The Soho Forum Debates

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.

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

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

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

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