Plagiarism is a serious problem. It can be inadvertent, but when it is committed a great many times in a piece or sequence of tweets, there is a justified loss of good faith. Good faith is essential to the public intellectual life. Too bad more voters didn't see Brandon's frequent plagiarism as the serious defect it is.
Do a video on "the China show," on TH-cam..and the two behind it? Or maybe also Robert Spalding, who was the American military attache to China at the time. He wrote a must read book, "STEALTH WAR:HOW CHINA TOOK OVER WHILE AMERICA'S ELITE SLEPT." Is a must watch! Joeeonl
Is it wrong, or is it just unpopular to say what can be demonstrated from the primary sources? It’s a little bit like the Cornerstone Speech for those who desperately want to believe that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
I just listened to the rest of this interview. I think Hoppe is one of the most misunderstood libertarian thinkers. This seems to be especially true when people read his book "Democracy: The God that Failed." In it he simply points out that free people can create their own gated communities along whatever lines they decide. If a group of gay, black, atheists decides they only want gay, black atheists in their gated community, then doing so absolutely does NOT violate any libertarian principles and allows them their freedom of association. People who are inclined to listen/look for dog whistles read a book like D: T G t F and immediately think Hoppe must be an anti-LGBT white supremacist. I'm convinced they are dead wrong about that. Hoppe is not anti-LGBT, nor anti-people of color or anti-Semitic. He simply points out that free people can voluntarily organize their private societies as they see fit even if that involves exercising their prejudices. People who virtue signal about race, sex, gender preference and ethnicity, find that level of non-violent freedom of association is more than they are willing to tolerate. A person who identifies as libertarian but does not support that level of freedom of association comes across as sort of a milquetoast libertarian to me. I find it annoying when Nick throws out Reader's Digest level hearsay comments on such things. He did that several times in his interviews with people from the Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party after they took control of the party earlier this year. I was offended by Phil's insinuation that Hoppe's popularity is with people who are racially prejudiced or homophobic as I'm a fan of his and I don't fit either of those descriptions. I think Hoppe's popularity with libertarians is that he is one of the rare thinkers in the movement who is actually advancing it significantly with his ideas on how to bring libertarianism into actual fruition and not simply treating it as an interesting intellectual topic for people like Phil and Nick to gab about.
I would say it does not just not violate any principles of libertarianism but is a fundamental part of it. But I am not impressed by the Phil or Nick. The main argument against Hoppe he actually made examples for was not about the arguments but about him quoting people that he doesn't like. The virtue signalers may criticize it but they already do it themselves already to a greater degree than anyone else as far as I can see. Well, sadly it seems most videos on here are of this type of milk toast "libertarians".
Nick's claim that Rothbard declared *himself* heir to Mises is also factually incorrect. Mises said Rothbard was to many before his death. Reason have a habit of popping of at the true Libertarian position while simultaneously claiming they're of the same mind. Maybe they're glowing and we haven't noticed yet.
@@Si_Mondo Noticing Reason tv has more to do with the "Libertarian" party (although I hope it is better now with the change) than actual Libertarianism. *Insert "first time?" meme here* Although one could argue that is kind of in the structure due to both the party and Reason tv being centralized and arguing "for the group", making them both kind of antithetical to basic principles of Libertarianism.
Calling Hoppe racist for suggesting that mass immigration of low skill workers won't lead to more liberty. It seems like they're still running on the model that low skill immigrants won't vote and won't put stress on public services. If your model suggests that, but reality looks like southern California, maybe your model is wrong.
On the plagiarism issue, I was a "source checker" on law review when I was in law school (not bragging about it, I didn't have good enough grades to grade on after my 1L year so I had to write on when I was a 2L). We mostly published articles written by professors from other schools. The amount of blatant plagiarism was insane. Most of the time just entering text from the draft article into JSTOR would identify the article the text was lifted from. After that it was up to our poor editor in chief to tell the authors that we can't publish their plagiarized work. Half the professors would acknowledge their mistake and rewrite (these folks were usually just being lazy or sloppy), the other half would act indignant and take their "work" elsewhere.
@@qwerty90615 Two friends from college went to Law School around 2010-2014 and both became hard lefties; I assume causation. I remember running into one of them in DC a few years ago and he was a total condescending, woke, prick; and we were pretty good friends in undergrad. I remember being so excited to catch up with him and he looked at my wife and I like we were insects or something.
Very grateful to the few intelligent, diligent people like your guest today, who have the integrity and passion to challenge the oceans of academic, media and political group think that threaten our liberty. Thank you for your hard work.
If somebody views school choice as racist, they are admiting they are racist. All children should be held to the same standards, regardless of race, with a few exceptions for neurodevergence. School choice is about moving to a school that gets better results and escaping a teacher's Union who looks at parents as the enemy.
Not illegal, just strongly discouraged. Who would believe that the US single-handedly won WW2 with only trivial contributions from the other allies if we actually let accurate history be taught? All I remember hearing about in high school regarding Reconstruction was complaints about Carpetbaggers, not about the virtual re-creation of the slave system in everything but name. This was a legacy of the mid-20th century when students were taught not history, but nationalist propaganda and indoctrination.
Phil Magness' breadth of knowledge and reasoned assessments are impressive. If I were still a student, I'd much rather study under him at a small college than at an Ivy League school with professors who are hired for their approved political ideologies.
Study Thomas Sowell and see how you feel about all this, 1619 and vilifying our country into choas. Also i had a super lefty professor who told the class vietnam vets never got spit on... that was a myth. I stood up in middle dead center of class and said you professor are full of Bullshit, turned to the clasd and said he is full of bullshit! I will prove it. Brought in 3 local paper articles from that time the next day and presented .. plus i know people who had their fathers and uncles and grandfathers who were older soldiers in nam treated like this. Do you think that kind of lying matters?
@@ca6360 I agree with you. I am very familiar with Thomas Sowell's work. Have you kept up with James Lindsey's deep dive into the origins of this sinister drivel? Paulo Frerieri and Social Emotional Learning. The education system is full of its own self importance it ASSUMES the children belong to them and parents aren't to be trusted with them.
Every improvement in a school or discipline is a “disagreement”. I also chuckle at this type of snapshot analysis. Look at how prescient and insightful Mises was. Do you think he’d have a static dogmatic view of his own work and worldview if he were alive and plugged-in today???
@@wes10gaard question is whether those who worship him today would actually agree with him if he worked in modern academia or scholarship. He didn’t exactly toe the line on the conservative talking points of his day (yes, modern “libertarians” are typically philosophical conservatives in that their goal is protecting the social status quo, in this case from meddling government intervention that might challenge sexism, etc…).
Magness cites the collective guilt of Hoppe's guilt by association with racists, only after explaining the folly of collective ID politics. How is this not a non-sequitur?
Great interview. I have no idea why they try to dismiss Matt Walsh a troll. He is great at trolling but all he really does is talk about common sense and truth seeking on his podcast.
No Walsh is a troll, he works for the daily wire. It's literally a propaganda outlet filled with trolls. Matt isn't even subtle with his racism compared to the others that make content for the daily wire.
@@pikapowns Your partisanship/tribalism is showing. Dismissing his arguments based simply on who he affiliates with is fallacious. More importantly, activists like you have slandered far too many innocent people with the label of "bigot" for such allegations to carry weight anymore. The same logic applies to the use of the term "troll," which you are also misusing. What you're doing is not only intellectually dishonest and lazy, it's designed to bring all discussion to a screeching halt, hijack it, and turn it into a witch hunt against your political opponents. What you are doing is fundamentally *EVIL,* and I suspect you already know that and don't care. May God have mercy on your soul.
trolling almost depends on who's asking the questions. When Prince Andrew was interviewed by NewsNight and the interviewer said that someone said he was on Epstein's island and he was sweating all over the place he then said that during that time he couldn't sweat (while sweating profusely during the interview) it could be said that he was being trolled by the interviewer and made to look like a fool. From my perspective Andrew is being interviewed but from his perspective he might say he's being trolled. I'm no expert on Walsh but from what I've seen he simply asks people questions and the interviewee seems to struggle.
Phil Magness is always a breath of fresh air adding a direction of reason backed by empirical evidence. Although I am very deep admirer of Victor Davis Hanson, who I consider to be a fantastic historian not just an incredible classist, he is right that sometimes he can veer into non historical matters that are simply right wing points of view. I sincerely enjoyed this interview though and hope to see more of Phil.
The 1619 project is a trainwreck. It was my American history textbook in college. I spent most of my essays pointing out that the concept of capitalism was nearly 50 years past the end of slavery.
I despise anyone who believes the 1619 project or any related ideology. However.. The concept of capitalism has been around hundreds of years, since the 17th century. What are you referring to ?
Capitalism was "conceptualized" in the 20th century. Before that people simply lived it. Capitalism wasn't a word until the 20th century. Yes there were "enlightenment" philosophers at the time. But that was the concept in its infancy, before it had a word and was practiced. It's like saying England was a constitutional monarchy in 1066, because they thought about it.
@@misternibbles7426 "Capitalism" as a word was first coined by a French Marxist (I forget his name) in the 1850s, and his conceptualisation of it was based on Marx's strawman of what Adam Smith meant by "capital".
Think social sciences are a joke, but then, got my degree from a Canadian university in the early 80s. Certainly don't think such studies should be publicly funded in any way.
Thanks. Unimpressed with Magness, what's his point or story, other than a messy cluster of attacks on Hoppe. Magness posted lies about Hoppe on Twitter and would not retract them so he is not a trustworthy source for honest Hoppe critiques. I don't know what motivates him on this but it's certainly not pursuit of truth.
@@Cardstacker I haven't seen Magness's Twitter attacks on Hoppe, so I can't speak to that. But here's a big-picture critique of Hoppe from me: A society like Hoppe's ideal, where property owners are the ultimate lawmakers for their property, in an otherwise anarchic society, is called "feudalism." We saw how unjust this sort of society routinely was in the Middle Ages. The incentive for property owners is to make laws that empower them and protect their perceived interests at the expense of any tenants or neighbors. Without a government to objectively adjudicate property claims, contracts and other laws, there is nothing to stop the "lord of the manor" from arbitrarily deciding that the tenant now owes him double what he did before, and that the tenant must stay and work off the debt indefinitely.
@@SwordOfApollo The concerns outlined in this quote are concerns which Hoppe/Rothbard puts toward the state:" there is nothing to stop the "lord of the manor" from arbitrarily deciding that the tenant now owes him double what he did before, and that the tenant must stay and work off the debt indefinitely." This quote is exactly what the state is and which is why Rothbard/Hoppe call it a criminal organization. This includes "democratic" states too. The intellectual errors of minarchists is the state is feudal in character (in particular the central banks and taxation party). The proponents of these errors include Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand. Hoppe attacks Mises classical liberal statism in the democracy the god that failed in a chapter known as "the errors of classical liberalism." Ironically enough democracy isn't some david graeber fantasy, rather, more like Burnham's managerial revolution. Hoppe's Marxist training comes in handy by outflanking to the "left" most "liberal" libertarians as state power democracy worshipers. They (liberal libertarians) take the state's neutral character as a given when one should regard it as an aggressive criminal organization (as well as an intellectual error). Why would a state behave "properly"? To paraphrase spooner just because you vote a master every four years doesn't mean you aren't a slave. Take your argument critiquing the feudal lord and apply it to the managerial state and one ends up as some kind of hoppean/rothbardian anarchist.
@@SwordOfApollo Unless of course you think the state is a necessary organization. If that is the case then why not have state control over all sorts of different sectors and not "merely" the functions that limited government advocates say it is needed. The growth of the state to ever larger areas becomes quite natural. If that is the case then what is your concern in the first place about Hoppestan? Hoppestan would just have a rights protection agency which looks like a state.
I encourage young people to 1) learn a trade; 2) join the Airforce or Navy, and LEARN A TRADE; 3) go to college for archaeology or engineering. IN THAT ORDER.
44:34 if you actually took the time to read what he said you'd know that your not characterizing it correctly you can learn with clear detail what he is inferring to when he talks about immigration and to act as though he is anti immigration, couldn't be further from the truth. Here's a qoute of his to clear up any misconceptions "the mere mention of two words in one sentence-this time “immigration” and “restriction”-is sufficient to trigger a blank-out. No need to read any further and try to comprehend. First homophobe, then xenophobe. In fact, I have never met a serious advocate of “no immigration, period!” Nor have I ever taken a stand that could be described as anti-immigration. Instead I have always argued for the commonsensical approach of selective immigration. Ideally, with all pieces of land and everything on them privately owned, there would be a huge variety of entrance requirements, i.e., of degrees, respectively, of openness and closedness. I have described this, for instance, in my piece “Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.” Airports, roads, shopping malls, hotels, etc., would be rather open, whereas residential associations, private retreats, clubs, etc., might be almost completely closed. In any case, however, all migration would be by invitation and invariably the full cost principle would apply. Either the inviting host or the invited guest or both jointly would have to pay the full cost associated with the guest’s presence. No cost could be shifted and externalized onto third parties, and the inviter and/or invitee would be held liable for any and all damage resulting from the invitation to the property of others. If and as long as there is a state with so-called public property in place, as happens to be the case in today’s world, then the best one may hope for is an immigration policy that tries to approach this ideal of a natural order. You have mentioned some possible measures in this regard. But to advocate, under current conditions, the adoption of a “free immigration” policy-every foreigner can come in and move and stay around the entire country, no questions asked-is certainly no way to achieve this goal. To the contrary, it would make forced integration and cost-shifting ubiquitous, and quickly end in disaster. Only people devoid of all common sense could possibly advocate any such policy."
I’m certain Phil has read all of Hoppe carefully, he’s not being flippant. Im not sure if it’s all provincial GMU-Beltway v Auburn stuff, but it strikes me as inconsistent with the quality of pretty much all of his other work and opinions
@@wes10gaard I'm pretty sure he hasn't. The fact he claims that rothbard is a self proclaimed heir of mises shows me he hasn't read all the history of the Austrian school of economics. You can litteraly read the forward of man economy and state and realize he's wrong. Mises wrote a review of man economy and state and it was put into the forward of that book. Here's a qoute of his review "an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and up-to-now best elaborated part, economics. Henceforth, all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard."
Come on,guys. This was great, but Mises's attitude about immigration was BEFORE the staggeringly expensive welfare system, with illegal aliens eligible for free stuff at taxpayer expense. Mises could not have expected to predict this.
Of the spending done by staggering welfare systems in the United States, along with staggeringly wasteful and costly socialized programs like Medicare, illegal immigrants account for an absolutely insignificant portion of spending. All most all of that spending is done on American citizens
@@Seths87 You can't know that, as the sanctuary policies make it impossible to know the number or status of illegal immigrants, but we do know there are at least 11 million of them here and as many as 30 million, all of whose welfare is the responsibility of the nation in which they were born. So, you may be right, but you can't know that it's "absolutely insignificant". But that's not even the main point. The point is the future. If the border remains effectively open and politicians keep saying, "Just get here and no one will check your asylum claim, and we'll give you health care (as all the Dem Presidential candidates pledged)." How many people will come in eventually? Many work hard and send money to their families back home. But there are Americans inducing people to get assistance all the time, either from charities (that have lots of citizens who need help) or from government. And law-abiding citizens and employers pay Medicare and SS taxes, whereas scofflaw employers who hire people illegally, whether the employees are aliens or citizens, don't have pay into the system. It's just not fair to people who come in legally, pay the fees, take the tests, wait patiently, for authorities to short-circuit all that and just say, "Come to our sanctuary and be counted in the Census so that we can have more Reps in the Congress and a cheaper maid and cheaper gardener."
BTW you're ABSOLUTELY correct that tax policy in the 19th Century was crucial, particularly the Morrill Tariff doubling and then tripling tariffs. Threats to secede - NOT over slavery but over tariffs - was a constant in the first half of the 19th Century.
@@phanx0m924 Yes, the Morrill tariff was initiated just before 1861, and between Lincoln's election and Inauguration the tariff went from double to triple. The GOP was the new Whig Party, as the Whig Party was the old Federalists. Tariffs and excise taxes were THE source of Federal revenue, and given the liw incomes in the USA (planet-wide really!) ANY tax increase was a big effing deal as Biden said of Obamacare passing (one of Biden's true statements). If you've often been confused about the Republican Party being a "left" party in the 20th Century, it's actually sensible because while the GOP was pro-business it was really for BIG business - and Big Government, and many of the folks behind the Republican Party of Italy were behind OUR Republican Party.
@@Justanotherconsumer You're correct, since the so-called "elites" of the CSA all owned slaves, but the reason large numbers of whites volunteered to fight was tariffs (since those who signed up largely didn't own slaves). I can't see a bunch of white farmers that DIDN'T own slaves riskin ng life and limb and leaviij ng their farms to prop up an institution that reduced their own return to labor.
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Magness and Mr. Gillespie in advance. By the end of their careers they will have attracted tens of people to libertarianism.
Why does plagiarism matter? What a sad state we are in when that question is even asked. It matters because it’s theft. Stealing someone’s thoughts and putting them forward as your own.
I like the sound of a lot of Phil's watchdog work in principle but I think he's a bit off when it comes to Hoppe. Hoppe's economic philosophy is very Misean at its core. He's also an advocate of anarcho-capitalism, just like his mentor, Murray Rothbard, Mises' best and most famous American student. Hoppe realizes that the idea that we will ever develop "limited government" is a ridiculous pipe-dream. Therefore, he advocates creating private a-c societies within countries and supports national policies that support them.
I think its possible to be a Mises follower and admirer and still want controlled borders. I doubt Mises would want a follower who was lockstep following his every assertion.
Trump criticizes crony capitalism, not capitalism per se. He also criticizes unfair trade, not trade per se. So, too with illegal immigration, which he criticizes, but not immigration per se. What Phil Magness' characterization of Trump shows, is that Trump has a more nuanced understanding of these issues than does Phil Magness.
@@benp4877 As serious as any of my TH-cam comments. While I like that sentence, I also realize that Phil Magness lacks a nuanced understanding of Trump. His critique is little better than any other Never Trumper, orange man bad.
What I see and understand as a black person. First enslaved Africans arrive in Jamestown, By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain.
First african slaves were in Florida brought by Spain. 1530s. But yes thay wasn't the original colonies. However based 0n Hahah Jones assessment should be condisered should it not?
When I heard the part about Victor Davis Hanson, I just substituted it with Thomas Sowell in my mind. "He does great work in his narrow field of economics but that gets discredited when he writes these bomb-throwing op-eds." I would strenuously disagree.
Hoover Scholars can’t apply their generally excellent ideas to US Foreign Policy Incorporated. Hoover pays the bills so VDH writes bananas op eds, and Sowell wisely remains mostly mute on the subject.
@@inspectorvoid and defund teachers. Overpaid leeches. If police were killing as many people as teachers were failing we would be stepping over bodies leaving our front doors.
Phil, why won't you retract your false accusation of Hoppe? Hoppe objected to calling **German people** as congenital villains, and you use this as evidence he is "bad news", i.e. sympathetic to the Nazis. How can your criticisms of Hoppe be taken seriously when you don't correct obvious errors? And then you just block everyone on Twitter?
I would love to see a good study or studies that show how globalization of trade has improved life in western countries. My own experience in Canada where I live says the opposite, but maybe I just don't see where life is better than before the collapse of manufacturing in the western world? I'm not convinced.
Of all the philosophers historians and economists mentioned, I want to thank you for the mention of Dr and Professor Stephen Colbert for Truthiness!! lolz Lordy what i would do to see stephen colbert making his show funny, and not boring during the trump years.
The hit-job on the late James Buchanan, and the Public Choice school of thought, was particularly unscrupulous. Nancy Maclean seems to be particularly bad. I am glad that people are responding.
She made up all the facts up, and the NY Times printed it without fact-checking 🙄 Notice that they NEVER talk specifics, but general categorizations, which everyone agrees on.
I used to believe and have trust in this extremely atomizing view of the individual as they relate to their member groups, whether born into or chosen. Over the past 20 to 25 years, the nature of this argument and its precepts have rung more and more hollow, because it's been proven more and more incorrect. Social/cultural developments in any population, no matter how small, are steered in large part by institutional power holders and their ideas. Seeing how deeply those ideas permeate the zeitgeist, alone, shows how gullible, witless, afraid, or self-righteous individuals are, whether in seeking the moral high ground, or in with ambitions to control others. Individuals working towards self-actualizing themselves, based on carefully crafted analysis and reasoned conclusions, is extremely rare. Groups are the refuge, overarching identity, and epistemological safe space for most individuals, for good or for ill. I'd even argue personality influences group membership far more reliably than politics or religion does. Whether you like it or not, group units are the most powerful units of people. While we can still respect or revere personal sovereignty, it's naive in the extreme for some libertarian types out there to deny that group dynamics and membership don't fundamentally alter the individual, or pose physical risks/dangers to other non-group individuals, or outlier groups.
@@Mr.Witness Yes, but humans are physically incapable of the sort of social and intellectual atomization Ayn Rand proposes is possible. Even the most conscious, stalwart and free-thinking person isn't anywhere close to being immune to parasocial psychology and intimate group belief. To accept this is to better understand humanity, while also still respecting the individual for what they're truly worth.
Majority rule with minority rights. Of course, those rights belong to the individual. If you have majority rule but hold the inalienable rights of the individual as the highest ideal, you would have a good balance between group and individual. Maybe not perfect, but much better than categorizing people by groups and then making their "rights" dependent on their group.
Im not sure many people are claiming that group dynamics dont alter the individual.... The point is: Govenment policy should NEVER be dedicated to groups (as we can see from nearly every atrocity throughout history) its far more important for government to uphold the rights of the individual. This is one of the things that has made America unique and one of the best places to be. People can participate in groups all they want, I dont think any libertarian has a problem with that. They have a problem with collectivism and identity politics at the gov policy level, thats all.
17:51 "Dinesh D'Souza...may at some point been a public intellectual, but has (cross-talk) intellectually unserious." I wish these people would speak one at a time. According to what source and criterion, was D'Souza a "public intellectual?" According to what source and criterion, is he now "intellectually unserious?" Aren't such pronouncements mere snobbery?
Nick is fairly intellectually unserious himself, and for the love of God retire the f*cking leather jacket already. Its as stale as your public persona.
D’Souza is a shock jock that profits by saying provocative things for attention. I suppose that’s a variety of “public intellectual” but it’s a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure the criticism of Victor Davis Hanson is fair. Could it be that his popular writings are popular because he cuts to the chase and cuts out all the bullcrap? Just a thought.
Hoppe's "bastardization of Mises", slant much? Does Magness have 1/1000 of the global following of Hoppe? Why not simply interview him or both of them together instead of treating viewers like idiots who can't be exposed to people they might disagree with?
43:36 first lie I've found is that you said that rothbard self designated himself as the heir of mises. Which is not exactly correct mises wrote a review of rothbard's book "man, Economy and state". And in that review he says ". . . an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and up-to-now best elaborated part, economics. Henceforth, all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard." and if you take that into account you come to realize. He's basically saying he is the heir of mises because he wants all scholars of economics to take into account what rothbard has said and he literally says it's the best elaborated part, economics.
my local University's former President Glen Pochard was accused of plagiarism several years ago while he was still University President. But this was from back in 1984. He did not get punished too severely as it was deemed "too long ago and within standards of the time" but somewhat hurt his reputation has an academic and prominent politician (he was a local congressman for many years before becoming University President in the mid 2000s). plagiarism is very serious and can really hurt your reputation if you are accused of it and are found to have plagiarized work.
52:10 that is what is happening right now in the United States (except in the inverse not toward the right but toward the left)as we descend into leftist neo fascism /socialism as the “out group” not the literal “out group”(of the minority) as we in the “right” are the statistical majority, but the out group in terms of held power and economic power within the United States(which lies in the hands of the left and the 1% elite establishment “democrats”(globalists leftists) , are being targeted publically demonized(going even as far as coming straight from the mouth of the puppet president ) labeled as terrorists and moving further into worse and worse persecution I see occurring in the future until a time of our right tyranny (which has already begun) that we will see be publically unleashed in This nation if nothing is done to to slow this down or halt this descent into chaos…which unfortunately I don’t see happening in our corrupt banana republic puppet state unless the people decide to take up the responsibility of the American citizen and decide to fight this tyranny. if only we could learn from this history instead f being doomed to repeat it. We are going to see another fall of the Weimar Republic this time here in America ironically after Rockefeller went out of his way to save the critical theory think tank members from the Weimar Republic and import them into America into the New England Ivy League so hat they can spread their socialist poison in OUR HOMELAND THIS TIME. it is like we have been set up to fail by the elites american oligarchy within this nation smh. we are also going to see a world wide Great Leap Forward that will make maos pale in comparison thanks to the wef and globalist elite worldwide partipatiom of their GREAT RESET agenda. All thanks to the Nazi Germany raised klaus schaub and his mentee the now King Charles , part of the elite plutocratic family of naziSYCHOPHANTS within the British royal family like ss prince Philip want to be ss dress up officianado (if you have never seen the photos of him going to. A Nazi funeral in full ss regalia). They will be launching their second attempt at third path marxism/ socialism and the great reset and FOURTH REICH ERRi mean fourth industrial revolution. Except the wef liberal new world order Great Leap Forward-great reset will do a cross the world what makes Great Leap Forward did in China. if only we could just learn from history and have more discernment as the 99% and the working class citizenry who make this world go round who the parasitic elite live off of in more way than just financially.
I haven't listened to this interview yet but I already find it very interesting how he will jump on 1619 Project and Hoppe equally... Seems like an "Enlightened Centrist" libertarian type.
Very much so. Lots of people like to believe that somehow people won't get upset if everyone claims to be an individualist. The whole reason the Wokes exist is because blacks can see that almost none of them achieve what almost everyone else does. He thinks that if we can just explain to people that the reason their life is shit is because they're worthless instead of because others target them unfairly, then they'll totally accept their condition! This is why the 1619 Project exists: it is actually a positive narrative for blacks: the reason their life sucks is actually because whites are uniquely evil and exploit them, not because there's something wrong with them. If he wants to be an individualist then he'll have to have to provide an explanation for why blacks have the issues they do. If he wants to deny race realism AND white guilt, what possible explanation remains?
He is intellectually lazy. The main criticism that he actually gives examples for is that Hoppe uses quotes of people that are *insert word that attacks character and not argument*. Not impressed.
Before minimum wages there were no reasons for limits on immigration. Populists who opposed this immigration share with collectivists who do not recognize that education and experience properly developed create human value that let individuals increase their worth in the marketplace. Immigrants usually lack this value and cannot replace people in the workplace who do possess this capital. Immigrants and residents can only work jobs where less human capital is required but these jobs legally disappear in a country with minimum wages. This forces jobs of this level out of the country and immigrants can only support themselves by working outside of the system. The undereducated with no experience may also find it difficult to get legal work. Money has no real value and is tied to the goods and services money can buy. Thus in one country a person would need to earn 30 dollars a day to live at the same level as someone earning 3 dollars a day in another country but the people in the 30 dollar country may need 100 dollars to get the level of food, housing plus medical care and other services the 3 dollar a day person lives without. Competition can increase the efficiency of producers and employees where this greater efficiency is unlikely to happen where competition does not exist which is common in planned economies. Inflation happens when governments increase spending on non-productive individuals. The victims of illegal immigration are most likely to be the immigrants also it also hurts those who cannot increase their income to match inflation.
@@jarekkish5515 Of course they are, each one made of a collection of genes always evolving and changing and learned experiences infinitely less likely to be alike than snowflakes. There are a million cultures. Anyone telling you different is someone trying to control you for their benefit not yours.
That was just about the mod dishonest critique of Hoppe I've ever heard. He basically just called him racist a dozen different ways for 10 mins and little else. Certainly destroyed his credibility for me., especially after critizing intellectual integrity for the first 20 mins.
Love your guys commitment to rational objective standards. But it's one of your big analytical flaws. In several instances you explore the question why is Marx resurgent and why do these discredited ideas gain popularity when they don't have endorsement of real academics or even popular opinion and you miss what is becoming an increasingly obvious misconception, Marxism is NOT a political or economic theory, it is a religion. It always was and still is now. You guys are nerds obsessed with rational thought so you might want to shed more light on this for yourselves or you might be blind to how it actually works. Marxism isn't interested in knowing objective reality, it wants to change reality into an ideal. And it's built into the ethos of Marxism's adherents to lie about what they want and what they're doing for pragmatic reasons and often won't even realize what they're doing because they're participating in a religious movement that legitimizes their passions for resentment and crusading for a greater good. You guys tragically don't tend to see that because you project rational thinking onto these thinkers, activists, and educators to try and understand how these movements progress and that's not how their motivation works. Phil Magness touches on the statistics for the increase in Marxist citations and how, even in Mises time, intellectuals like Keynes were serving this movement unwittingly because they shared irrational passions from materialistic Utopian thinking, but ultimately never connects the dots. I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of reason's interviews and podcasts from other libertarians and it's remarkable how often you ask the same questions around this issue and never present a satisfying answer. It's usually mere astonishment at the illogic of it and little else. Well like the Mormon Church and Jehovah witnesses their numbers continue to increase because it's a religion that exploits human irrational weaknesses and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't understand it you can't anticipate it.
![🎤 จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.1] (2/2) เพื่อนจับได้คำไหน..ต้องร้องคำนั้น เริ่ม! 💓🎶 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1bJvMJXmeS4/mqdefault.jpg)
Correction: The video introduction incorrectly states that Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains won the National Book Award. It was a finalist.
Can someone tell that clown Gillespie to stop saying "uh hum" 500 times per minute? WTF is wrong him?
It being a finalist is already bad enough.
Seems like something that should be pinned at the top.
Plagiarism is a serious problem. It can be inadvertent, but when it is committed a great many times in a piece or sequence of tweets, there is a justified loss of good faith. Good faith is essential to the public intellectual life. Too bad more voters didn't see Brandon's frequent plagiarism as the serious defect it is.
Do a video on "the China show," on TH-cam..and the two behind it? Or maybe also Robert Spalding, who was the American military attache to China at the time. He wrote a must read book, "STEALTH WAR:HOW CHINA TOOK OVER WHILE AMERICA'S ELITE SLEPT." Is a must watch! Joeeonl
Academia is due an enema. It simply can't maintain its credibility if it persists on embracing this grievance study post modern revisionism.
No worries, America will chew it up and spit it out soon enough. True intelligence doesn't require trophies, just some ink.
Even STEM departments are quickly becoming information laundering tools through control over research funding
Is it wrong, or is it just unpopular to say what can be demonstrated from the primary sources?
It’s a little bit like the Cornerstone Speech for those who desperately want to believe that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
Nuclear Powered Roto-Router Enema
I just listened to the rest of this interview. I think Hoppe is one of the most misunderstood libertarian thinkers. This seems to be especially true when people read his book "Democracy: The God that Failed." In it he simply points out that free people can create their own gated communities along whatever lines they decide. If a group of gay, black, atheists decides they only want gay, black atheists in their gated community, then doing so absolutely does NOT violate any libertarian principles and allows them their freedom of association. People who are inclined to listen/look for dog whistles read a book like D: T G t F and immediately think Hoppe must be an anti-LGBT white supremacist. I'm convinced they are dead wrong about that. Hoppe is not anti-LGBT, nor anti-people of color or anti-Semitic. He simply points out that free people can voluntarily organize their private societies as they see fit even if that involves exercising their prejudices. People who virtue signal about race, sex, gender preference and ethnicity, find that level of non-violent freedom of association is more than they are willing to tolerate. A person who identifies as libertarian but does not support that level of freedom of association comes across as sort of a milquetoast libertarian to me.
I find it annoying when Nick throws out Reader's Digest level hearsay comments on such things. He did that several times in his interviews with people from the Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party after they took control of the party earlier this year. I was offended by Phil's insinuation that Hoppe's popularity is with people who are racially prejudiced or homophobic as I'm a fan of his and I don't fit either of those descriptions. I think Hoppe's popularity with libertarians is that he is one of the rare thinkers in the movement who is actually advancing it significantly with his ideas on how to bring libertarianism into actual fruition and not simply treating it as an interesting intellectual topic for people like Phil and Nick to gab about.
I would say it does not just not violate any principles of libertarianism but is a fundamental part of it. But I am not impressed by the Phil or Nick. The main argument against Hoppe he actually made examples for was not about the arguments but about him quoting people that he doesn't like. The virtue signalers may criticize it but they already do it themselves already to a greater degree than anyone else as far as I can see. Well, sadly it seems most videos on here are of this type of milk toast "libertarians".
@@deusvult1268 Milque-toast.
@@meganbaker9116 Oh true, what I wrote is an eggcorn it seems.
Nick's claim that Rothbard declared *himself* heir to Mises is also factually incorrect. Mises said Rothbard was to many before his death. Reason have a habit of popping of at the true Libertarian position while simultaneously claiming they're of the same mind.
Maybe they're glowing and we haven't noticed yet.
@@Si_Mondo Noticing Reason tv has more to do with the "Libertarian" party (although I hope it is better now with the change) than actual Libertarianism. *Insert "first time?" meme here* Although one could argue that is kind of in the structure due to both the party and Reason tv being centralized and arguing "for the group", making them both kind of antithetical to basic principles of Libertarianism.
So relieved that Nick has appointed himself a public intellectual. The intellectual heir of Mises, of course.
Calling Hoppe racist for suggesting that mass immigration of low skill workers won't lead to more liberty. It seems like they're still running on the model that low skill immigrants won't vote and won't put stress on public services. If your model suggests that, but reality looks like southern California, maybe your model is wrong.
On the plagiarism issue, I was a "source checker" on law review when I was in law school (not bragging about it, I didn't have good enough grades to grade on after my 1L year so I had to write on when I was a 2L). We mostly published articles written by professors from other schools. The amount of blatant plagiarism was insane. Most of the time just entering text from the draft article into JSTOR would identify the article the text was lifted from.
After that it was up to our poor editor in chief to tell the authors that we can't publish their plagiarized work. Half the professors would acknowledge their mistake and rewrite (these folks were usually just being lazy or sloppy), the other half would act indignant and take their "work" elsewhere.
JSTOR is a fantastic resource
@@vd1721 Indeed, and they've made access free now, or at least access to a limited number of articles a month.
😳😳😳
No surprise that those administering legal standards consider themselves exempt.
@@qwerty90615 Two friends from college went to Law School around 2010-2014 and both became hard lefties; I assume causation. I remember running into one of them in DC a few years ago and he was a total condescending, woke, prick; and we were pretty good friends in undergrad. I remember being so excited to catch up with him and he looked at my wife and I like we were insects or something.
Very grateful to the few intelligent, diligent people like your guest today, who have the integrity and passion to challenge the oceans of academic, media and political group think that threaten our liberty. Thank you for your hard work.
If somebody views school choice as racist, they are admiting they are racist. All children should be held to the same standards, regardless of race, with a few exceptions for neurodevergence.
School choice is about moving to a school that gets better results and escaping a teacher's Union who looks at parents as the enemy.
Unfortunately there are major historical fabrications being distributed in many books and courses. And it's illegal to discuss that.
Endulgge me on these fabrications
Whats illegal?
example? I'm actually curious, I'm reading a history book involving James Oakes, a leftisit anti-1619project historian
Not illegal, just strongly discouraged.
Who would believe that the US single-handedly won WW2 with only trivial contributions from the other allies if we actually let accurate history be taught?
All I remember hearing about in high school regarding Reconstruction was complaints about Carpetbaggers, not about the virtual re-creation of the slave system in everything but name.
This was a legacy of the mid-20th century when students were taught not history, but nationalist propaganda and indoctrination.
you're so persecuted
Phil Magness' breadth of knowledge and reasoned assessments are impressive. If I were still a student, I'd much rather study under him at a small college than at an Ivy League school with professors who are hired for their approved political ideologies.
I don't think Magness understands Hoppe. I'd like to hear Magness and Dave Smith (or Hoppe, himself -if you can get him) discuss the disagreement.
Check Twitter 😂 Magness is blocking everyone who even mildly defends Hoppe
@@HarryPainter lol. Can't say I'm surprised.
@@HarryPainter > "Magness is blocking everyone who even mildly defends Hoppe"
So, Phil has decided the detractors must be "physically removed."
lol
@@simonsaysdie8330 how illiberal!
In this interview Gillespie is, as usual, intellectual in tone but not in substance.
He's the interviewer. He should be in the background. He's the interviewer who only owns 1 jacket and shirt.
Hearing all the "rights," and "hmmms," in the background while Phil is talking makes me think of skipping through dialogue in Fallout 4
Worse, I realized that I do the same thing (--though less persistently I HOPE). I'm simultaneously traumatized and cured.
Keep going USA, the UK is slowly turning things around, it needs persistence and exposure like this
Study Thomas Sowell and see how you feel about all this, 1619 and vilifying our country into choas. Also i had a super lefty professor who told the class vietnam vets never got spit on... that was a myth. I stood up in middle dead center of class and said you professor are full of Bullshit, turned to the clasd and said he is full of bullshit! I will prove it. Brought in 3 local paper articles from that time the next day and presented .. plus i know people who had their fathers and uncles and grandfathers who were older soldiers in nam treated like this. Do you think that kind of lying matters?
@@ca6360 I agree with you. I am very familiar with Thomas Sowell's work. Have you kept up with James Lindsey's deep dive into the origins of this sinister drivel? Paulo Frerieri and Social Emotional Learning. The education system is full of its own self importance it ASSUMES the children belong to them and parents aren't to be trusted with them.
“Hoppe disagrees with Mises”
Yeah dude, people who follow after their teachers might disagree with a few things
See Mises v Rothbard on monopoly
Every improvement in a school or discipline is a “disagreement”.
I also chuckle at this type of snapshot analysis. Look at how prescient and insightful Mises was. Do you think he’d have a static dogmatic view of his own work and worldview if he were alive and plugged-in today???
@@wes10gaard question is whether those who worship him today would actually agree with him if he worked in modern academia or scholarship.
He didn’t exactly toe the line on the conservative talking points of his day (yes, modern “libertarians” are typically philosophical conservatives in that their goal is protecting the social status quo, in this case from meddling government intervention that might challenge sexism, etc…).
This guest has a powerful integrity and intellect.
Magness cites the collective guilt of Hoppe's guilt by association with racists, only after explaining the folly of collective ID politics. How is this not a non-sequitur?
Great interview, I left my earbuds at home, and now my co-workers think I'm a monster because they couldn't understand a word of it.
Great interview. I have no idea why they try to dismiss Matt Walsh a troll. He is great at trolling but all he really does is talk about common sense and truth seeking on his podcast.
No Walsh is a troll, he works for the daily wire. It's literally a propaganda outlet filled with trolls. Matt isn't even subtle with his racism compared to the others that make content for the daily wire.
@@pikapowns
Your partisanship/tribalism is showing. Dismissing his arguments based simply on who he affiliates with is fallacious.
More importantly, activists like you have slandered far too many innocent people with the label of "bigot" for such allegations to carry weight anymore. The same logic applies to the use of the term "troll," which you are also misusing. What you're doing is not only intellectually dishonest and lazy, it's designed to bring all discussion to a screeching halt, hijack it, and turn it into a witch hunt against your political opponents. What you are doing is fundamentally *EVIL,* and I suspect you already know that and don't care.
May God have mercy on your soul.
@@pikapowns -subscribed to vaush
opinion dismissed, have a nice day
trolling almost depends on who's asking the questions. When Prince Andrew was interviewed by NewsNight and the interviewer said that someone said he was on Epstein's island and he was sweating all over the place he then said that during that time he couldn't sweat (while sweating profusely during the interview) it could be said that he was being trolled by the interviewer and made to look like a fool.
From my perspective Andrew is being interviewed but from his perspective he might say he's being trolled.
I'm no expert on Walsh but from what I've seen he simply asks people questions and the interviewee seems to struggle.
@@pikapowns you’re a partisan hack, and as such, the real threat against a stable nation.
Phil Magness is always a breath of fresh air adding a direction of reason backed by empirical evidence. Although I am very deep admirer of Victor Davis Hanson, who I consider to be a fantastic historian not just an incredible classist, he is right that sometimes he can veer into non historical matters that are simply right wing points of view. I sincerely enjoyed this interview though and hope to see more of Phil.
Victor does all the time.. but it generally is when he's just giving interviews with people literally about current events and politics.
The 1619 project is a trainwreck. It was my American history textbook in college. I spent most of my essays pointing out that the concept of capitalism was nearly 50 years past the end of slavery.
I despise anyone who believes the 1619 project or any related ideology. However.. The concept of capitalism has been around hundreds of years, since the 17th century. What are you referring to ?
Capitalism was "conceptualized" in the 20th century. Before that people simply lived it. Capitalism wasn't a word until the 20th century. Yes there were "enlightenment" philosophers at the time. But that was the concept in its infancy, before it had a word and was practiced. It's like saying England was a constitutional monarchy in 1066, because they thought about it.
Can someone tell that clown Gillespie to stop saying "uh hum" 500 times per minute? WTF is wrong him?
@@misternibbles7426 "Capitalism" as a word was first coined by a French Marxist (I forget his name) in the 1850s, and his conceptualisation of it was based on Marx's strawman of what Adam Smith meant by "capital".
It is good to restrict immigration in a Welfare state
Looking forward to receiving a Pulitzer Prize myself (as I also have a talent for penning complete nonsense.)
I got to meet Magness and interact with him briefly at PorcFest this year. It was the most enlightening experience I had at the event.
Think social sciences are a joke, but then, got my degree from a Canadian university in the early 80s. Certainly don't think such studies should be publicly funded in any way.
Wouldn’t want anyone thinking about how society works. They might realize they can do better.
Check our 1215 for an easy example…
@@Justanotherconsumer Public funding is still anti-liberty.
Best interview I’ve seen in 2022. Great job Nick, and bring this guy back again soon.
This was probably the most enlightening interview I have watched (of probably 300) in 2022. Thank you.
Phil got tore up on twitter for this hot dog water take on Hoppe and I understand why completely now.
42:58 for the Hoppephobia segment
Thanks. Unimpressed with Magness, what's his point or story, other than a messy cluster of attacks on Hoppe. Magness posted lies about Hoppe on Twitter and would not retract them so he is not a trustworthy source for honest Hoppe critiques. I don't know what motivates him on this but it's certainly not pursuit of truth.
@@Cardstacker I haven't seen Magness's Twitter attacks on Hoppe, so I can't speak to that. But here's a big-picture critique of Hoppe from me: A society like Hoppe's ideal, where property owners are the ultimate lawmakers for their property, in an otherwise anarchic society, is called "feudalism." We saw how unjust this sort of society routinely was in the Middle Ages. The incentive for property owners is to make laws that empower them and protect their perceived interests at the expense of any tenants or neighbors. Without a government to objectively adjudicate property claims, contracts and other laws, there is nothing to stop the "lord of the manor" from arbitrarily deciding that the tenant now owes him double what he did before, and that the tenant must stay and work off the debt indefinitely.
@@SwordOfApollo The concerns outlined in this quote are concerns which Hoppe/Rothbard puts toward the state:" there is nothing to stop the "lord of the manor" from arbitrarily deciding that the tenant now owes him double what he did before, and that the tenant must stay and work off the debt indefinitely." This quote is exactly what the state is and which is why Rothbard/Hoppe call it a criminal organization. This includes "democratic" states too. The intellectual errors of minarchists is the state is feudal in character (in particular the central banks and taxation party). The proponents of these errors include Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand. Hoppe attacks Mises classical liberal statism in the democracy the god that failed in a chapter known as "the errors of classical liberalism." Ironically enough democracy isn't some david graeber fantasy, rather, more like Burnham's managerial revolution. Hoppe's Marxist training comes in handy by outflanking to the "left" most "liberal" libertarians as state power democracy worshipers. They (liberal libertarians) take the state's neutral character as a given when one should regard it as an aggressive criminal organization (as well as an intellectual error). Why would a state behave "properly"? To paraphrase spooner just because you vote a master every four years doesn't mean you aren't a slave. Take your argument critiquing the feudal lord and apply it to the managerial state and one ends up as some kind of hoppean/rothbardian anarchist.
@@SwordOfApollo Unless of course you think the state is a necessary organization. If that is the case then why not have state control over all sorts of different sectors and not "merely" the functions that limited government advocates say it is needed. The growth of the state to ever larger areas becomes quite natural. If that is the case then what is your concern in the first place about Hoppestan? Hoppestan would just have a rights protection agency which looks like a state.
I encourage young people to 1) learn a trade; 2) join the Airforce or Navy, and LEARN A TRADE; 3) go to college for archaeology or engineering. IN THAT ORDER.
Nick, Kudos on bringing up The Counter Revolution of Science. I felt like I was the only one who read that, yet it constantly applies these days.
One of my favorite libertarian books and I regularly recommend it.
They need to interview the bot making investment advice.
44:34 if you actually took the time to read what he said you'd know that your not characterizing it correctly you can learn with clear detail what he is inferring to when he talks about immigration and to act as though he is anti immigration, couldn't be further from the truth. Here's a qoute of his to clear up any misconceptions "the mere mention of two words in one sentence-this time “immigration” and “restriction”-is sufficient to trigger a blank-out. No need to read any further and try to comprehend. First homophobe, then xenophobe. In fact, I have never met a serious advocate of “no immigration, period!” Nor have I ever taken a stand that could be described as anti-immigration. Instead I have always argued for the commonsensical approach of selective immigration. Ideally, with all pieces of land and everything on them privately
owned, there would be a huge variety of entrance requirements, i.e., of degrees, respectively, of openness and closedness. I have described this, for instance, in my piece “Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.” Airports, roads, shopping malls, hotels, etc., would be rather open, whereas residential associations, private retreats, clubs, etc., might be almost completely closed. In any case, however, all migration would be by invitation and invariably the full cost principle would apply. Either the inviting host or the invited guest or both jointly would have to pay the full cost associated with the guest’s presence. No cost could be shifted and externalized onto third parties, and the inviter and/or invitee would be held liable for any and all damage resulting from the invitation to the property of others. If and as long as there is a state with so-called public property in place, as happens to be the case in today’s world, then the best one may hope for is an immigration policy that tries to approach this ideal of a natural order. You have mentioned some possible measures in this regard. But to advocate, under current conditions, the adoption of a “free immigration” policy-every foreigner can come in and move and stay around the entire country, no questions asked-is certainly no way to achieve this goal. To the contrary, it would make forced integration and cost-shifting ubiquitous, and quickly end in disaster. Only people devoid of all common sense could possibly advocate any such policy."
What is the point of living in a society that worships the other?
I’m certain Phil has read all of Hoppe carefully, he’s not being flippant. Im not sure if it’s all provincial GMU-Beltway v Auburn stuff, but it strikes me as inconsistent with the quality of pretty much all of his other work and opinions
@@wes10gaard "...he's not being flippant..."
Do you need a bridge? I've got one for sale.
@@wes10gaard I'm pretty sure he hasn't. The fact he claims that rothbard is a self proclaimed heir of mises shows me he hasn't read all the history of the Austrian school of economics. You can litteraly read the forward of man economy and state and realize he's wrong. Mises wrote a review of man economy and state and it was put into the forward of that book. Here's a qoute of his review "an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and up-to-now best elaborated part, economics. Henceforth, all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard."
Come on,guys. This was great, but Mises's attitude about immigration was BEFORE the staggeringly expensive welfare system, with illegal aliens eligible for free stuff at taxpayer expense. Mises could not have expected to predict this.
Of the spending done by staggering welfare systems in the United States, along with staggeringly wasteful and costly socialized programs like Medicare, illegal immigrants account for an absolutely insignificant portion of spending.
All most all of that spending is done on American citizens
@@Seths87 You can't know that, as the sanctuary policies make it impossible to know the number or status of illegal immigrants, but we do know there are at least 11 million of them here and as many as 30 million, all of whose welfare is the responsibility of the nation in which they were born. So, you may be right, but you can't know that it's "absolutely insignificant". But that's not even the main point. The point is the future. If the border remains effectively open and politicians keep saying, "Just get here and no one will check your asylum claim, and we'll give you health care (as all the Dem Presidential candidates pledged)." How many people will come in eventually? Many work hard and send money to their families back home. But there are Americans inducing people to get assistance all the time, either from charities (that have lots of citizens who need help) or from government. And law-abiding citizens and employers pay Medicare and SS taxes, whereas scofflaw employers who hire people illegally, whether the employees are aliens or citizens, don't have pay into the system. It's just not fair to people who come in legally, pay the fees, take the tests, wait patiently, for authorities to short-circuit all that and just say, "Come to our sanctuary and be counted in the Census so that we can have more Reps in the Congress and a cheaper maid and cheaper gardener."
This was such a great discussion. I'm a big fan of both of you guys going into this, and it did not disappoint. Might have to listen again.
BTW you're ABSOLUTELY correct that tax policy in the 19th Century was crucial, particularly the Morrill Tariff doubling and then tripling tariffs. Threats to secede - NOT over slavery but over tariffs - was a constant in the first half of the 19th Century.
does it play into the confederacy
@@phanx0m924 Yes, the Morrill tariff was initiated just before 1861, and between Lincoln's election and Inauguration the tariff went from double to triple. The GOP was the new Whig Party, as the Whig Party was the old Federalists. Tariffs and excise taxes were THE source of Federal revenue, and given the liw incomes in the USA (planet-wide really!) ANY tax increase was a big effing deal as Biden said of Obamacare passing (one of Biden's true statements). If you've often been confused about the Republican Party being a "left" party in the 20th Century, it's actually sensible because while the GOP was pro-business it was really for BIG business - and Big Government, and many of the folks behind the Republican Party of Italy were behind OUR Republican Party.
The final reason for secession, though, was slavery/white supremacy (often hard to separate).
History’s pretty clear on that.
@@Justanotherconsumer You're correct, since the so-called "elites" of the CSA all owned slaves, but the reason large numbers of whites volunteered to fight was tariffs (since those who signed up largely didn't own slaves). I can't see a bunch of white farmers that DIDN'T own slaves riskin ng life and limb and leaviij ng their farms to prop up an institution that reduced their own return to labor.
@@Justanotherconsumer slavery, ≠ white supremacy
Capitalism ≠ free markets. Reason is an apologist for corporations who often prosper from laws, regulations, and contracts.
So glad clicked! Super helpful in clarifying my thoughts on so many topics.
I am 77 years old and I am hearing NAMES & Ideas that I am not familiar with from the past ..
Thank you for the challenge of these thoughts
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Magness and Mr. Gillespie in advance. By the end of their careers they will have attracted tens of people to libertarianism.
Another attempted hit piece on the Mises Caucus.
Why does plagiarism matter? What a sad state we are in when that question is even asked. It matters because it’s theft. Stealing someone’s thoughts and putting them forward as your own.
LOVED working at AIER in Great Barrington MA in the Summer of 1982. Keep on keepin' on!!!!
Thank you for the conversation….well done😎
This guy is such a nerd. He's great. Fascinating interview.
Libertarianism would be cool if they dumped the foolish open borders position.
You can't have open borders with a Welfare State.
@@patrickbateman783 It's also almost impossible to defend your borders or have a nation.
@@Billy420-69 maybe it’s because libertarians aren’t that concerned with borders or nations and other statist concepts?
@@Justanotherconsumer That's a good way to get taken over by communists and other hostile invaders. It's also why they will never be a majority.
Libertarian party has moved left recently and lost me. I was a centrist and as the country moves. left I'm now on the right.
He's amazing. I've never heard of him before. He gives me some hope.
I like the sound of a lot of Phil's watchdog work in principle but I think he's a bit off when it comes to Hoppe. Hoppe's economic philosophy is very Misean at its core. He's also an advocate of anarcho-capitalism, just like his mentor, Murray Rothbard, Mises' best and most famous American student. Hoppe realizes that the idea that we will ever develop "limited government" is a ridiculous pipe-dream. Therefore, he advocates creating private a-c societies within countries and supports national policies that support them.
I think its possible to be a Mises follower and admirer and still want controlled borders. I doubt Mises would want a follower who was lockstep following his every assertion.
Trump criticizes crony capitalism, not capitalism per se. He also criticizes unfair trade, not trade per se. So, too with illegal immigration, which he criticizes, but not immigration per se. What Phil Magness' characterization of Trump shows, is that Trump has a more nuanced understanding of these issues than does Phil Magness.
Re: your last sentence, seriously?
@@benp4877 As serious as any of my TH-cam comments. While I like that sentence, I also realize that Phil Magness lacks a nuanced understanding of Trump. His critique is little better than any other Never Trumper, orange man bad.
What I see and understand as a black person.
First enslaved Africans arrive in Jamestown,
By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain.
First african slaves were in Florida brought by Spain. 1530s. But yes thay wasn't the original colonies. However based 0n Hahah Jones assessment should be condisered should it not?
Physical Removal, so to speak... Hans Hermann Hoppe 🚁
This was excellent… Thank you very much...
When I heard the part about Victor Davis Hanson, I just substituted it with Thomas Sowell in my mind. "He does great work in his narrow field of economics but that gets discredited when he writes these bomb-throwing op-eds." I would strenuously disagree.
Hoover Scholars can’t apply their generally excellent ideas to US Foreign Policy Incorporated. Hoover pays the bills so VDH writes bananas op eds, and Sowell wisely remains mostly mute on the subject.
@@wes10gaard As a historian VDH is more qualified than most to comment on foreign policy.
Accountable? Start by cutting off the money stream.
Exactly.
Defund teachers
@@TonerLow abolish the department of education and the IRS
@@inspectorvoid and defund teachers. Overpaid leeches. If police were killing as many people as teachers were failing we would be stepping over bodies leaving our front doors.
Ah Phil magness, Hoppe’s Nancy MacLean
Phil, why won't you retract your false accusation of Hoppe? Hoppe objected to calling **German people** as congenital villains, and you use this as evidence he is "bad news", i.e. sympathetic to the Nazis. How can your criticisms of Hoppe be taken seriously when you don't correct obvious errors? And then you just block everyone on Twitter?
Did you ask him this in the live chat as well?
I would love to see a good study or studies that show how globalization of trade has improved life in western countries. My own experience in Canada where I live says the opposite, but maybe I just don't see where life is better than before the collapse of manufacturing in the western world? I'm not convinced.
This was good... but I guess we're never going to get to see that full interview you did with Woods at the LP conference are we? 😥
My father in law’s PhD work was stolen by his advisor.
Of all the philosophers historians and economists mentioned, I want to thank you for the mention of Dr and Professor Stephen Colbert for Truthiness!! lolz Lordy what i would do to see stephen colbert making his show funny, and not boring during the trump years.
Victor Davis Hanson is dangerous? I’m out.
Kruse sounds like a beneficiary of the Biden scholarship program.
The hit-job on the late James Buchanan, and the Public Choice school of thought, was particularly unscrupulous. Nancy Maclean seems to be particularly bad. I am glad that people are responding.
You gotta love it when someone is labelled “unserious” , as if that was an argument worth any weight. 🙄
God Bless Our Awesome President Donald J. Trump! Let's go Brandon! Roll Tide!!!
She made up all the facts up, and the NY Times printed it without fact-checking 🙄
Notice that they NEVER talk specifics,
but general categorizations,
which everyone agrees on.
Excellent by both parties. Very impressive.
This is really good. That said, I dont agree with his characterization of Victor David Hansen.
I used to believe and have trust in this extremely atomizing view of the individual as they relate to their member groups, whether born into or chosen. Over the past 20 to 25 years, the nature of this argument and its precepts have rung more and more hollow, because it's been proven more and more incorrect. Social/cultural developments in any population, no matter how small, are steered in large part by institutional power holders and their ideas. Seeing how deeply those ideas permeate the zeitgeist, alone, shows how gullible, witless, afraid, or self-righteous individuals are, whether in seeking the moral high ground, or in with ambitions to control others. Individuals working towards self-actualizing themselves, based on carefully crafted analysis and reasoned conclusions, is extremely rare. Groups are the refuge, overarching identity, and epistemological safe space for most individuals, for good or for ill. I'd even argue personality influences group membership far more reliably than politics or religion does.
Whether you like it or not, group units are the most powerful units of people. While we can still respect or revere personal sovereignty, it's naive in the extreme for some libertarian types out there to deny that group dynamics and membership don't fundamentally alter the individual, or pose physical risks/dangers to other non-group individuals, or outlier groups.
Group units are just collections of individuals. Their ideas are based on philosophy. Read Ayn Rands Non Fiction
@@Mr.Witness Yes, but humans are physically incapable of the sort of social and intellectual atomization Ayn Rand proposes is possible. Even the most conscious, stalwart and free-thinking person isn't anywhere close to being immune to parasocial psychology and intimate group belief. To accept this is to better understand humanity, while also still respecting the individual for what they're truly worth.
Majority rule with minority rights. Of course, those rights belong to the individual. If you have majority rule but hold the inalienable rights of the individual as the highest ideal, you would have a good balance between group and individual. Maybe not perfect, but much better than categorizing people by groups and then making their "rights" dependent on their group.
@@Mr.Witness Yes and these groups change all the time. Individuals move in and out of the ones that you can predict something from in general.
Im not sure many people are claiming that group dynamics dont alter the individual.... The point is: Govenment policy should NEVER be dedicated to groups (as we can see from nearly every atrocity throughout history) its far more important for government to uphold the rights of the individual. This is one of the things that has made America unique and one of the best places to be. People can participate in groups all they want, I dont think any libertarian has a problem with that. They have a problem with collectivism and identity politics at the gov policy level, thats all.
17:51 "Dinesh D'Souza...may at some point been a public intellectual, but has (cross-talk) intellectually unserious." I wish these people would speak one at a time. According to what source and criterion, was D'Souza a "public intellectual?" According to what source and criterion, is he now "intellectually unserious?" Aren't such pronouncements mere snobbery?
Nick is fairly intellectually unserious himself, and for the love of God retire the f*cking leather jacket already. Its as stale as your public persona.
D’Souza is a shock jock that profits by saying provocative things for attention. I suppose that’s a variety of “public intellectual” but it’s a bit of a stretch.
Long live Hoppe
You lost me when you smack talked Dinesh. I am no Dinesh fanboy. But that was low.
I'm not sure the criticism of Victor Davis Hanson is fair. Could it be that his popular writings are popular because he cuts to the chase and cuts out all the bullcrap? Just a thought.
Hoppe's "bastardization of Mises", slant much? Does Magness have 1/1000 of the global following of Hoppe? Why not simply interview him or both of them together instead of treating viewers like idiots who can't be exposed to people they might disagree with?
Slavery wasn’t founded in 1619. Period.
Jiat found this channel. Love it so far. Such a great, not politically slanted, genuinely refreshing interview. New sub and fan here.
43:36 first lie I've found is that you said that rothbard self designated himself as the heir of mises. Which is not exactly correct mises wrote a review of rothbard's book "man, Economy and state". And in that review he says
". . . an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and up-to-now best elaborated part, economics. Henceforth, all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard." and if you take that into account you come to realize. He's basically saying he is the heir of mises because he wants all scholars of economics to take into account what rothbard has said and he literally says it's the best elaborated part, economics.
my local University's former President Glen Pochard was accused of plagiarism several years ago while he was still University President. But this was from back in 1984. He did not get punished too severely as it was deemed "too long ago and within standards of the time" but somewhat hurt his reputation has an academic and prominent politician (he was a local congressman for many years before becoming University President in the mid 2000s). plagiarism is very serious and can really hurt your reputation if you are accused of it and are found to have plagiarized work.
As it absolutely should
Somehow has no effect on President Brandon.
52:10 that is what is happening right now in the United States (except in the inverse not toward the right but toward the left)as we descend into leftist neo fascism /socialism as the “out group” not the literal “out group”(of the minority) as we in the “right” are the statistical majority, but the out group in terms of held power and economic power within the United States(which lies in the hands of the left and the 1% elite establishment “democrats”(globalists leftists) , are being targeted publically demonized(going even as far as coming straight from the mouth of the puppet president ) labeled as terrorists and moving further into worse and worse persecution I see occurring in the future until a time of our right tyranny (which has already begun) that we will see be publically unleashed in This nation if nothing is done to to slow this down or halt this descent into chaos…which unfortunately I don’t see happening in our corrupt banana republic puppet state unless the people decide to take up the responsibility of the American citizen and decide to fight this tyranny.
if only we could learn from this history instead f being doomed to repeat it. We are going to see another fall of the Weimar Republic this time here in America ironically after Rockefeller went out of his way to save the critical theory think tank members from the Weimar Republic and import them into America into the New England Ivy League so hat they can spread their socialist poison in OUR HOMELAND THIS TIME. it is like we have been set up to fail by the elites american oligarchy within this nation smh.
we are also going to see a world wide Great Leap Forward that will make maos pale in comparison thanks to the wef and globalist elite worldwide partipatiom of their GREAT RESET agenda. All thanks to the Nazi Germany raised klaus schaub and his mentee the now King Charles , part of the elite plutocratic family of naziSYCHOPHANTS within the British royal family like ss prince Philip want to be ss dress up officianado (if you have never seen the photos of him going to. A Nazi funeral in full ss regalia). They will be launching their second attempt at third path marxism/ socialism and the great reset and FOURTH REICH ERRi mean fourth industrial revolution. Except the wef liberal new world order Great Leap Forward-great reset will do a cross the world what makes Great Leap Forward did in China.
if only we could just learn from history and have more discernment as the 99% and the working class citizenry who make this world go round who the parasitic elite live off of in more way than just financially.
He called Dinesh what?
Phil has all the receipts.
What does academia and media have to do with a trilateral Commission forum?
I haven't listened to this interview yet but I already find it very interesting how he will jump on 1619 Project and Hoppe equally... Seems like an "Enlightened Centrist" libertarian type.
Very much so. Lots of people like to believe that somehow people won't get upset if everyone claims to be an individualist.
The whole reason the Wokes exist is because blacks can see that almost none of them achieve what almost everyone else does.
He thinks that if we can just explain to people that the reason their life is shit is because they're worthless instead of because others target them unfairly, then they'll totally accept their condition!
This is why the 1619 Project exists: it is actually a positive narrative for blacks: the reason their life sucks is actually because whites are uniquely evil and exploit them, not because there's something wrong with them.
If he wants to be an individualist then he'll have to have to provide an explanation for why blacks have the issues they do. If he wants to deny race realism AND white guilt, what possible explanation remains?
He is intellectually lazy. The main criticism that he actually gives examples for is that Hoppe uses quotes of people that are *insert word that attacks character and not argument*. Not impressed.
Can someone tell that clown Gillespie to stop saying "uh hum" 500 times per minute? WTF is wrong him?
Like Michael Shermer, but definitely not as bad.
Not really a whole lot of talk about the 1619 project as the title would suggest
Clickbait for Reason’s core audience - conservatives who don’t want to admit they’re conservatives.
I’ve already watched this TH-cam. Why is this my next up recommendation? Maybe TH-cam realized how brilliant the episode is?
Glad I Hopped onto this video.
Can someone tell this guy it’s time to put away the Eric Bischoff circa 1998 costume?
Great interview gents!
Before minimum wages there were no reasons for limits on immigration. Populists who opposed this immigration share with collectivists who do not recognize that education and experience properly developed create human value that let individuals increase their worth in the marketplace. Immigrants usually lack this value and cannot replace people in the workplace who do possess this capital. Immigrants and residents can only work jobs where less human capital is required but these jobs legally disappear in a country with minimum wages. This forces jobs of this level out of the country and immigrants can only support themselves by working outside of the system. The undereducated with no experience may also find it difficult to get legal work. Money has no real value and is tied to the goods and services money can buy. Thus in one country a person would need to earn 30 dollars a day to live at the same level as someone earning 3 dollars a day in another country but the people in the 30 dollar country may need 100 dollars to get the level of food, housing plus medical care and other services the 3 dollar a day person lives without. Competition can increase the efficiency of producers and employees where this greater efficiency is unlikely to happen where competition does not exist which is common in planned economies. Inflation happens when governments increase spending on non-productive individuals. The victims of illegal immigration are most likely to be the immigrants also it also hurts those who cannot increase their income to match inflation.
People are not individuals.
@@jarekkish5515 Of course they are, each one made of a collection of genes always evolving and changing and learned experiences infinitely less likely to be alike than snowflakes. There are a million cultures. Anyone telling you different is someone trying to control you for their benefit not yours.
That was just about the mod dishonest critique of Hoppe I've ever heard.
He basically just called him racist a dozen different ways for 10 mins and little else.
Certainly destroyed his credibility for me., especially after critizing intellectual integrity for the first 20 mins.
Love your guys commitment to rational objective standards. But it's one of your big analytical flaws.
In several instances you explore the question why is Marx resurgent and why do these discredited ideas gain popularity when they don't have endorsement of real academics or even popular opinion and you miss what is becoming an increasingly obvious misconception, Marxism is NOT a political or economic theory, it is a religion. It always was and still is now. You guys are nerds obsessed with rational thought so you might want to shed more light on this for yourselves or you might be blind to how it actually works.
Marxism isn't interested in knowing objective reality, it wants to change reality into an ideal. And it's built into the ethos of Marxism's adherents to lie about what they want and what they're doing for pragmatic reasons and often won't even realize what they're doing because they're participating in a religious movement that legitimizes their passions for resentment and crusading for a greater good.
You guys tragically don't tend to see that because you project rational thinking onto these thinkers, activists, and educators to try and understand how these movements progress and that's not how their motivation works. Phil Magness touches on the statistics for the increase in Marxist citations and how, even in Mises time, intellectuals like Keynes were serving this movement unwittingly because they shared irrational passions from materialistic Utopian thinking, but ultimately never connects the dots. I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of reason's interviews and podcasts from other libertarians and it's remarkable how often you ask the same questions around this issue and never present a satisfying answer. It's usually mere astonishment at the illogic of it and little else. Well like the Mormon Church and Jehovah witnesses their numbers continue to increase because it's a religion that exploits human irrational weaknesses and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't understand it you can't anticipate it.
I love the cuts to Nick just sexily brushing his hair. 😂
Yah i dunno to agree even if it hasn't begun
I read “White Flight” by Kevin Kruse in college. To hear the fact that he plagiarized is surprising
I'm inspired to read something by magness. I'm interested in Public Choice which mentioned.
Sowell??
New rule: no one with clown hair gets to have a leadership role in anything.
Thank you.
I was engaged until he brought up the 'voodoo doll' comment.
That suggested something under the radar darkly.
Great interviewer and guest