Block wins hands down. Gillespie was very juvenile in his arguments. What was with that whole "Call me Dr. dammit" a hole statement? Gillespie failed to grasp the nature of Block's view. Block was absolutely right to bring up the whole thick/thin libertarianism. Gillespie and other thick libertarians are danger to libertarianism. Block is a scholar. Gillespie is an intellectual swamp.
Block refused to shake Gillespie's hand at the start and called him a 'nasty man' during the debate. He's really got no grounds for complaining that Gillespie broke the rules.
Richard Hunter did you hear how Doctor Gillespie treated Block in his article? And as far as Ino. Nobody from the Trump debate he moderatored didn't want to shake his hand and he was just as interruptive there
I lost some respect for Gillespie after this debate. I generally tend to like his attitude when he's on shows like Bill Maher's, and he's against 3-4 liberals, but here he's speaking to one of the greatest libertarian minds of all time and is being flippant and rude. He had no arguments besides emotional ones. Walter Block can get whiney about the interruptions in all the debates he's in, but he's kind of right about it, because that just turns the debate into a shouting match.
To people reading this comment, don't do this: 01:30:20. This was extremely rude and left Block unable to answer either question. A selfish decision. She should have just walked up and asked the question later. A disappointing finish to the Q and A. If I had been the guy right before her, who asked the real last question, I would have been so mad.
This didn't age well for either haha. Trump advanced the wars and ramped up drone strikes over 400%, was terrible on the economy by ending his presidency in a recession with the largest trade deficit ever, cost the economy over a quarter million jobs with tariffs that 94% were paid for by Americans, wrote gun control into law and stated that he would "take the guns first and due process second" and ran the debt up 8 trillion in 4 years. He made Obama look like a peaceful financial conservative. And we can't forget Civil asset forfeiture. This isn't defending Biden or Hillary but holy shit, Trump turned out to be hot dog shit.
I don't like Gillespie. I can't stand his snotty attitude. Listen to him talk about how we here in the US are above manufacturing jobs and how he wouldn't let his children do such work. I sell real estate and I often miss when I used to be a carpenter. What's wrong with people wanting to work in a factory if they so choose?
I'm very excited about the Soho forum. I'll be donating soon. Keep up the great work. Shame two of my favorite libertarians couldn't get along. You need a strong moderator. John Donvan is great at it. He's tough alright!
Would you say that they were both less than civil in their behavior? No external influence can impose civility if the participants aren't inclined to be civil.
Thanks, David! Really glad you're enjoying the series! Please subscribe to the channel, and you can also subscribe to our podcast of the series on iTunes itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-soho-forum/id1170945160?mt=2
Moderator was nonexistent, very pathetic. Gilespie isn't worth bothering to spell check his name. He was rude and talked policy by people at the local level but didn't that didn't support his view for Johnson. Walter was a boss and made his argument much better. Glad he went thug life on Nick at the end and called him out. The whole Reason publication is in dire need of that calling out for their shying from NAP for PC purposes.
Gillespie enjoys the fragrance of his own farts more than I can withstand under normal conditions. Walter Block is enough to keep me listening though, love his style.
Nick had much more nuanced argument, which he unfortunately failed to articulate well. Being impatient and interrupting your debate opponent (which Nick often does in his interviews too) didn't help either.
I am an Australian libertarian, and I heard about you through Dave Smith's Part of the Problem podcast. I am so glad I did, this is an amazing project!
Just days after this debates by Gillespie where he states the importance of voting for the LP, half of his own LP ticket runs out and endorses Hillary. This had to be the lowest state of the LP, nominating a neocon as VP and then having them end up endorsing another party. Just embarrassing
Yes trump is a thin skinned whiner, but is a straw man that nick built and calling him equally capable as Hillary of starting WW3 is a false equivalence. Hillary as actually supported many wars as senator and SOS. Trump hasn't and replying nastily to tweets is in no way the same thing as launching a nuke. Just because someone has a short fuse and is petty doesn't mean they would go from lawsuits and insults to war.
I think I would have been more inclined to support the proposition in the beginning but by the end Gillespie convinced me that it just doesn't make sense. Block's arguments really do ignore some serious issues with Trump's stances while giving too much benefit of the doubt to Trump's more Libertarian friendly statements
Whys is it giving benefit of the doubt to Trump as if we should be more skeptical of his stances than any other candidate? Why for example should we doubt his stances more so than Gary Johnson?
EmmanuelGoldstein74 we shouldn't but the question isn't whether I should vote for GJ over Trump. The question is should I vote for trump and I think Gillespie makes the case Trump is bad for liberty. I think he effectively argues that Trump isn't any less evil than Clinton which is Block's main argument. They are both differently but equally horrid for the cause of liberty.
This is my second one of these, and I think it says a lot about who they have debating, because I ultimately thought both participants were right in their arguments. Trump and Clinton were both terrible, Trump was less of an immediate threat on individual liberty, and we absolutely needed to vote for someone else other than those two. With that said, it's hard to vote for someone else knowing that 99% of the population doesn't even know there are other candidates, let alone understand there positions of government and their roles and responsibilities. I voted my conscious, which was not for any of the three candidates referenced, but I knew that doing so had absolutely no affect on anything. I can't blame for someone who votes for one because they are less bad than the other, but as a society we ALL need to reject the idea that we have to vote for an R or a D so that votes like mine actually can have an affect on the outcome.
I am not voting for either major party and I wanted to vote for the Libertarian party and would have with Peterson or maybe even McAfee but freaking Gary Johnson and Bill weld have tried to be half Republican half Democrat and only criticize trump while sucking up to the Clinton machine. They are Reason libertarians, they are all about nonaggression unless it comes to enforcing social justice causes. And well in theory allowing completely open immigration would be totally fine, allowing people to come from the Middle East who have no respect for Western tradition or rule of law and who are totally fine with subjugating women and any person it was not a Muslim Will undermine all of the good parts of our society and further contribute to the bad parts. The fact they cannot see this is blinding and sad
Lots of straw men by Nick especially on immigration. Walter concedes almost all the points he made except the racism part, no mention of the fact that presidents if unpopular can and will be stopped by gridlock in all domestic areas except a few executive actions but in foreign policy they have a much freer hand to do what the want
Walter Block is obviously very intelligent, and probably more intelligent than Nick Gillespie, but this was _not_ the right platform for him. His arguments didn't come together very well. He'd jump from tangent to tangent, so at times he seemed scattered. Some of his points just didn't land. For example, he was incredulous that Gillespie was being obtuse about Gary Johnson's position on free association, but 1) failed to recognize that immigration is likewise a free association issue that's more personally and economically ruinous than cake baking and 2) that Donald Trump almost certainly won't change federal or state policy on non-discrimination in public accommodation. The only nod Block really made to #2 is "we need to hold libertarians to higher standards," but he didn't adequately explain _why_ we should vote for a demonstrably worse candidate even on Block's three main issues just because Trump doesn't have an L next to his name. I understand choosing more libertarian candidates for the LP - that makes perfect sense - but the argument that we can tolerate more garbage from candidates that aren't libertarians would cede the ground to Gillespie - that Trump isn't good enough and is even worse in many ways than Johnson. Gillespie is funny, but he probably made one-too-many snarky jokes. Block lost his cool very quickly. I don't think Gillespie always rubs people the right way. Gillespie's arguments outpaced Block's for the most part, but he didn't hit hard enough on defense and war, and that was especially necessary because it's most central to Block's thesis. Trying to be objective as I can, I'd say Gillespie edged out Block.
Block lost his cool? Youre kidding right? Gillespie acted like a very juvenile child from the beginning. A disrespectful grad A A hole( "Call me Dr.!"). His continual interruption. I'd say Dr. Block kept his cool very solidly giving that he was up against a juvenile. Let me ask you if a group of libertarians came together in free association and decided to exclude others based on lets say religion, race, gender, etc would they have the right to? Free association includes the right to exclude and discriminate. I think Block was on point and made his arguments cogently whereas Gillespie was bringing up all sorts of irrelevant stuff. Gillespie was not funny unless being a jerk is funny.
EmmanuelGoldstein74 Yes, Block lost his cool. Nick was just being his usual snarky, sarcastic self. That's just his style and it wasn't directed at Block in particular. He interrupted a few times, sure, but usually stopped talking after one word when he realized his error. As we learned from the last 5 minutes of the debate, Block was holding a grudge about something else. That's why he was angry. He used the debate platform to call his opponent vile _for something not even related to the debate_. So yeah, he lost his cool. I think when you choose a debate about a narrow issue as a way of venting all your anger at someone, you've probably gone too far. Why is this so objectionable to you? _Let me ask you if a group of libertarians came together in free association and decided to exclude others based on lets say religion, race, gender, etc would they have the right to? Free association includes the right to exclude and discriminate._ No one is disputing that, including Nick Gillespie. This doesn't address my point, though. Gary Johnson is wrong on cake-baking from a libertarian perspective, undoubtedly. But to be so offended at Gary Johnson's position when Trump isn't challenging these laws either is curious. And if free association is the cornerstone of libertarianism, which I think it is, then Trump's positions on immigration and trade are far worse in terms of liberty and economics. Block punted on that issue, saying that libertarians need to be better (??) and that "well, it's complicated," but he doesn't think it's complicated in terms of cake baking. "Complicated" just means "I don't want to talk about why I am not pro-free association on this issue, but I am pro-free association on another issue." It's important here to remember that a group of libertarians voluntarily agreeing to exclude and include on their private property is not the same as the state forcing these choices on us. I'm not sure if you were trying to compare the US government to some anarcho-capitalist voluntaryist society, but it's not, just for the record.
EmmanuelGoldstein74 P.S. I acknowledge humor is subjective, but he was making jokes throughout that weren't in any way indicative of his being a jerk. It's okay if you don't think they're funny, of course, but it'd be dishonest for you to claim that all his jokes were mean spirited or aimed at insulting people. They weren't.
+abcw Block kept his composure very well giving that he as going up against an extremely obnoxious person. Calling it snarky is putting it mildly. Gillespie's equally obnoxious interruptions were stopped only because Block and Epstein told him to stop. Gillespie gets no credit for that. Gillespie's "usual snarky self" is no less obnoxious just because he does it frequently. Have you seen him on Real Time w/ Bill Maher and how Rachel Maddow was also rightly peeved? And yes Block was absolutely right to hold a grudge against Gillespie for that despicable slimy slander piece where instead of doing the right thing and ask Block what he told the NYTs about slavery he just went with it. Block was perfectly justified in calling him out on it. Block brought this up only in the last 5 minutes of the debate. From start to finish he was debating the topic so I really dont know what your point here is. What is it? Block is not the one who was doing the interrupting or making snide remarks like "Call me Dr.". In all that you mean to say that was just good old St. Nick just being a kidder? I dont think so. As for the "cake" issue I'll address this by saying that just as Block mentioned, Johnson is carrying the libertarian mantle so the he has the higher position to represent as you admit Block rightly argued. Trump has never represented himself as such. Therefore Im flabbergasted you could say as Gillespie said "How can you be so upset?" We are so upset because he is claiming to be a libertarian thats why? He should know better. I would argue that Johnson/Weld as Block rightly said are no libertarians. Block case(and mine) was/is not that Trump is a pristine example of libertarianism but the reality is that as Block mentioned in the beginning "compared to what"? Johnson is not going to be president. Either Trump of HRC will. Therefore it is a very legit decision making process to ask who is less harmful not who is great. Both are bad but on net who is less? To say "Well Trump said this and that and did this and that" is not a rigorous argument. The question is whose proposed ideas will be better than the other's. Trump is horrible on trade no doubt but compared to who? We have HRC's record on foreign policy. We have seen her handy work on Libya and what she wants in Syria. Is Trump a peace nik? No but way better than her. I would have answered the question about who is McGovern or Nixon by saying w/o a doubt HRC is McGovern. With Trump who knows? With HRC there is no doubt she will take us on a collision course. As for immigration not all libertarians believe in open borders under our current political system. Hans Herman Hoppe has written a strong case against it and Rothbard also ended up against it. So Block is correct that it is "complicated" because libertarian theory has to take into consideration the complexities of the real world. Hoppe makes the case that free immigration currently is a form of forced association. Not so with a business owner who has the absolute natural right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. As for saying it would be dishonest of me to think that Gillespie's jokes werent meant to be mean spirited is itself disingenuous. Of course they were. And if humor is as subjective as you say why even criticize me at all? Maybe Im right after all? Right?
EmmanuelGoldstein74 _Block brought this up only in the last 5 minutes of teh debate. From start to finish he was debating the topic so I really dont know what your point here is. What is it? Block is not the one who was doing the interrupting or making snide remarks like "Call me Dr.". In all that you mean to say that was just good old St. Nick being just a kidder? I dont think so._ My point was that it was wholly inappropriate to bring it up at all. It has no place in the debate. I think when you're seething with palpable rage the entire debate and then you explode in the last 5 minutes on a preexisting grudge, then you've "lost your cool." For what it's worth. I'm not really defending Nick. I think he wasn't acting as respectfully and professionally as he should've been, but Block looked like he was about to explode the entire debate, and how he closed the debate was deeply, deeply inappropriate. I think your bias might be blinding you how to awful it was. _As for the "cake" issue Ill address this by saying that as Block mentioned Johnson is carrying teh libertarian mantle so the he has the higher position to represent as you admit Block rightly argued. Trump has never represented himself as such. Therefore Im flabbergasted you could just as Gillespie say "How can you be so upset?" We are so upset because he is claiming to be a libertarian thats why?_ Hmm, no. You're committing a bit of a strawman here. My argument isn't that it's an acceptable position to have. My argument is _it's a position Trump isn't challenging and won't likely challenge and it's not nearly as bad in terms of the effects as Trump's immigration and trade positions (should they be enacted)_. I'm all for holding libertarians to higher standards, but this wasn't a debate about who the LP should nominate next time. This is a debate about whether to affirmatively vote for Trump. And it's not a convincing argument to say that we can look away when Trump is being unlibertarian because he's an R, but that we can't vote for Gary Johnson as an L because he's not libertarian _enough_. If you're trying to convince me to vote for someone, and your argument is "he's less libertarian than Johnson, but it's okay because he doesn't call himself a libertarian," then your argument has already failed. _Block case(and mine) was/is not that Trump is a pristine example of libertarianism but the reality is that as Block mentioned in the beginning "compared to what"? Johnson is not going to be president. Either Trump of HRC will. Therefore it is a very legit decision making process to ask who is less harmful not who is great. Both are bad but on net who is less? To say "Well Trump said this and that and did this and that" is not a rigorous argument. The question is whose proposed ideas will be better than the other's. Trump is horrible on trade no doubt but compared to who?_ That's fine, but that's not the point I was raising. If Gillespie is a flippant jerk for not caring *enough* about cake-baking free association, then what should I think of Block who was flippant about Trump's anti-free association positions on trade and immigration? You see that this is a really clear example of cherrypicking, right? I know the polls are tight right now, but in all honesty, HRC is going to win. The odds are in her favor. I'm not sure Trump IS better than her, just better in different ways, but even if I thought she were much worse, she's going to win. Now please explain to me why it's a good "strategy" to vote for the 2nd place loser rather than the 3rd or 4th place loser. Because that's essentially the argument. We look at elections as binary even when they're unary, meaning it's clear from the outset who's going to win. So we act like there's strategy to be had for voting for 1 or 2 even if 2 is 50 points behind 1. If the point is to vote for a plausible winner, then I probably wouldn't vote for Trump. I'd just vote for HRC because she's going to win. If the point is to vote for the least bad person running even if he's almost certainly going to lose, then that's Johnson. _With Trump who knows?_ We kind of know. He thinks wars would be good if he were running them and that other people's wars are bad. Cue bombing the shit out of everyone. _As for immigration not all libertarians belive in open borders under our current political system. Hans Herman Hoppe has written a string case against it and Rothbard also ended up against it. So Block is correct that it is "complicated" because libertarian theory has to take into consideration the complexities of the real world. Hope makes the case that free immigration currently is a form of forced association._ Immigration is no more forced association than citizenship is. Citizenship enrolls us all, puts us all together, forces us to pay for each other. So, are free markets unacceptable forced association because of citizenship? I'm not sure why it's morally preferable to force segregation than force association, as both violate free association. But you're making my point for me. You think free association should be curbed when "complexities of the real world" come into play. So does Gary Johnson on cake-baking. He thinks that the market will fail here ("complexities of real world") and that the state should intervene anyway to bring about the outcome he likes. This is no different than your position or Hoppe's or Block's, and it's the objection I have. If freedom of association has to wait until certain conditions of yours are met, then it'll probably always be waiting, so we'll never have it. And it begs the question of why you and Block support it in other situations when it'd be quite costly to taxpayers. Why isn't the "real world" getting in the way? "Complexity" is just a dodge here on Block's part, and yours. It's a way of justifying violating free association when you don't like the consequences and supporting it when you value the freedom more than you fear the outcome. Regardless, it's anti-free association, and it's hypocritical. _Not so with a business owner who has the absolute natural right to refuse service to anyone for any reason._ And individuals have the absolute right to freely contract with an American, which immigration laws deny them the right to do. _As for saying it would be dishonest of me to think that Gillespie's jokes werent meant to be mean spirited is itself disingenuous. Of course they were. And if humor is as subjective as you say why even criticize me at all? Maybe Im right after all? Right?_ Actually, if you reread what I wrote, I said not all his jokes. You said he's only funny if you think being a jerk is funny, implying that his jokes were exclusively mean. That's not true. He made some mean spirited ones (not directed at Block, some at Block) and lots that weren't really mean at all.
My views in libertarianism align much more with Block then Ghoullespie, but in this particular case I'd vote "idealistic"(LP) and not "pragmatic"(Republican). That said I don't vote in the US. That said, I'm pretty disappointed with Gary Johnson in the cake case. If someone said, that a libertarian was in favor of forcing people to bake cakes against their will (even if it's for some sort of "social justice"), my response would be, well he's not actually a libertarian then. Voluntary association is such a core value to libertarianism. Doesn't Johnson see that he's entering in a sort of contradiction? - "I'm all for liberty, but just for this specific matter dear to my heart, I'm gonna trample other people's liberties" (ultimately by force). Libertarianism looked so attractive to me as a philosophy but just how consistent their thought process is, and by how much other "parties/philosophies" seem hypocrites in comparison. There are not arbitrary rules that are "exceptions".
He would want a public apology as in he writes the issue he did with that article he wrote thereby also have an editor note on the original article about it. Like there would be an editor note for any other mistake written in an original article.
I love Nick but this was terrible. He put no thought until this. He basically repeated every fake trope without doing any research. Basically repeating buzzfeed
I have watched this a couple times now. I always am surprised by how defensive Walter Block is about Nick Gillespie interrupting. Am I understanding the closing statements correctly, that Gillespie wrote an article imputing Walter's character? If so, Block's "overreactions" to interruptions makes more sense in retrospect. I liked Nick when I first saw him defend legalizing drugs in an Intelligence Squared Debate, but on most issues he is in favor of a lot more government than I am. His minarchist framework often includes a social safety net, which I do not favor. I don't want to lock people up for drugs, but don't want the government to subsidize it either. I think it is sometimes obvious which Major Political camp libertarians wandered off from. Pro-Drug Legalization and Pro-Choice are typically from the Left. Pro-Life and Anti-Welfare State are typically from the Right. Nick seems to be a disenchanted former Democrat. Anarchist libertarians are a breed all their own tho; it's difficult to read their origins.
I agree with Nick that the supreme court is not important. Since the court packing threat the constitution is not binding, the USA Government runs on a combination of tradition and democracy.
@@MRCKify Illegal immigration is a serious problem and it came to a head which is inconsistent with Nick's 'we need more illegals, not fewer' assertion. The 'stupid' wall is being built and is not a dream, as Nick asserts. Did you even listen to Nick at the given time stamp? It's not subtle how offbase he has been shown to be in his left libertarian virtue signaling pomposity.
Really wish Block would stop with the Dr. Gillespie nonsense, the debate is not about Nicks views its about the question at hand. On the other hand it could have simply been a tactic to annoy Nick which then would cause Nick to interrupt more (which he should have done less of). Overall the debate was entertaining and I think Trump is a vile toad who I will not be voting for.
Im a principled libertarian and Im voting for Trump. Only those who think they are libertarians but are more leftists more then they are libertarians will not vote for Trump.
Mastikator No he's not. he threatens to sue newspapers for reporting what he believes are false stories. Disagree with that all you want but to say he wants to outlaw speech is ridiculous. No one is claiming he's a libertarian. If you listened to this debate the argument is compared to who. Compared to HRC he's better on a whole host of issues not that he's a libertarian. I dont consider Johnson/Weld libertarian either.
EmmanuelGoldstein74 You can already sue newspapers for libel if you can prove within a reasonable doubt that they lied with malicious intent. Donald Trump himself said that he wants to "open up libel laws" beyond that so you can sue a newspaper for writing anything negative about you. He basically wants to make it illegal to criticize him, only dictators and despots go that far.
I was with Nick at the time, still am, but I hope Trump keeps up the Afghan troop decrease right to 0. I'm sure he can spin something about "I couldn't fix the mess Barack Obama and George Bush stuck us in."
Just for those who are just coming to this video the actual debate starts around 21 minutes. The first 21 minutes is a waste of time.
Block wins hands down.
Gillespie was very juvenile in his arguments. What was with that whole "Call me Dr. dammit" a hole statement? Gillespie failed to grasp the nature of Block's view.
Block was absolutely right to bring up the whole thick/thin libertarianism. Gillespie and other thick libertarians are danger to libertarianism.
Block is a scholar. Gillespie is an intellectual swamp.
haha, Walter Block gets mad sometimes. I love him though.
What did you think of his uncivil behavior and language?
that was Nick
he gets so red lol. he's the best
Damn Walter called Russia 6 years ago without Trump.
Terrible moderator. Should have had authority and have made Nick obey the rules. Walter won the debate.
You're delusional if you think that.
I would say Doctor Gillespie was a worse moderator but he should have said something about his behavior.
Block refused to shake Gillespie's hand at the start and called him a 'nasty man' during the debate. He's really got no grounds for complaining that Gillespie broke the rules.
Richard Hunter did you hear how Doctor Gillespie treated Block in his article?
And as far as Ino. Nobody from the Trump debate he moderatored didn't want to shake his hand and he was just as interruptive there
Richard Hunter that's because Nick smeared him in an article
I'm only 35 minutes in but I'm very annoyed by Nick who looks bored and smug while Walter is talking.
I agree.
I was more annoyed at the "Dr. Ghoullespie" bullshit from Block.
Nick Gillespie would look bored at a Ron Paul inauguration
That's his natural state of being.
Don't think anything of it. He looks bored and smug all the time; it's just his style.
I lost some respect for Gillespie after this debate. I generally tend to like his attitude when he's on shows like Bill Maher's, and he's against 3-4 liberals, but here he's speaking to one of the greatest libertarian minds of all time and is being flippant and rude. He had no arguments besides emotional ones.
Walter Block can get whiney about the interruptions in all the debates he's in, but he's kind of right about it, because that just turns the debate into a shouting match.
He's not getting "whiney" he simply wants his opposition to obey the rules that they've agreed to.
Walter Block rocks in this. Nick Gillespie is just a whiny left-winger brat.
41:00 "They're not sending their best" is not the same as "they're not the best people".
To people reading this comment, don't do this: 01:30:20. This was extremely rude and left Block unable to answer either question. A selfish decision. She should have just walked up and asked the question later. A disappointing finish to the Q and A. If I had been the guy right before her, who asked the real last question, I would have been so mad.
This did not age well for Nick. Wow.
This didn't age well for either haha. Trump advanced the wars and ramped up drone strikes over 400%, was terrible on the economy by ending his presidency in a recession with the largest trade deficit ever, cost the economy over a quarter million jobs with tariffs that 94% were paid for by Americans, wrote gun control into law and stated that he would "take the guns first and due process second" and ran the debt up 8 trillion in 4 years. He made Obama look like a peaceful financial conservative. And we can't forget Civil asset forfeiture.
This isn't defending Biden or Hillary but holy shit, Trump turned out to be hot dog shit.
@@KyleMatovcik Still better than nuclear annihilation which was Walter Blocks argument if you weren't listening or didn't even watch the video
I don't like Gillespie. I can't stand his snotty attitude. Listen to him talk about how we here in the US are above manufacturing jobs and how he wouldn't let his children do such work. I sell real estate and I often miss when I used to be a carpenter. What's wrong with people wanting to work in a factory if they so choose?
That took an unexpected turn
weird having comedy before a debate..
Starts at 21:26
I'm very excited about the Soho forum. I'll be donating soon. Keep up the great work. Shame two of my favorite libertarians couldn't get along. You need a strong moderator. John Donvan is great at it. He's tough alright!
Would you say that they were both less than civil in their behavior? No external influence can impose civility if the participants aren't inclined to be civil.
Thanks, David! Really glad you're enjoying the series! Please subscribe to the channel, and you can also subscribe to our podcast of the series on iTunes itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-soho-forum/id1170945160?mt=2
1:37:49 - Why you ought to call him Doctor Gillespie
Moderator was nonexistent, very pathetic. Gilespie isn't worth bothering to spell check his name. He was rude and talked policy by people at the local level but didn't that didn't support his view for Johnson. Walter was a boss and made his argument much better. Glad he went thug life on Nick at the end and called him out. The whole Reason publication is in dire need of that calling out for their shying from NAP for PC purposes.
Honestly, i always liked Block more than Gillespie.
Gillespie enjoys the fragrance of his own farts more than I can withstand under normal conditions. Walter Block is enough to keep me listening though, love his style.
horay for Walter
Even if Block won the vote at the location, I imagine he won more hearts and minds in the end.
Lol @ being the child of a divorce parent... I'd choose to live with Block.
damn straight
Nick had much more nuanced argument, which he unfortunately failed to articulate well. Being impatient and interrupting your debate opponent (which Nick often does in his interviews too) didn't help either.
I am an Australian libertarian, and I heard about you through Dave Smith's Part of the Problem podcast. I am so glad I did, this is an amazing project!
Bring Block back to debate Israel/Palestine
50:57. He killed it. I laughed a lot.
Just days after this debates by Gillespie where he states the importance of voting for the LP, half of his own LP ticket runs out and endorses Hillary. This had to be the lowest state of the LP, nominating a neocon as VP and then having them end up endorsing another party. Just embarrassing
Yes trump is a thin skinned whiner, but is a straw man that nick built and calling him equally capable as Hillary of starting WW3 is a false equivalence. Hillary as actually supported many wars as senator and SOS. Trump hasn't and replying nastily to tweets is in no way the same thing as launching a nuke. Just because someone has a short fuse and is petty doesn't mean they would go from lawsuits and insults to war.
Ha I dislike Nick more now. Dr. Block 👍
that last questioner completely cut in line!!!!!!
And they didn't answer that other guys questions at all 😡 wtf
I think I would have been more inclined to support the proposition in the beginning but by the end Gillespie convinced me that it just doesn't make sense. Block's arguments really do ignore some serious issues with Trump's stances while giving too much benefit of the doubt to Trump's more Libertarian friendly statements
Whys is it giving benefit of the doubt to Trump as if we should be more skeptical of his stances than any other candidate? Why for example should we doubt his stances more so than Gary Johnson?
EmmanuelGoldstein74 we shouldn't but the question isn't whether I should vote for GJ over Trump. The question is should I vote for trump and I think Gillespie makes the case Trump is bad for liberty. I think he effectively argues that Trump isn't any less evil than Clinton which is Block's main argument. They are both differently but equally horrid for the cause of liberty.
This is my second one of these, and I think it says a lot about who they have debating, because I ultimately thought both participants were right in their arguments.
Trump and Clinton were both terrible, Trump was less of an immediate threat on individual liberty, and we absolutely needed to vote for someone else other than those two. With that said, it's hard to vote for someone else knowing that 99% of the population doesn't even know there are other candidates, let alone understand there positions of government and their roles and responsibilities. I voted my conscious, which was not for any of the three candidates referenced, but I knew that doing so had absolutely no affect on anything. I can't blame for someone who votes for one because they are less bad than the other, but as a society we ALL need to reject the idea that we have to vote for an R or a D so that votes like mine actually can have an affect on the outcome.
Society should reject voting outright.
statism is violence
I am not voting for either major party and I wanted to vote for the Libertarian party and would have with Peterson or maybe even McAfee but freaking Gary Johnson and Bill weld have tried to be half Republican half Democrat and only criticize trump while sucking up to the Clinton machine. They are Reason libertarians, they are all about nonaggression unless it comes to enforcing social justice causes.
And well in theory allowing completely open immigration would be totally fine, allowing people to come from the Middle East who have no respect for Western tradition or rule of law and who are totally fine with subjugating women and any person it was not a Muslim Will undermine all of the good parts of our society and further contribute to the bad parts. The fact they cannot see this is blinding and sad
Lots of straw men by Nick especially on immigration. Walter concedes almost all the points he made except the racism part, no mention of the fact that presidents if unpopular can and will be stopped by gridlock in all domestic areas except a few executive actions but in foreign policy they have a much freer hand to do what the want
Walter Block is obviously very intelligent, and probably more intelligent than Nick Gillespie, but this was _not_ the right platform for him. His arguments didn't come together very well. He'd jump from tangent to tangent, so at times he seemed scattered. Some of his points just didn't land. For example, he was incredulous that Gillespie was being obtuse about Gary Johnson's position on free association, but 1) failed to recognize that immigration is likewise a free association issue that's more personally and economically ruinous than cake baking and 2) that Donald Trump almost certainly won't change federal or state policy on non-discrimination in public accommodation. The only nod Block really made to #2 is "we need to hold libertarians to higher standards," but he didn't adequately explain _why_ we should vote for a demonstrably worse candidate even on Block's three main issues just because Trump doesn't have an L next to his name. I understand choosing more libertarian candidates for the LP - that makes perfect sense - but the argument that we can tolerate more garbage from candidates that aren't libertarians would cede the ground to Gillespie - that Trump isn't good enough and is even worse in many ways than Johnson.
Gillespie is funny, but he probably made one-too-many snarky jokes. Block lost his cool very quickly. I don't think Gillespie always rubs people the right way.
Gillespie's arguments outpaced Block's for the most part, but he didn't hit hard enough on defense and war, and that was especially necessary because it's most central to Block's thesis.
Trying to be objective as I can, I'd say Gillespie edged out Block.
Block lost his cool? Youre kidding right? Gillespie acted like a very juvenile child from the beginning. A disrespectful grad A A hole( "Call me Dr.!"). His continual interruption. I'd say Dr. Block kept his cool very solidly giving that he was up against a juvenile.
Let me ask you if a group of libertarians came together in free association and decided to exclude others based on lets say religion, race, gender, etc would they have the right to? Free association includes the right to exclude and discriminate.
I think Block was on point and made his arguments cogently whereas Gillespie was bringing up all sorts of irrelevant stuff. Gillespie was not funny unless being a jerk is funny.
EmmanuelGoldstein74
Yes, Block lost his cool. Nick was just being his usual snarky, sarcastic self. That's just his style and it wasn't directed at Block in particular. He interrupted a few times, sure, but usually stopped talking after one word when he realized his error.
As we learned from the last 5 minutes of the debate, Block was holding a grudge about something else. That's why he was angry. He used the debate platform to call his opponent vile _for something not even related to the debate_. So yeah, he lost his cool. I think when you choose a debate about a narrow issue as a way of venting all your anger at someone, you've probably gone too far. Why is this so objectionable to you?
_Let me ask you if a group of libertarians came together in free association and decided to exclude others based on lets say religion, race, gender, etc would they have the right to? Free association includes the right to exclude and discriminate._
No one is disputing that, including Nick Gillespie. This doesn't address my point, though. Gary Johnson is wrong on cake-baking from a libertarian perspective, undoubtedly. But to be so offended at Gary Johnson's position when Trump isn't challenging these laws either is curious. And if free association is the cornerstone of libertarianism, which I think it is, then Trump's positions on immigration and trade are far worse in terms of liberty and economics. Block punted on that issue, saying that libertarians need to be better (??) and that "well, it's complicated," but he doesn't think it's complicated in terms of cake baking. "Complicated" just means "I don't want to talk about why I am not pro-free association on this issue, but I am pro-free association on another issue."
It's important here to remember that a group of libertarians voluntarily agreeing to exclude and include on their private property is not the same as the state forcing these choices on us. I'm not sure if you were trying to compare the US government to some anarcho-capitalist voluntaryist society, but it's not, just for the record.
EmmanuelGoldstein74
P.S. I acknowledge humor is subjective, but he was making jokes throughout that weren't in any way indicative of his being a jerk. It's okay if you don't think they're funny, of course, but it'd be dishonest for you to claim that all his jokes were mean spirited or aimed at insulting people. They weren't.
+abcw
Block kept his composure very well giving that he as going up against an extremely obnoxious person. Calling it snarky is putting it mildly. Gillespie's equally obnoxious interruptions were stopped only because Block and Epstein told him to stop. Gillespie gets no credit for that. Gillespie's "usual snarky self" is no less obnoxious just because he does it frequently. Have you seen him on Real Time w/ Bill Maher and how Rachel Maddow was also rightly peeved?
And yes Block was absolutely right to hold a grudge against Gillespie for that despicable slimy slander piece where instead of doing the right thing and ask Block what he told the NYTs about slavery he just went with it. Block was perfectly justified in calling him out on it.
Block brought this up only in the last 5 minutes of the debate. From start to finish he was debating the topic so I really dont know what your point here is. What is it? Block is not the one who was doing the interrupting or making snide remarks like "Call me Dr.". In all that you mean to say that was just good old St. Nick just being a kidder? I dont think so.
As for the "cake" issue I'll address this by saying that just as Block mentioned, Johnson is carrying the libertarian mantle so the he has the higher position to represent as you admit Block rightly argued. Trump has never represented himself as such. Therefore Im flabbergasted you could say as Gillespie said "How can you be so upset?" We are so upset because he is claiming to be a libertarian thats why? He should know better. I would argue that Johnson/Weld as Block rightly said are no libertarians.
Block case(and mine) was/is not that Trump is a pristine example of libertarianism but the reality is that as Block mentioned in the beginning "compared to what"? Johnson is not going to be president. Either Trump of HRC will. Therefore it is a very legit decision making process to ask who is less harmful not who is great. Both are bad but on net who is less? To say "Well Trump said this and that and did this and that" is not a rigorous argument. The question is whose proposed ideas will be better than the other's. Trump is horrible on trade no doubt but compared to who?
We have HRC's record on foreign policy. We have seen her handy work on Libya and what she wants in Syria. Is Trump a peace nik? No but way better than her. I would have answered the question about who is McGovern or Nixon by saying w/o a doubt HRC is McGovern. With Trump who knows? With HRC there is no doubt she will take us on a collision course.
As for immigration not all libertarians believe in open borders under our current political system. Hans Herman Hoppe has written a strong case against it and Rothbard also ended up against it. So Block is correct that it is "complicated" because libertarian theory has to take into consideration the complexities of the real world. Hoppe makes the case that free immigration currently is a form of forced association.
Not so with a business owner who has the absolute natural right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
As for saying it would be dishonest of me to think that Gillespie's jokes werent meant to be mean spirited is itself disingenuous. Of course they were. And if humor is as subjective as you say why even criticize me at all? Maybe Im right after all? Right?
EmmanuelGoldstein74
_Block brought this up only in the last 5 minutes of teh debate. From start to finish he was debating the topic so I really dont know what your point here is. What is it? Block is not the one who was doing the interrupting or making snide remarks like "Call me Dr.". In all that you mean to say that was just good old St. Nick being just a kidder? I dont think so._
My point was that it was wholly inappropriate to bring it up at all. It has no place in the debate. I think when you're seething with palpable rage the entire debate and then you explode in the last 5 minutes on a preexisting grudge, then you've "lost your cool."
For what it's worth. I'm not really defending Nick. I think he wasn't acting as respectfully and professionally as he should've been, but Block looked like he was about to explode the entire debate, and how he closed the debate was deeply, deeply inappropriate. I think your bias might be blinding you how to awful it was.
_As for the "cake" issue Ill address this by saying that as Block mentioned Johnson is carrying teh libertarian mantle so the he has the higher position to represent as you admit Block rightly argued. Trump has never represented himself as such. Therefore Im flabbergasted you could just as Gillespie say "How can you be so upset?" We are so upset because he is claiming to be a libertarian thats why?_
Hmm, no. You're committing a bit of a strawman here. My argument isn't that it's an acceptable position to have. My argument is _it's a position Trump isn't challenging and won't likely challenge and it's not nearly as bad in terms of the effects as Trump's immigration and trade positions (should they be enacted)_.
I'm all for holding libertarians to higher standards, but this wasn't a debate about who the LP should nominate next time. This is a debate about whether to affirmatively vote for Trump. And it's not a convincing argument to say that we can look away when Trump is being unlibertarian because he's an R, but that we can't vote for Gary Johnson as an L because he's not libertarian _enough_. If you're trying to convince me to vote for someone, and your argument is "he's less libertarian than Johnson, but it's okay because he doesn't call himself a libertarian," then your argument has already failed.
_Block case(and mine) was/is not that Trump is a pristine example of libertarianism but the reality is that as Block mentioned in the beginning "compared to what"? Johnson is not going to be president. Either Trump of HRC will. Therefore it is a very legit decision making process to ask who is less harmful not who is great. Both are bad but on net who is less? To say "Well Trump said this and that and did this and that" is not a rigorous argument. The question is whose proposed ideas will be better than the other's. Trump is horrible on trade no doubt but compared to who?_
That's fine, but that's not the point I was raising. If Gillespie is a flippant jerk for not caring *enough* about cake-baking free association, then what should I think of Block who was flippant about Trump's anti-free association positions on trade and immigration? You see that this is a really clear example of cherrypicking, right?
I know the polls are tight right now, but in all honesty, HRC is going to win. The odds are in her favor. I'm not sure Trump IS better than her, just better in different ways, but even if I thought she were much worse, she's going to win.
Now please explain to me why it's a good "strategy" to vote for the 2nd place loser rather than the 3rd or 4th place loser. Because that's essentially the argument. We look at elections as binary even when they're unary, meaning it's clear from the outset who's going to win. So we act like there's strategy to be had for voting for 1 or 2 even if 2 is 50 points behind 1.
If the point is to vote for a plausible winner, then I probably wouldn't vote for Trump. I'd just vote for HRC because she's going to win. If the point is to vote for the least bad person running even if he's almost certainly going to lose, then that's Johnson.
_With Trump who knows?_
We kind of know. He thinks wars would be good if he were running them and that other people's wars are bad. Cue bombing the shit out of everyone.
_As for immigration not all libertarians belive in open borders under our current political system. Hans Herman Hoppe has written a string case against it and Rothbard also ended up against it. So Block is correct that it is "complicated" because libertarian theory has to take into consideration the complexities of the real world. Hope makes the case that free immigration currently is a form of forced association._
Immigration is no more forced association than citizenship is. Citizenship enrolls us all, puts us all together, forces us to pay for each other. So, are free markets unacceptable forced association because of citizenship?
I'm not sure why it's morally preferable to force segregation than force association, as both violate free association.
But you're making my point for me. You think free association should be curbed when "complexities of the real world" come into play. So does Gary Johnson on cake-baking. He thinks that the market will fail here ("complexities of real world") and that the state should intervene anyway to bring about the outcome he likes. This is no different than your position or Hoppe's or Block's, and it's the objection I have. If freedom of association has to wait until certain conditions of yours are met, then it'll probably always be waiting, so we'll never have it. And it begs the question of why you and Block support it in other situations when it'd be quite costly to taxpayers. Why isn't the "real world" getting in the way?
"Complexity" is just a dodge here on Block's part, and yours. It's a way of justifying violating free association when you don't like the consequences and supporting it when you value the freedom more than you fear the outcome.
Regardless, it's anti-free association, and it's hypocritical.
_Not so with a business owner who has the absolute natural right to refuse service to anyone for any reason._
And individuals have the absolute right to freely contract with an American, which immigration laws deny them the right to do.
_As for saying it would be dishonest of me to think that Gillespie's jokes werent meant to be mean spirited is itself disingenuous. Of course they were. And if humor is as subjective as you say why even criticize me at all? Maybe Im right after all? Right?_
Actually, if you reread what I wrote, I said not all his jokes. You said he's only funny if you think being a jerk is funny, implying that his jokes were exclusively mean. That's not true. He made some mean spirited ones (not directed at Block, some at Block) and lots that weren't really mean at all.
This would have gone a lot better if they had shared a joint before the debate.
My views in libertarianism align much more with Block then Ghoullespie, but in this particular case I'd vote "idealistic"(LP) and not "pragmatic"(Republican). That said I don't vote in the US.
That said, I'm pretty disappointed with Gary Johnson in the cake case. If someone said, that a libertarian was in favor of forcing people to bake cakes against their will (even if it's for some sort of "social justice"), my response would be, well he's not actually a libertarian then.
Voluntary association is such a core value to libertarianism. Doesn't Johnson see that he's entering in a sort of contradiction?
- "I'm all for liberty, but just for this specific matter dear to my heart, I'm gonna trample other people's liberties" (ultimately by force).
Libertarianism looked so attractive to me as a philosophy but just how consistent their thought process is, and by how much other "parties/philosophies" seem hypocrites in comparison. There are not arbitrary rules that are "exceptions".
That a car wreck. I couldn't turn it off.
+34:20 Block discounts Gary Johnson for considering Mitt Romney in his admin....
Wally got feisty at the end there!!!!
Here is one disappointed fan of Walter Block. Why not listen to the apology?
He would want a public apology as in he writes the issue he did with that article he wrote thereby also have an editor note on the original article about it.
Like there would be an editor note for any other mistake written in an original article.
I love Nick but this was terrible. He put no thought until this. He basically repeated every fake trope without doing any research. Basically repeating buzzfeed
Too much ad hom
This is actually a weak debate all around. Both speakers were remarkably unconvincing.
NOBODY For President 2016 and forever...
Let Freedom Reign
_Let empty pretentious words that do less than a fart Reign_
There, fixed.
What a nice dream
Which simpsons character does Nick Gillespie look like?
I have watched this a couple times now. I always am surprised by how defensive Walter Block is about Nick Gillespie interrupting. Am I understanding the closing statements correctly, that Gillespie wrote an article imputing Walter's character? If so, Block's "overreactions" to interruptions makes more sense in retrospect.
I liked Nick when I first saw him defend legalizing drugs in an Intelligence Squared Debate, but on most issues he is in favor of a lot more government than I am. His minarchist framework often includes a social safety net, which I do not favor. I don't want to lock people up for drugs, but don't want the government to subsidize it either. I think it is sometimes obvious which Major Political camp libertarians wandered off from. Pro-Drug Legalization and Pro-Choice are typically from the Left. Pro-Life and Anti-Welfare State are typically from the Right. Nick seems to be a disenchanted former Democrat. Anarchist libertarians are a breed all their own tho; it's difficult to read their origins.
Gillespie wants his kids and yours to have thoughtful and expressive jobs... wt!?! Hasn’t he ever heard of ‘Dirty Jobs’ and Mike Rowe!?!
I agree with Nick that the supreme court is not important. Since the court packing threat the constitution is not binding, the USA Government runs on a combination of tradition and democracy.
I think Trump is too moderate
40:46 This immigration rhetoric did not age well for Nick.
How so?
@@MRCKify Illegal immigration is a serious problem and it came to a head which is inconsistent with Nick's 'we need more illegals, not fewer' assertion. The 'stupid' wall is being built and is not a dream, as Nick asserts. Did you even listen to Nick at the given time stamp? It's not subtle how offbase he has been shown to be in his left libertarian virtue signaling pomposity.
Really wish Block would stop with the Dr. Gillespie nonsense, the debate is not about Nicks views its about the question at hand. On the other hand it could have simply been a tactic to annoy Nick which then would cause Nick to interrupt more (which he should have done less of). Overall the debate was entertaining and I think Trump is a vile toad who I will not be voting for.
No principled libertarians are supporting Trump.
Im a principled libertarian and Im voting for Trump. Only those who think they are libertarians but are more leftists more then they are libertarians will not vote for Trump.
Trump is anti free speech and anti free trade. He would have to work hard to be less libertarian.
Mastikator No he's not. he threatens to sue newspapers for reporting what he believes are false stories. Disagree with that all you want but to say he wants to outlaw speech is ridiculous. No one is claiming he's a libertarian. If you listened to this debate the argument is compared to who. Compared to HRC he's better on a whole host of issues not that he's a libertarian.
I dont consider Johnson/Weld libertarian either.
EmmanuelGoldstein74
You can already sue newspapers for libel if you can prove within a reasonable doubt that they lied with malicious intent.
Donald Trump himself said that he wants to "open up libel laws" beyond that so you can sue a newspaper for writing anything negative about you. He basically wants to make it illegal to criticize him, only dictators and despots go that far.
Think for yourself.
Wow, welcome to the Ad Hominem attack club, ladies & gents! Tonight, bile!
They both lost in my opinion
I think it's very apparent that (Dr) Nick Gillespie owned (Dr) Block in this debate.
Nick's version of an argument: Hillary and trump both bad, south park, etc. Case closed
Actually some intelligent discussions in the comments for once unlike some other channels I've been on... *cough* molyneaux *cough*
His channel has def gone downhill
5 months on, as the 'peace candidate' sends troops in Syria, we can see what a total fool Walter Block was here.
I was with Nick at the time, still am, but I hope Trump keeps up the Afghan troop decrease right to 0. I'm sure he can spin something about "I couldn't fix the mess Barack Obama and George Bush stuck us in."
Not really, Trump hasn't started any new wars, which by standards of past US presidents is half-decent. Sad but true.
NICK GILLESPIE WINS
Walter seems super petty :/