Joe Nocera and Gene Epstein debate the impact of capitalism during the pandemic, discussing globalization, cronyism in big pharma, and shortages of medical supplies. They explore private equity in nursing homes, profit motives in healthcare, rising income inequality, and the influence of crony capitalism on vaccine development. The debate touches on government-business alliances, economic consequences of lockdowns, and disparities in pandemic responses worldwide.

Debate on the root cause of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, exploring historical claims, Jerusalem's significance, and complexities of the conflict. Ancestral connections, legal aspects of apartheid, and upcoming debates on capitalism and COVID-19 are discussed.

M. Anthony Mills and Terence Kealey debate government funding for science, exploring its impact on technological advancements. They discuss historical perspectives, the evolution of science from the 18th to the 19th century, federal funding in the US, and the relationship between government funding, economic growth, and research. The debate highlights the role of basic science in driving innovation.

Law professor Kate Klonick and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya debate government involvement in social media censorship post a federal court ruling. Topics include national internet policy, First Amendment, citizenship reflections, evolution of censorship, government coercion, and platform struggles.

Susan Schneider and Jobst Landgrebe debate the threat of AI to humanity. They discuss the evolution of chatbots, the limitations of AI, the relationship between intelligence and consciousness, regulating deep fakes, and the resolution of the debate on AI's threat.

The Manhattan Institute's Mark Mills and InOrbis CEO Rosario Fortugno debate the resolution, "Between now and 2035, electric vehicles in the consumer market will disappoint environmentalists by remaining a product bought mainly by the well-heeled minority." Taking the affirmative is Mills, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University's engineering school, and a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund. He is author of the book The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s. Taking the negative is Fortugno, the CEO of InOrbis, a company that works to develop technologies for electric vehicle fleet management, autonomous vehicles, and machine learning. He blogs at ApplyingAI.com on the topics of free markets, electric vehicle adoption, and the benefits of artificial intelligence.The post Will Electric Cars Disappoint Environmentalists? appeared first on Reason.com.

Yaron Brook and Bryan Caplan debate whether anarcho-capitalism would be a complete disaster for humanity. They discuss the importance of government in protecting individual freedom, the role of an objective system of law and an impartial arbitrator, the potential for peace and the role of diplomacy, secession as a means to foster competition, and the differences between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism.

Education activist Corey DeAngelis and attorney Stephan Kinsella debate the merits of libertarian support for the school choice movement. They discuss the flaws in the public school system, the benefits of education savings accounts, government regulation on private and homeschooling, potential consequences of educational welfare, building coalitions, and examining charter school admissions.

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

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