Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party was created to elect libertarians to public office, including the presidency of the United States.  Founded in 2001, the Free State Project is an effort to turn New Hampshire—the "Live Free or Die" state—into a libertarian paradise of minimal government, with the ultimate aim of electing a libertarian to the governorship. Which is the more realistic path to creating a freer society? That was the question debated by Jeremy Kauffman, a member of the board of the Free State Project, and Angela McArdle, candidate for chair of the National Libertarian Party and current chair of the L.P. of Los Angeles County. Kauffman defended the resolution, "The Free State Project is a more realistic path to liberty than the Libertarian Party," and McArdle took the negative. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein and held in front of a live audience at the Free State Project's annual Porcupine Freedom Festival (Porcfest). It was an Oxford-style debate, so the audience voted on the proposition before and after the proceedings, with the winner being the person who moved more people to his or her side. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Photo: Brett RaneyThe post Is the Free State Project a Better Idea than the Libertarian Party? appeared first on Reason.com.

U.S. national debt held by the public is at almost $22 trillion, or about $67,000 per citizen, surpassing the country's annual Gross Domestic Product for the first time since World War Two. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that it'll reach 102 percent of GDP by the end of 2021, to 107 percent by 2031, and hit 202 percent by 2051. The federal government's "growing debt burden would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation as well as undermine confidence in the US dollar," the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in its March 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook.  If the world were to lose confidence in the dollar, what could replace it— another fiat currency, gold, or bitcoin? That was the topic of a recent Oxford-style debate hosted by the Soho Forum. John Vallis, a financial consultant and host of the Bitcoin Rapid-Fire podcast, believes that bitcoin will eventually replace governments' fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange. He argues that bitcoin's global adoption is a matter of when not if. Lawrence H. White, an economics professor at George Mason University, is skeptical of bitcoin's future as money. He believes it may have a future as a financial asset, but isn't suitable to become a global medium of exchange.  The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein and held before a live audience at the Porcupine Freedom Festival—better known as PorcFest—in Lancaster, New Hampshire. Narrated by Nick Gillespie, audio production by John OsterhoudtThe post Does Bitcoin Have the Potential to Become a Generally Accepted Medium of Exchange? appeared first on Reason.com.

"Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity." That was the proposition at an in-person Soho Forum debate held on Sunday, April 18, in The Villages, Florida.  Ben Burgis, a philosophy instructor at Georgia State University's Perimeter College and a contributor to Jacobin magazine, spoke in support of socialism. His long-term political goals include giving workers control of the means of production through labor cooperatives, redistributing wealth and power through direct democracy in the workplace, and prohibiting wage-and-salary labor. Gene Epstein, director of the Soho Forum, former economics editor of Barron's, and a former senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange, argued against Burgis. He contended that free markets already allow for worker co-ops and that if they were popular and effective, they would be more widely adopted than they are currently. He also objected that Burgis' proposed ban on wage-labor is a direct assault on individual rights and reveals the coercion behind socialist economic policy. The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by Reason, conducts Oxford-style debates, meaning the audience votes yes, no, or undecided before and after the event. The winner is the debater who convinces the most people to switch sides. At the start of the event, 8.6 percent of the crowd agreed that "socialism is preferable to capitalism," 76 percent disagreed, and 15 percent were undecided. Sam Peterson of Libertas served as moderator. Audio Production by John Osterhoudt, narrated by Nick GillespieThe post Socialism or Capitalism? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Do U.S. presidents need fast-track authority or should their power be sharply curtailed? In order to save our democracy, says Stanford University political scientist Terry Moe, we have to make the U.S. government faster, more efficient, and more effective—and we can do that by expanding the power of the executive branch to use "fast-track" authority to approve all types of legislation. Moe, the co-author of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy, wants Congress to have the power to approve or deny these laws through an "up or down" vote (but not to add amendments or filibuster their passage). The Cato Institute's Gene Healy says that non-libertarians of all political persuasions suffer from a "dangerous devotion" to the "boundless nature of presidential responsibility." Healy, who's the author of The Cult of the Presidency, says that instead of giving the executive branch more legislative authority, presidential powers must be brought back to their constitutional limits. At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on March 17, 2021, and moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein, Terry Moe and Gene Healy went head-to-head on this issue. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in his direction. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Audio production by Ian Keyser.The post Is More Presidential Power Necessary in the Modern World? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

At each of Whole Foods Market's more than 500 American stores, managers ask every team member—from the meat clerks to the baristas to the janitorial staff—to orient their work around a shared purpose, which is to make natural and healthy food widely available.  This goal, according to Whole Foods CEO and co-founder John Mackey, is in no way inconsistent with maximizing shareholder value, often seen as the essential purpose of a corporation.  As Mackey writes in his new book about leadership, "At the heart of Conscious Capitalism is a radical refutation of the negative perceptions of business, and a rejection of the split between purpose and profit." Mackey believes that this is the key to defending capitalism against those who condemn it for having no inspiring ideals.  At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on February 18, 2020, Ayn Rand Institute Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook challenged this view. He believes that maximizing profit should always be the primary goal of companies, and it's that focus which explains why capitalism has lifted the broad masses out of poverty. That's the message businesses should be emphasizing, he said, and it's inspiring enough. The debate, which played out in front of 200 people in The Villages, Florida, was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in his direction.The post Should Businesses Only Focus on Shareholder Value? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Oren Cass, who is the former domestic policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and the founder and executive director of the think tank American Compass, believes that the U.S. government should intervene more aggressively in the manufacturing industry. Cass participated in a recent Soho Forum virtual debate, held on January 13, 2021, arguing in favor of the proposition: "To promote prosperity among all income groups, the U.S. government should adopt an industrial policy." Arguing against Cass: Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He says that, in the real world, government interference has only hurt manufacturing. The problem with the economic nationalism favored by Cass is that it insulates companies from the discipline of profit and loss. In a free market, businesses learn from their mistakes. When the government is involved, they react by growing bigger as a way to cover for their failures. It was an Oxford-style debate, and Lincicome prevailed by convincing 14.56 percent of the audience to switch to his side. The Soho Forum, sponsored by Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series typically held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village, but which has gone remote during the pandemic. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor, John Osterhoudt, and Ian Keyser. Photo: Andy Star/Envato Elements. The post Should the U.S. Government Adopt an Industrial Policy? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Should the COVID-19 lockdowns be replaced with a more targeted strategy? On October 4, 2020, epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates for ending the COVID-19 lockdowns and turning to a strategy of protecting elderly and vulnerable populations, while allowing everyone else to resume their normal lives. Critics of the Declaration issued a counter-petition, called the "John Snow Memorandum," stating, "Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population." In an online Soho Forum debate on December 13, Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard biostatistician and epidemiologist and coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration, debated Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine, who signed the John Snow Memorandum. It was an Oxford-style debate, and in this case, the contest ended in a tie: Both debaters convinced 5.56 percent of audience members to switch to their side over the course of the debate. The Soho Forum, sponsored by Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series typically held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village, but which has gone remote during the pandemic. Narrated by Nick Gillespie; audio production by Regan Taylor Photo: Steve Sanchez/Sipa USA/NewscomThe post End the COVID-19 Lockdowns? Two Epidemiologists Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

The Electoral College is the best means of electing a president compared to any others that might be devised. When Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016 even though 2.8 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, everyone from Bill De Blasio, to Michael Moore, to Eric Holder and Bill Maher said that at long last we should abolish the electoral college. Then-California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill to amend the U.S. constitution to do just that. A Gallup poll from September of this year showed that 61 percent of Americans support abolishing the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, although it's an issue that breaks along partisan lines. 77 percent of Republicans want to keep the electoral college, while 89 percent of Democrats said that we should get rid of it. Is the electoral college the best system for electing a president? That was the subject of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, November 11, 2020. Richard Epstein, a law professor at New York University, defended the system against Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated. Lessig won the Oxford-Style debate by gaining 14.29 percent of the audience's support. Epstein lost 2.04 percent of his pre-debate votes. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Audio production by Ian Keyser.The post The Electoral College: Keep or Replace? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.