Podcast
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
Hosted by The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie · EN
Want to know what comes next in politics, culture, and libertarian ideas? Reason’s Nick Gillespie hosts relentlessly interesting interviews with the activists, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, newsmakers, and politicians who are defining the 21st century.
37episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
How Moral Panic Creates Black Markets
1w ago01:20:48Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin E. Roth, the author of Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work. He talks with Nick Gillespie about why some voluntary transactions provoke moral outrage even when no one is being directly harmed. Roth explains why black markets often emerge when governments try to ban activities with persistent demand, why both markets and prohibitions require social support to function, and how unintended consequences can make moralistic policies backfire. They discuss the war on drugs, prostitution, surrogacy, same-sex marriage, price gouging, and why Iran remains the only country in the world with a legal market for kidney donors. They also explore Roth's work designing kidney exchange networks and school choice systems, how digital technology and private transactions make certain bans harder to enforce, and why harm reduction may work better than prohibition in areas ranging from drug policy to sex work. 0:00—Repugnant transactions and organ sales 9:30—Blood plasma, coercion, and class bias 16:46—School choice reform 22:59—Same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception 29:59—The war on drugs and moral economics 38:55—Roth's theoretical origin story 43:45—Uber, AI, and technological efficiencies 51:26—Price gouging and consumer resentment 54:27—Pornography, prostitution, and privacy 1:05:21—Has America become more economically moral? 1:12:15—Biden's economic agenda and Trump's tariffs 1:17:04—Winning a Nobel Prize Producer: Paul Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser The post How Moral Panic Creates Black Markets appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Why Populism Leads to Decline
2w ago00:49:27Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Johan Norberg, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Peak Human: What We Can Learn From the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages. He talks with Nick Gillespie about the historical patterns behind flourishing civilizations, from the Roman Republic to modern America. Norberg argues that societies thrive when they remain open to trade, immigration, experimentation, and new ideas, but begin to decay when fear and nostalgia push them toward protectionism, centralization, and tribal politics. They also discuss the resurgence of populism in the United States and Europe, why tariffs and anti-globalization politics keep returning throughout history, and whether America is becoming more risk-averse and nativist. Norberg explains why he believes optimism and innovation can still win, explores the promise of artificial intelligence, and reflects on whether China is entering a new golden age or repeating the mistakes that led past civilizations into decline. 0:00—Why open societies thrive 3:07—The Roman Republic 10:05—America as a creedal nation 11:57—The rise of nativism 16:15—The dangers of nostalgia 20:31—What sparks renaissance? 26:40—Are older societies more risk averse? 28:33—Populism and Viktor Orbán's defeat 32:04—Left-wing populism 34:10—Javier Milei 35:42—Tariffs and free trade 40:28—Is China in a golden age? The post Why Populism Leads to Decline appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →The Global War on Free Speech
3w ago01:02:27Tap to summarizeJacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff are co-authors of The Future of Free Speech, a new book examining what they describe as a global "free speech recession." In this episode, Mchangama and Kosseff talk with Nick Gillespie about why democracies are increasingly embracing speech restrictions once associated with authoritarian regimes, how fears about misinformation and child safety are reshaping internet policy, and why both the political left and right have grown more skeptical of free expression. They discuss the rise of government pressure on social media companies, the future of anonymous speech and Section 230 protections, and why they believe counter-speech, transparency, and decentralized online platforms offer a better alternative to censorship. This interview was taped in front of a live audience at an event in New York City. 0:00—What is the free speech recession? 7:36—Speech after the collapse of communism 15:06—How important is technology for escaping censorship? 22:38—EU hate speech laws 27:55—Sullivan v. Times decision 30:19—Afroman's legal victory 34:53—Is there a crackdown on political speech in America? 39:22—Jawboning 42:44—Social media censorship 51:40—Solutions to reverse the free speech recession The post The Global War on Free Speech appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →John Fetterman: 'I'm a Very Pro-Capitalist Democrat'
3w ago00:48:32Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.), who just a decade ago looked like the future of Bernie Sanders–style populism, a tattooed Colossus clad in downscale hoodies and gym shorts who championed higher minimum wages, pot legalization, criminal justice reform, and more spending on social welfare programs. After 13 years as mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, one of the poorest towns in the state during his tenure, and a term as lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, he beat physician Mehmet Oz for an open Senate seat in 2022. But since coming to Washington, Fetterman has blazed a path in the Senate as unique and oversized as his frame, routinely criticizing members of his own party for "catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base" and accusing them of antisemitism and suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. He tells Nick Gillespie that the avowedly socialist politics of progressive Democrats like Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner (an actual "communist," declares Fetterman), Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are alienating men and moderates and spell long-term doom for his party and the country. Fetterman denounces both former President Joe Biden's failure to control the Southern border and President Donald Trump's antipathy toward legal immigration, says that entitlement reform is overdue and the national debt "is a ticking time bomb," and praises capitalism as the one system that has consistently improved living standards. He defends expansive military action against Iran and in defense of Ukraine, praises Israel for being the one functioning democracy in the Middle East, and calls for legalizing marijuana and psychedelics. 0:00—Are Democrats catering to the fringe? 4:32—Why did Fetterman support Sanders in 2016? 7:53—Immigration policy 16:15—Would Fetterman support a path to citizenship? 17:22—Drug legalization 20:12—Where has Trump failed? 21:57—Israel and Iran 26:04—Does Fetterman trust the Trump administration on Iran? 30:10—Democratic support for Israel 32:19—The limits of military intervention 38:36—The national debt 41:20—Entitlement reform 43:25—Braddock, Pennsylvania 45:50—Fetterman is a proud capitalist Producer: Paul Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser Transcript This is an AI-generated transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: All right. OK. This is The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. And my guest today is John Fetterman, the outspoken Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. Senator, good to talk with you. John Fetterman: Yeah, well, thank you for the invitation to have a conversation. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, I love to have conversations with people all across the whole thing. And so, yes, it's a real pleasure. OK. Well, we met 15 years ago on the set of Bill Maher's Real Time when you were merely the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Let me play a quick clip from that episode. Bill Maher Clip [00:00:48 - 00:01:03] Well, we continue to be style icons in our respective worlds. Beyond that, let's talk a little bit about what has changed in your politics. You recently wrote in The Washington Post that you're not going to be changing parties. People have said that, "Oh, you know, is he going to become a Republican or an independent?" But in the Washington Post piece, you did have critical words for your own party. You recently told Fox News, of all places, that the Democrats, "are an orgy of socialism." In your own piece, you wrote that, "the Democrats seem to be catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base." What's going on with the Democratic Party that's upsetting you so much? Well, let me just step back. I mean, I assume that you had the clip that, you know, all those years ago back on Real Time. Yeah. Yeah. I know that we had that, but I mean, is it fair to say that we reconnected online and then—like friends, and just, you know, it just moved on. So, I mean, most people weren't aware of that, the dust-up way back then. And ironically, just a couple of days ago, I was on the Real Time show. So a lot has changed since when you and I first encountered each other, and I was very eager, happy to have this conversation. So, you know, where we are right now, so if you could just, what's that question again? I really want to make sure. You've told Fox News recently that the Democrats "are in an orgy of socialism." You wrote in The Washington Post that your party is "catering to its fringe and agitated parts of its base." What, you know, can you explain that a little bit more, and what do you think is driving that? I mean, I think the extremism is driving it, without a doubt. I mean, look at the primaries all across in the Senate and in the House and look at the kinds of people that have already been elected. Like, for example, the mayor in Seattle, she's an absolute socialist, if not more. And now people, "Hey, I'm leaving," and she's like, "Bye." And just describe that kind of a thing. And then, of course, New York, that's its own situation too. And I thought DeSantis had a great line saying, you know, "Mamdani is my favorite real estate agent now." And it's driving people away. People can move and they can just vote, you know, with their feet. And that explains why Florida continues to flourish. But a lot of these states like New York and other blue states. We've read that $2 trillion have migrated out of these states too. So I don't think those are the kind of people that are the problem now. And if you make billionaires…you know, the Democratic Party is the problem, except they love the billionaires that fund those kinds of causes and those kind of organizations that are actually driving apart a lot of the protesting. And that's where that energy is as well. So look at some of the views now that people are espousing. So it's moving more and more in socialism and communism. I mean, in Maine, for example, Graham Platner, avowed communist. He described himself as a communist. Antifa, that's not a slur for me. That's not GOP kinds of hit. That's his own words, how he described that. Can I ask you, what about your own personal evolution then? Because in 2016, you endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the Democratic Party. He's an avowed democratic socialist or a socialist at various points, he's called himself. You know, what is it that rubbed you the wrong way about socialists or communists? Well, I mean, in 2016, it was much more about the minimum wage and some other very basic kinds of things. And now that's just turned into much more standing with Cuba, standing with Venezuela, standing with the Iranian regime, and turn that into much more— becoming more increasingly anti-American, for me. So my views really haven't changed that much. Things that I supported, I was very supportive about gay rights, you know, thing. Back in 2013, even before you and I, well, it would have been a couple years later. Yeah, you know, I was officializing a gay marriage when that was illegal. And I was happy to get arrested on that. So my views really haven't changed. What's really changed is the party. And in 2024, I was campaigning for Kamala Harris there as a Democrat, very clear we were going to lose and a lot of the excesses that we've had in 2020 came back to revisit, and that really, I think, cost us that election in 2024. I'm sorry, Nick, let me say. The excess of the party back then summoned the second term of the Trump administration. Yeah. You've said that the Democratic Party has become anti-man or anti-men. Yeah. What forms does that take? And again, I mean, you can say, "OK, well, extremists in ...
Transcribe →Justice Neil Gorsuch: 'Aspirations for Power Need To Be Checked'
May 400:35:13Tap to summarizeThis week, Nick Gillespie sits down at the U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Neil Gorsuch to discuss his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence, co-authored with Janie Nitze. Gorsuch and Gillespie examine why the United States is a creedal nation built on shared ideas rather than ethnicity or religion, and why those ideas require constant effort and courage to sustain. They discuss originalism, equal justice under law, the risks of government overreach, and the growing complexity of federal and state regulation. Finally, Gorsuch considers what it will take for the American experiment to endure another 250 years, from learning history to cultivating the courage needed to defend freedom. 0:00—America's 250th anniversary 3:24—Unsung heroes of 1776 4:43—Why America is not an ethnostate 8:00—Originalism and equal justice under the law 11:29—Is America a libertarian project? 13:33—What constitutes government overreach? 14:31—Does America have too many laws? 21:41—Federal bureaucracies and state legislatures 24:03—Political polarization and the judiciary 30:54—What will allow America to have another 250 years? 34:06—How can younger people cultivate courage? Producers: Paul Alexander & Natalie Dowzicky Director of Photography: Kevin Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser Transcript This transcript has been edited for style and clarity. Nick Gillespie: This is The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. My guest today is Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author with Janie Nitze of the new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. Justice Gorsuch, thanks for talking to Reason Justice Neil Gorsuch: Oh, delighted to be here. Thank you. Let's start with Heroes of 1776, which is in time for the upcoming 250 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The book is about ordinary men, women, and children doing something totally extraordinary, which is overthrowing a repressive and distant government in the name of freedom and liberty. What's the main lesson that you think America needs to be thinking about as we celebrate our 250th birthday? Well, I know we're going to have a lot of fireworks, and there are going to be some good barbecues and parades, but I hope maybe we take a moment too to reflect on the gift we've been given and the challenge we face. And what I mean by that is the Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal, that each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government, and that we have the right to rule ourselves. Our nation is not founded on a religion. It's not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It's based on those ideas. We're a creedal nation. And I hope we take a moment to reflect on that and to recommit ourselves to that. One more thing, one more thing. The courage it takes to defend those ideas. They were not inevitable. And the stories of the men, women, and children in the book, I hope will inspire children to realize the courage it takes to carry those ideas forward in their own time. Talk a little bit about that lack of inevitability, because the way American history gets done, especially to kids, it's like, "Well, this happened, then this happened, and, of course, here we are." How do you focus on the idea that this wasn't inevitable? Well, there are a bunch of things in the book we point to. A couple I'll start with. One, those three ideas, we point out what was Europe like at the time. It was monarchies. The notion that all people are created equal? No, there are kings and serfs. The notion that you have rights from God, from your creator? No, everything came from government. And self-rule certainly was a very dangerous proposition in the world of the declaration, right? You're right. We take it as the air we breathe. Fish in the water don't even realize. But those things were dangerous and inevitable, and they were traitors for declaring them. The British said that Americans had declared for themselves an alienable right to talk nonsense. And we walked through how the vote originally wasn't going to go through unanimously- So this is at the Continental Congress— At the Continental Congress—- —and they're deciding we can be brave, we can kind of fudge it or whatever. So there was huge debate over it. And you have to remember, only about 40% of colonists actually supported the Patriot cause. Another 20, 30% were Loyalists. And a whole bunch of people were undecided, right? Much as our own age. They were divided, right? Right. People were divided. So there was nothing inevitable about it. Absolutely nothing. And you talk about a couple of people, and maybe you can tell a story or two who actually either changed their vote or were like, "Okay, I'm going to change because this cause makes sense." There are two fun stories in the book about that. One is Caesar Rodney. So the Delaware delegation was tied. They couldn't vote definitively. So Caesar Rodney was called back from… He was on military service in Delaware. He rode 80 miles through the night in a thunderstorm, suffering cancer of his face. John Adams called him the oddest man he'd ever seen. He could have gone to Britain for a cure, but he was too much of a patriot. He wanted to stick around, and he broke Delaware's tied vote. Another man, Edward Rutledge, South Carolina. He had voted against independence on July 1st, the first time they voted. When the resolution was first introduced in June, they couldn't agree on whether to even proceed on it. So they tabled it for weeks. They brought it to a vote on July 1st and Rutledge voted against it. And, again, the delegates were divided. He though that night said, "I'd like to take the vote again the next day." And he realized that it was more important that we stand united in whatever decision we made than for his own personal views to prevail. He changed his vote. When you say we are a creedal nation, it's not the product of a particular religion. A lot of people in contemporary America today say, "No, that's wrong." And, in fact, there's a lot of politicians and a lot of people, influencers or people in the press who say, "No, actually all of the people who signed the declaration were of a very specific kind of ethnic stock." With one exception, we'll get into him in a second, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who's the only Catholic signer, they're all Protestants. How do you respond to people who say, "You're full of it." It's like they were all Scots, Irish and English, basically. So this is an ethno-state of some meaning. Well, I would say I'd push back on that. There's no doubt that the Revolution, the Constitution and our country have always had challenges living up to the declaration. I think of the declaration as sort of our mission statement. The Constitution, our how-to manual. But look at the mission statement. The mission statement is all of us are equal, that we all have an inalienable rights, and that we have the right to self-rule. Those ideas are perfect ideas. They exclude no one. Now, have we had to work on realizing them? We talk about this in the book, of course, but we could point to that mission statement. Lincoln in the Civil War was able to say, "How can you possibly justify slavery when you say all men are created equal?" The women in <span...
Transcribe →Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny
Apr 2900:34:35Tap to summarizeToday's guest is the legendary actor and director Andy Serkis, who has played everyone from Gollum to proto-punk icon Ian Dury to King Kong to Marvel villain Ulysses Klaue. His latest project is a controversial animated adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which he directed and is out on May 1 from Angel Studios. He talks with Nick Gillespie about the new movie; what, if anything, ties together some of his signature roles; and whether technology advances or undermines art. 0:00—Why Serkis wanted to direct Animal Farm 4:30—The corrupting nature of power 7:35—Are we in a better place than we were 100 years ago? 10:34—Serkis' signature acting roles 18:31—The legacy of Ian Dury 25:42—Does technology enhance creativity 31:12—The fragility of democracy The post Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think
Apr 2201:08:14Tap to summarizeThis week, guest host Billy Binion is joined by Jennifer Doleac, an economist whose research focuses on crime and public safety. She is executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures and author of the recent book The Science of Second Chances. In their conversation, Doleac delves into some of her more counterintuitive findings—many of which surprised even her. Perhaps most notably, she explains why long prison sentences do far less to deter crime than many assume. She instead makes the case that solving more cases should be a top priority, and explores why clearance rates are shockingly low. Binion and Doleac also examine the evidence behind second chances—a radioactive topic in recent years—including research showing that crime decreases when first-time defendants are offered leniency. They discuss why some well-intentioned policies have counterproductive results, what the data say about rehabilitation and reentry programs, and how policymakers can make better use of economics to align incentives and improve outcomes in the criminal justice system. Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ 0:00—The relationship between economics and criminal justice 6:28—Have people become less willing to give second chances? 15:46—The far left and criminal justice reform 18:50—What isn't working in the criminal justice system? 26:01—Why are clearance rates so low? 31:35—Leniency for first-time offenders 38:48—The "ban the box" movement 47:58—Why economics is a useful framework for criminal justice 55:42—Should prisons be made more comfortable? 1:01:38—Doleac's political and economic views The post Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Afroman on Becoming the 2028 Libertarian Presidential Nominee
Apr 2000:34:02Tap to summarizeThis week, Andrew Heaton is joined by Grammy-nominated rapper Afroman, who recently turned a police raid on his home and the lawsuit that followed into an unlikely free speech victory and a new chapter in his career. Afroman explains how officers raided his house, damaged his property, seized cash, and then sued him after he used the security footage in his music videos to mock them. He argues that the real issue was not just the raid itself, but the lack of accountability that followed, and says the verdict was a win for ordinary Americans who want the right to criticize public officials without getting dragged into court. Heaton and Afroman also discuss a possible presidential run, smaller government, patriotism, and why his unifying message could break through in a divided country. Along the way, they talk about Flavor Flav as a possible running mate, Lemon Pound Cake, and how this viral comeback can become something even bigger than his music. Plus, Heaton asks what fans have wondered for years: Does Afroman feel pressure to always be high? 0:00—Teaser 0:39—Introduction 1:42—What should the police have done following the raid? 3:20—The inspiration for Lemon Pound Cake 5:20—The defamation suit against Afroman 11:15—Afroman's stolen money and "crooked cops" 14:46—Afroman's court win as a victory for free speech 17:15—Presidential aspirations 21:37—Patriotism and the American identity 24:23—Does Afroman feel pressured to be high? 25:02—Who would be Afroman's running mate? 27:11—The effects of the trial on Afroman's music career Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Andrew Heaton: Hey, Afroman, good to have you on. Afroman: Yes, sir. Good to be on, good to be on. Ok, so I've been watching bits of the trial. Congratulations, by the way. Thank you. I've been watching bits of the trial, and it seems like the whole thing got out of hand multiple times. So I'm curious: If I think you've kidnapped somebody and I break into your house, but I apologize and I fix the door, would we be ok? Where is the bright line with the cop? What could they have done to make the situation ok? Treated me like an American citizen. I'm a black man in America, and a lot of times another black man is doing something wrong, possibly, and a cop may get me and him confused. So he may put me through some unfair treatment, let's say. But once they find the other guy or realize I'm not that guy, an apology is the first humane step. It's ok to make mistakes in this lifetime. It's not ok to not apologize for making those mistakes. They put erasers on the end of pencils because they expect you to make mistakes. I expect a human being to make a mistake, but when a human being knows they made a mistake and they're unapologetic and they're arrogant about it, then that takes you down a whole nother road. It's a whole different feeling toward a person that's not apologetic about the wrong they have done. So how much of the album that you made was to try to recoup monetary damages for the gate and for having cash seized versus just being angry at how you were treated and the attitude they had when they did it? Well, it was all for the same purpose, you know. It was all, for one. I got freedom of speech, so I had to say whatever I wanted to say about the cop and make it funny and entertaining. At the same time, I was selling this, and it was about them. It was inspired by them, and it was a way that I could monitor the financial progress I was making off of their inspiration. So they break down your door, they seize some of your assets, it causes like $20,000 worth of damages, that's what I've heard. You do your album, but they end up suing you. What were they suing for? What was their claim? Several things I may or may not remember. I'll name as many as I can: humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputation. And there were like, like seven or eight more titles like that. Like, because I'm not an attorney, even though I sometimes dress like one. So it wasn't just straight-up defamation and libel? It was like emotional damages and, "I feel bad, I'm embarrassed," like that was the bulk of it? Yeah, they had all kinds of stuff. They had emotional distress. They had humiliation, loss of reputation, defamation of character. And yeah, it was a few more that I can't quite remember. So with those, like most of them seem like they'd be very easily dismissed. We can go into some of the other specifics, like one or two of them. I'm like, "that's a serious accusation." But like calling somebody Beatle Bailey or Gomer Pyle or whatever, like that's obviously nonfactual opinion. Like, why do you think that they thought this would work? I would assume the threshold for this is so high that it was very unlikely they'd pull it off. Yes, I believe they live in a small world. Being government officials, they control that small world. The police department is inside of the courthouse. They all meet up at the snack machine and laugh, and they got ongoing relationships with each other. They are accustomed to bullying the civilians of Adams County. They are accustomed to influencing the jury with intimidation or just the whole—the police are always right every single time under every single circumstance. They are accustomed to those types of people. So they figured that they could violate me and then sue me and then win. I think they're very small, and they're accustomed to getting their way in that little county. All right, so when the trial concluded, I've seen photos of you coming out. You're resplendent. You're wearing your American flag suit. I think maybe you even had a white coat, but you look like you're thrilled, you're happy. This is a victory for freedom of speech. What did they look like? Like, what was their reaction? Did you get to see the expression on their faces? You know what? There's a side of me that's a sport. And after basketball games, I was taught to shake people's hands. I know they didn't wanna shake my hand. I held the bathroom door open for their lawyer. He didn't say thank you or nothing, he whisked by me. And I picked up on the fact that he was a poor sport. And they're all poor sports. I couldn't be one like them. After I won, I didn't look at him. I bowed my head and I thanked God that he didn't let him take my money from me. I told God that I thought what I did was my best-case-scenario, financial, peaceful solution. And I didn't look at him. I didn't want to be that type of dude. And I know I should've. In the cardinal realm, to the average human being, I should have went like, "Ah, yeah, ah." But I know I come off as a dirty rapper and I don't come off as a gentleman and a sport, but I thought it would be unsportsmanlike to look at them and intimidate them. Yeah, to gloat. I think that that's a very honorable position. You got what you wanted, and don't—be the bigger man. I really like that. Yeah, they say, kick a man while he's down. Like, you know, like, I didn't, I wanted to be class. I try to be a classy person, whether people know it or believe it or not. Like, I try to be a classy guy. I try to be a gentleman. And I didn't think it was classy, sportsmanlike, or gentleman-like to, you know, to stare him down or to look at him and to, you know, do them like they would have done me. You know, I think they're unsportsmanlike, I think they're unclassy. So I didn't wanna match them to a third degree. Yes, sir. Well, can we go over some of the accusations you have? So like, they broke down your door, probably freaked your kids out, I believe they were there. They took money, but they didn't give all of it back. These are very serious things. Makes total sense that you'd want restitution and an apology. I was trying to figure out who were the people walking around in my house. So with my camera, I zoomed in on their faces and I took snapshots. I posted the snapshots on the internet, and people began telling me who those people were. When I posted Brian Newland's face, his brother, William Newland, is a convicted pedophile that got fired from the Peebles Police Department. It's a town, it's in Adams County also. It's a town, there's all, there's like four or five towns in Adams County. It's four or five little towns. So, you know, his brother is a pedophile, convicted, registered sex offender. So you know all that stuff, you know, birds of a feather flock together, the apple don't fall far from the tree, you know. Here again I'm just trying to figure out what kind of man is walking around in my house, stealing my money, reading my bank statements. I watched your album on YouTube and I just, you know, saw bits and pieces. And so I had sort of thought it was just you're making fun of him in general. He looked like a pedo or something like that. Everytime, it would come up, the judge would magically jump in the convers...
Transcribe →How the Iran War Could Backfire
Apr 1500:33:26Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Stimson Center Senior Fellow Emma Ashford, a foreign policy analyst who has written widely on post–Cold War strategy, the Middle East, and the limits of American power. An adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, a columnist at Foreign Policy, and a former Cato Institute staffer, Ashford is the author of First Among Equals: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World. She talks with Nick Gillespie about the incoherence of President Donald Trump's Iran strategy and the surprising and disturbingly ineffective continuity of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Previous appearance: "Did Bombing Iran Make America Safer?" June 24, 2025 0:00—What is the U.S. objective for war in Iran? 5:32—Is Vice President J.D. Vance an anti-interventionist? 7:21—Trump's foreign policy rhetoric and history 13:26—Is there a continuity in post–Cold War foreign policy? 19:56—Was President Joe Biden an outlier on foreign policy? 22:16—U.S. involvement in Ukraine 24:13—Are we sending messages to China and Russia through Iran? 30:05—Does Trump have a de-escalation strategy in Iran? The post How the Iran War Could Backfire appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →The Rise of the Information State
Apr 801:18:19Tap to summarizeThis week, guest host Zach Weissmueller is joined by Jacob Siegel, a journalist and author of The Information State, a sweeping examination of how power has shifted in the digital age from traditional democratic institutions into a new system of governance shaped by technology, media, and elite coordination. Siegel traces the emergence of what he calls the "information state," where control is exercised not primarily through laws or elected bodies but through digital infrastructure, platform moderation, and public-private partnerships between government agencies and tech companies. He argues that this system took shape in the aftermath of the war on terror, accelerated during the Obama era through the alignment of Silicon Valley and the political class, and expanded in response to populist movements under the banner of combating disinformation. Along the way, Siegel connects concepts like hybrid warfare, mass surveillance, and the "whole-of-society" approach to the way information is now managed domestically. Weissmueller and Siegel discuss how these dynamics played out during Russiagate and the COVID-19 pandemic, why attempts at information control often backfire, and how the collapse of traditional media has given rise to a chaotic new information ecosystem. They also explore the limits of technocratic governance, the role of platforms like X in disrupting centralized control, and what the next phase of the information age might mean for democracy, expertise, and individual autonomy. 0:00—What is the information state? 10:11—Technocracy and the Obama administration 21:07—The "whole-of-society" approach 27:26—War and technocracies 37:32—Limitations of information control 50:41—Russiagate 1:02:39—Alternative media 1:12:18—Mitigating the effects of information state Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ The post The Rise of the Information State appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →