has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, The Economic History Review, and other leading economics journals. He's also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mercatus Center.Mishkin, who argued the negative, is the Alfred Lerner professor of banking and financial institutions at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. From September 2006 to August 2008, he served on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He was previously a senior fellow at the FDIC Center for Banking Research and president of the Eastern Economic Association. From 1994 to 1997, he was executive vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as an associate economist of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System. Mishkin's research focuses on monetary policy and its impact on financial markets and the aggregate economy.The post Should We Abolish the Federal Reserve? appeared first on Reason.com.

On January 26, economists Lawrence H. White and Frederic Mishkin debated the resolution, "Replacing the Federal Reserve with free market institutions would significantly improve the economy's money, banking, and financial systems." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by <a href="http://thesohoforum.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.Arguing the affirmative was <a href="https://economics.gmu.edu/people/lwhite11" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">White,</a> a professor of economics at George Mason University. His forthcoming book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Better-Money-Gold-Fiat-Bitcoin/dp/100932747X" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?</a> (Cambridge University Press, 2023) compares and contrasts alternative monetary standards. Best known for his work on market-based monetary systems, White is the author of <a href='&amp;tag=reasonmagazinea-20"https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0255363753/reasonmagazinea-20/"' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Free Banking in Britain</a> (1984), <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814792472/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Competition and Currency</a> (1989), and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631212140/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Theory of Monetary Institutions</a> (1999), and co-editor of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1939709660/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Renewing the Search for a Monetary Constitution</a> (2015). His research has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, The Economic History Review, and other leading economics journals. He's also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mercatus Center.<a href="https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/detail/fsm3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mishkin,</a> who argued the negative, is the Alfred Lerner professor of banking and financial institutions at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. From September 2006 to August 2008, he served on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He was previously a senior fellow at the FDIC Center for Banking Research and president of the Eastern Economic Association. From 1994 to 1997, he was executive vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as an associate economist of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System. Mishkin's research focuses on monetary policy and its impact on financial markets and the aggregate economy.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/01/27/should-we-abolish-the-federal-reserve/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Should We Abolish the Federal Reserve?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Should We Abolish the Federal Reserve?

Rich Lowry and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Nationalism is an important value that Americans should support." The event is produced by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.For the affirmative: Richard Lowry is the editor in chief of National Review. He was selected to lead the news outlet by its founder, William F. Buckley. Lowry writes a syndicated column for King Features Weekly Service and a weekly column for Politico. He is also a commentator for NBC News. His most recent book is The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free (Broadside Books, 2019).For the negative: Alex Nowrasteh is the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute where most of his work has focused on immigration. He is widely published in newspapers, blogs, and peer-reviewed academic journals. He is the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of the book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration. He is a native of Southern California and received an MSc in economic history from the London School of Economics.The post Should Americans Value Nationalism? appeared first on Reason.com.

Rich Lowry and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Nationalism is an important value that Americans should support." The event is produced by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.For the affirmative: <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/author/rich-lowry/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard Lowry</a> is the editor in chief of National Review. He was selected to lead the news outlet by its founder, William F. Buckley. Lowry writes a syndicated column for King Features Weekly Service and a weekly column for Politico. He is also a commentator for NBC News. His most recent book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062839640/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free</a> (Broadside Books, 2019).For the negative: <a href="https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alex Nowrasteh</a> is the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute where most of his work has focused on immigration. He is widely published in newspapers, blogs, and peer-reviewed academic journals. He is the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1108702457/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions</a> (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration. He is a native of Southern California and received an MSc in economic history from the London School of Economics.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2022/12/16/should-americans-value-nationalism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Should Americans Value Nationalism?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Should Americans Value Nationalism?

Jay Bhattacharya

Sten Vermund

On November 15, Jay Bhattacharya and Sten Vermund debated the resolution, "Focused protection, as set forth in the Great Barrington Declaration, should be the general principle of public health management of highly infectious respiratory virus pandemics." The event was produced by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.For the affirmative: Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020.For the negative: Sten Vermund is a professor of public health and pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine. A pediatrician and infectious disease epidemiologist, he has focused on diseases of low- and middle-income countries. He has become increasingly engaged in health policy, particularly around the sustainability of HIV/AIDS programs and their expansion to noncommunicable diseases, COVID-19 pandemic response and prevention, and public health work force development. His recent grants include capacity-building for public health in Chad, molecular epidemiology for HIV in Kazakhstan, and COVID-19 vaccine studies in Dominican Republic and Connecticut. He has worked with schools and arts organizations for COVID-19 risk mitigation and institutional safety.This was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the debater who changed more audience member minds won the debate. Bhattacharya started with 56.72 percent of the vote, while Vermund started with 7.46 percent. Bhattacharya ended with 81.34 percent of the vote, a 24.63 percent change. Vermund ended with 15.67 percent of the vote, an 8.21 percent change.The post Never Lock Down Again? Jay Bhattacharya vs. Sten Vermund appeared first on Reason.com.

On November 15, Jay Bhattacharya and Sten Vermund debated the resolution, "Focused protection, as set forth in the Great Barrington Declaration, should be the general principle of public health management of highly infectious respiratory virus pandemics." The event was produced by <a href="https://www.thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.For the affirmative: Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020.For the negative: Sten Vermund is a professor of public health and pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine. A pediatrician and infectious disease epidemiologist, he has focused on diseases of low- and middle-income countries. He has become increasingly engaged in health policy, particularly around the sustainability of HIV/AIDS programs and their expansion to noncommunicable diseases, COVID-19 pandemic response and prevention, and public health work force development. His recent grants include capacity-building for public health in Chad, molecular epidemiology for HIV in Kazakhstan, and COVID-19 vaccine studies in Dominican Republic and Connecticut. He has worked with schools and arts organizations for COVID-19 risk mitigation and institutional safety.This was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the debater who changed more audience member minds won the debate. Bhattacharya started with 56.72 percent of the vote, while Vermund started with 7.46 percent. Bhattacharya ended with 81.34 percent of the vote, a 24.63 percent change. Vermund ended with 15.67 percent of the vote, an 8.21 percent change.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2022/11/18/never-lock-down-again-jay-bhattacharya-vs-sten-vermund/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Never Lock Down Again? Jay Bhattacharya vs. Sten Vermund</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Never Lock Down Again? Jay Bhattacharya vs. Sten Vermund

"Free market ideology is largely responsible for the dismal performance of the U.S. economy over the past few decades." That was the resolution for a live debate on Monday, October 17, 2022, at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.*Defending the resolution was Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics for the New York Times editorial board. He previously worked as a Washington correspondent for the Times. He is the author of The Economists' Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society (2019).Arguing for the negative was Gene Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor of Barron's. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and he has worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard Wolff has gained more than 5 million views on Youtube.The debate was moderated by Nick Gillespie.*CORRECTION: This page originally said that the live debate was held on October 15.The post Is Free Market Ideology Hurting the Economy? appeared first on Reason.com.

"Free market ideology is largely responsible for the dismal performance of the U.S. economy over the past few decades." That was the resolution for a live debate on Monday, October 17, 2022, at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.*Defending the resolution was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/binyamin-appelbaum" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Binyamin Appelbaum</a>, the lead writer on business and economics for the New York Times editorial board. He previously worked as a Washington correspondent for the Times. He is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031651232X/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Economists' Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society</a> (2019).Arguing for the negative was <a href="https://reason.com/people/gene-epstein/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Gene Epstein</a>, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor of Barron's. His last published book was <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471735132/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers</a>. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and he has worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His <a href="https://youtu.be/YJQSuUZdcV4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">November 2019 debate</a> on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard Wolff has gained more than 5 million views on Youtube.The debate was moderated by Nick Gillespie.*CORRECTION: This page originally said that the live debate was held on October 15.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2022/10/24/is-free-market-ideology-hurting-the-economy/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is Free Market Ideology Hurting the Economy?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Is Free Market Ideology Hurting the Economy?

Reason presents a libertarian-themed debate series recorded monthly before a live audience in New York City. Moderated by former Barron’s Economics Editor Gene Epstein, the Soho Forum features Nobel prize winners, radical thinkers, and other public intellectuals facing off over the future of abortion, bitcoin, electric vehicles, government debt, illegal drugs, robotics, sex work, and other controversial topics.

This would be much better if it had the video too.

Needs the Video Too

I’ve found this through Woods and Smith and was waiting for this to be a podcast.

Finally!

The Soho Forum Debates

Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity.That was the proposition debated on November 5 in New York City at The Soho Forum, the monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Arguing in favor of the proposition was Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts and author, most recently, of Understanding Marxism. Arguing against the resolution was Gene Epstein, the co-founder and director of The Soho Forum and the former economics editor of Barron's. Reason's Nick Gillespie served as moderator.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. It was a packed house, with about 450 people in attendance. The pre-debate vote found that 25 percent of the audience agreed that socialism was preferable to capitalism; 49.5 percent thought that capitalism was the better system; and 25.5 precent were undecided. Despite a technical problem at the event itself, we were able to recover the final vote totals, which saw support for socialism drop by half a percentage point and support for capitalism increase to 71 percent.Subscribe to this podcast by clicking on your preferred service listed on the right. Subscribe to Reason's two weekly podcasts—The Reason Roundtable and The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie—by going here now.Audio production by Ian Keyser.The post Is Socialism Preferable To Capitalism? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity.That was the proposition debated on November 5 in New York City at <a href="http://thesohoforum.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Soho Forum</a>, the monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Arguing in favor of the proposition was <a href="https://www.rdwolff.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard D. Wolff</a>, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts and author, most recently, of Understanding Marxism. Arguing against the resolution was Gene Epstein, the co-founder and director of The Soho Forum and the former economics editor of Barron's. Reason's Nick Gillespie served as moderator.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. It was a packed house, with about 450 people in attendance. The pre-debate vote found that 25 percent of the audience agreed that socialism was preferable to capitalism; 49.5 percent thought that capitalism was the better system; and 25.5 precent were undecided. Despite a technical problem at the event itself, we were able to recover the final vote totals, which saw support for socialism drop by half a percentage point and support for capitalism increase to 71 percent.Subscribe to this podcast by clicking on your preferred service listed on the right. Subscribe to Reason's two weekly podcasts—The Reason Roundtable and The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie—<a href="https://reason.com/podcasts/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">by going here now.</a>Audio production by Ian Keyser.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2019/11/08/is-socialism-preferable-to-capitalism-a-soho-forum-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is Socialism Preferable To Capitalism? A Soho Forum Debate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Is Socialism Preferable To Capitalism? A Soho Forum Debate

Special Note: Scroll to the bottom of this page for important news about Reason podcasts.Except for laws prohibiting the sale of drugs to minors and driving while impaired, all laws that penalize drug production, distribution, possession, and use should be abolished, along with special "sin" taxes on drugs.That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on October 7, 2019. It featured Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.Arguing for the affirmative was Sullum, who is the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (2003) and For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health (1999). He was the 2004 recipient of the Thomas S. Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties. Berenson, who argued for the negative, is the author most recently of Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence (2019). Berenson is also a best-selling spy novelist. His popular titles include The Deceivers, The Silent Man, and The Ghost War.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. This was the Soho Forum's first tie, with each debater convincing exactly 9.76 percent of the audience to come over to his side.The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by Reason, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture theater in Manhattan's East Village. To watch video versions of Soho Forum Debates, go here.Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.Special note: We've changed the way we're releasing our podcasts and we're asking all listeners to subscribe to each of our three new podcast streams by going to our podcasts page at Reason.com, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your programs. The new shows are: The Soho Forum Debates, a libertarian-themed debate series recorded monthly before a live audience in New York City. Moderated by former Barron's Economics Editor Gene Epstein, the Soho Forum features Nobel prize winners, radical thinkers, and other public intellectuals facing off over the future of bitcoin, veganism, sex work, illegal drugs, electric vehicles, abortion, robotics, government debt, and other controversial topics. The Reason Roundtable, a weekly discussion of news and analysis released every Monday, moderated by Matt Welch, and featuring Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie. The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie, which comes out every Wednesday and features relentlessly interesting interviews with the activists, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, newsmakers, and politicians who are defining the 21st century. Go to Reason's podcasts page, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your shows, and subscribe now.The post Should Adults Be Allowed to Use Any Drug They Choose? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Special Note: Scroll to the bottom of this page for important news about Reason podcasts.Except for laws prohibiting the sale of drugs to minors and driving while impaired, all laws that penalize drug production, distribution, possession, and use should be abolished, along with special "sin" taxes on drugs.That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the <a href="https://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum</a> in New York City on October 7, 2019. It featured <a href="https://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jacob Sullum</a>, a senior editor at Reason magazine, and former New York Times reporter <a href="https://reason.com/2021/08/30/alex-berenson-twitter-ban-vaccine-covid/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alex Berenson</a>. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.Arguing for the affirmative was Sullum, who is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Saying-Yes-Defense-Drug-Use/dp/1585422274/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=&amp;tag=reasonmagazinea-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use</a> (2003) and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684871157/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health</a> (1999). He was the 2004 recipient of the Thomas S. Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties. Berenson, who argued for the negative, is the author most recently of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1982103671/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence</a> (2019). Berenson is also a best-selling spy novelist. His popular titles include <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0722SLMRG/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Deceivers</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001Q8V6NK/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Silent Man</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002YKOX52/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Ghost War</a>.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. This was the Soho Forum's first tie, with each debater convincing exactly 9.76 percent of the audience to come over to his side.The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by Reason, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture theater in Manhattan's East Village. To watch video versions of Soho Forum Debates, <a href="https://reason.com/tag/soho-forum/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">go here</a>.Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.Special note: We've changed the way we're releasing our podcasts and we're asking all listeners to subscribe to each of our three new podcast streams by going to <a href="http://reason.com/podcasts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">our podcasts page at Reason.com</a>, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your programs. The new shows are:<ul> <li>The Soho Forum Debates, a libertarian-themed debate series recorded monthly before a live audience in New York City. Moderated by former Barron's Economics Editor Gene Epstein, the Soho Forum features Nobel prize winners, radical thinkers, and other public intellectuals facing off over the future of bitcoin, veganism, sex work, illegal drugs, electric vehicles, abortion, robotics, government debt, and other controversial topics.</li> <li>The Reason Roundtable, a weekly discussion of news and analysis released every Monday, moderated by Matt Welch, and featuring Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie.</li> <li>The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie, which comes out every Wednesday and features relentlessly interesting interviews with the activists, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, newsmakers, and politicians who are defining the 21st century.</li> </ul>Go to <a href="http://reason.com/podcasts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason's podcasts page</a>, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your shows, and subscribe now.The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2019/10/30/should-adults-be-alloweshould-adults-be-allowed-to-use-any-drug-they-choose-a-soho-forum-debated-to-use-any-drug-they-choose-a-soho-forum-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Should Adults Be Allowed to Use Any Drug They Choose? A Soho Forum Debate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Should Adults Be Allowed to Use Any Drug They Choose? A Soho Forum Debate

The Libertarian Party should never again put up national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on September 10, 2019. It featured comedian and podcast host Dave Smith and Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Smith won the night by convincing 20 percent of the audience, while Sarwark convinced 16.8 percent.Arguing for the affirmative was Dave Smith, host of the popular libertarian podcast Part of the Problem, and a co-host of Legion of Skanks.Nicholas Sarwark argued for the negative. Sarwark is currently serving his third term as chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, which is the executive body of the Libertarian Party of the United States.The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett RaneyThe post How Can The Libertarian Party Effect Real Change? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

The Libertarian Party should never again put up national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the <a href="https://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum</a> in New York City on September 10, 2019. It featured comedian and podcast host <a href="https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dave Smith</a> and <a href="https://www.lp.org/leaders-staff/nicholas-sarwark/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nicholas Sarwark</a>, the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Smith won the night by convincing 20 percent of the audience, while Sarwark convinced 16.8 percent.Arguing for the affirmative was Dave Smith, host of the popular libertarian podcast <a href="https://gasdigitalnetwork.com/gdn-show-channels/part-of-the-problem/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Part of the Problem,</a> and a co-host of <a href="https://gasdigitalnetwork.com/gdn-show-channels/legion-of-skanks/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Legion of Skanks</a>.Nicholas Sarwark argued for the negative. Sarwark is currently serving his third term as chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, which is the executive body of the Libertarian Party of the United States.The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett RaneyThe post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2019/09/20/how-can-the-libertarian-party-affect-real-change-a-soho-forum-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">How Can The Libertarian Party Effect Real Change? A Soho Forum Debate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

How Can The Libertarian Party Effect Real Change? A Soho Forum Debate

Postmodernism is necessary for a politics of individual liberty.That was the topic of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on June 17, 2019. It featured Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy at Rockford University, and author Thaddeus Russell. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Hicks prevailed in the debate by convincing 34 percent of audience members to change their minds.Arguing for the affirmative was Russell, whose 2011 book, A Renegade History of the United States, argues that cherished American freedoms come from the selfish desires of ordinary people. Renegade University, founded by Russell, offers courses on diverse subjects from postmodernism to the history of martial arts.Hicks argued for the negative. He's the executive director at The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He is the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2011) and Nietzsche and the Nazis (2010).The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.Produced by Todd Krainin.'Modum' by Kai Engel is licensed under CC BY 4.0The post Is Postmodernism Marxist or Libertarian? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Postmodernism is necessary for a politics of individual liberty.That was the topic of a public debate hosted by the <a href="https://thesohoforum.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soho Forum</a> in New York City on June 17, 2019. It featured <a href="https://www.stephenhicks.org" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Stephen Hicks</a>, a professor of philosophy at Rockford University, and author <a href="http://www.thaddeusrussell.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thaddeus Russell</a>. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Hicks prevailed in the debate by convincing 34 percent of audience members to change their minds.Arguing for the affirmative was Russell, whose 2011 book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416576134/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">A Renegade History of the United States</a>, argues that cherished American freedoms come from the selfish desires of ordinary people. <a href="http://www.thaddeusrussell.com/courses" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Renegade University</a>, founded by Russell, offers courses on diverse subjects from postmodernism to the history of martial arts.Hicks argued for the negative. He's the executive director at <a href="https://www.ethicsandentrepreneurship.org" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship</a>. He is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0983258406/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault</a> (2011) and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/097942707X/reasonmagazinea-20/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Nietzsche and the Nazis</a> (2010).The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.Produced by Todd Krainin.<a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kai_Engel/Caeli/Kai_Engel_-_caeli_-_07_modum_1636" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">'Modum'</a> by <a href="https://www.kai-engel.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Kai Engel</a> is licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CC BY 4.0</a>The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2019/07/26/is-postmodernism-marxist-or-libertarian-a-soho-forum-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is Postmodernism Marxist or Libertarian? A Soho Forum Debate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://reason.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>.

Is Postmodernism Marxist or Libertarian? A Soho Forum Debate

The best self improvement podcast episodes. From improving productivity, to finding purpose in your life to what constitutes freedom, this topic is on anything and everything that can help people to improve their lives. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Self Improvement, Growth & Development

What is this?
1 quote, 3 ideas & 1 question from a carefully curated podcast episode.
Every Monday & Wednesday.

Want a 3rd insight and episode every week? Email me at curation@owltail.com.