MatrixToFreedom

Livestream with Nick Gillespie, Chris Rufo, and Zach Weissmueller's about Rufo's "counterrevolution" against Critical Race Theory and "gender ideology." full text and links: https://reason.com/video/2022/10/20/c... - Few activists ever affect political discourse and public policy to the degree that Chris Rufo has in the span of just a few years. Rufo, the 38-year-old writer and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, received a personal note from President Trump after Rufo's appearance on Fox motivated the former president to sign an executive order banning the federal government or its contractors from conducting certain "divisive" diversity trainings—an action later reversed by President Biden. He stood beside Florida governor Ron DeSantis as he announced the "Stop WOKE Act," on which Rufo has consulted. He's advised state lawmakers around the country on k-12 and higher education bills. And after the Walt Disney Company publicly opposed one of DeSantis' education bills, Rufo published leaked videos of internal meetings in which one executive producer discussed her "not-at-all secret gay agenda" and a production coordinator referenced a tracking tool meant to boost the representation of trans and "gender non-conforming" characters. Boycotts of Disney ensued, and DeSantis eventually revoked the company's special governance district. Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller discuss with Rufo his war on "woke," what further policy changes he seeks, and what libertarians should think about his objectives and tactics in the livestream embedded above.

In "Criminal (In)Justice," the Manhattan Institute scholar argues that most reforms favored by social justice activists—and many libertarians—make life worse for communities of color. 0:00 Intro 2:23 Police Violence 7:42 Narrative Disparities 15:32 Stop and Frisk 26:12 Drug Legalization 29:05 Trust in Police 31:30 Leadership and Police 34:31 Qualified Immunity 40:04 Mass Incarceration 47:38 Pre-Trial Detention 51:13 George Kelling 1:04:10 New York City Crime https://reason.com/video/ The killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020 touched off a summer of protests over police brutality, especially with regard to African Americans and Hispanics. To many, the killings cemented as fact a narrative that began with the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and found expression in highly charged slogans such as "all cops are bastards" and "defund the police." Reformers charge that cops, far from keeping the peace, are simply the most visible agents of white supremacy who systematically surveil and punish racial and ethnic minorities. Long-stalled reforms, such as abolishing qualified immunity and ending cash bail, made big gains as massive crowds marched under the banner of Black Lives Matter. But what if the narrative that police are increasingly dangerous, violent, and unaccountable is wrong? In Criminal (In)Justice, Rafael A. Mangual argues that police violence is in fact rare and declining. What's more, he says that the criminal justice reforms favored by social justice activists—and many libertarians—will make life worse for communities of color. "If we're going to have an honest conversation about where reform needs to happen," says Mangual, "we have to be realistic about what the real scope of the problem is because that's the best way that we're going to be able to assess what can actually fix that problem." Mangual is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the New York City think tank that played a foundational role in the shift in policing tactics that began in the early 1990s. It published the work of George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson on broken windows policing and championed the development of the crime-tracking program CompStat under New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton. Mangual grew up in Brooklyn and Long Island, the half-Dominican, half-Puerto Rican son of a New York Police Department detective. He attended Baruch College in the City University of New York system and holds a law degree from Chicago's DePaul University. Reason talked with him about the facts and rhetoric surrounding law enforcement, whether violent crime is actually rising, and what the best ways are to keep the peace without harassing and locking up innocent people. Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki. Photo Credits: Aaron Guy Leroux/Sipa USA/Newscom; Allison Bailey / SOPA Images/Sip/Newscom; Chris, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Jeremy Hogan/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Karla Cot/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Marc Arcas/EFE/Newscom; Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/Newscom; Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom; Ron Sachs/CNP / SplashNews/Newscom; Rod Lamkey/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Smallbones, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons; Stephen Zenner/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Steve Pellegrino/ZUMA Press/Newscom; TNS/Newscom; YESSICA SANCHEZ Notimex/Newscom; United Archives/Rudolph/Newscom Music Credits: "Altered Communications, by Emanuele Errante, via Artlist; "Continuance," by Yehezkel Raz, via Artlist.

Intellectual watchdog Phil Magness talks stealth edits on Nikole Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project, Duke historian Nancy MacLean's false charges of racism, Hans-Hermann Hoppe's bastardization of Ludwig von Mises, and Kevin Kruse's plagiarism investigation at Princeton. https://reason.com/video/2022/09/13/b... - 0:00 Intro 3:06 Kevin Kruse and plagiarism 8:46 Nancy McLean and Democracy in Chains 12:55 Nikole-Hannah Jones and the 1619 Project 18:26 Accountability in academia 43:02 Hans-Herman Hoppe 56:11 Karl Marx 1:01:40 Neo-Liberalism 1:07:20 U.S. COVID response Who watches the intellectual watchmen? When it comes to historians, especially those purporting to tell the truth about the founding of America, the Civil War era, the Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan, and the revered Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, it's Phil Magness of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Magness has a Ph.D. from George Mason University's school of public policy, and he's written and co-written books on what he calls "the moral mess of higher education," on Abraham Lincoln's plan for black resettlement after emancipation, and on inaccuracies in The 1619 Project. He has emerged as that offering's most dogged critic, finding that the Pulitzer Prize-winning series, developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, was quietly revised on the New York Times website after several prominent historians pointed out major errors in its analysis. Magness has also been a leading critic of Duke University historian Nancy MacLean, whose National Book Award-nominated Democracy in Chains attempted to brand the school choice movement as motivated by racism and white supremacy. And he's a critic of Hans-Herman Hoppe, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mises Institute, who is increasingly influential within the Libertarian Party. "Hoppe has tried to invent this kind of carved-out counter-narrative while still claiming to be a representative of Mises that says we can use this propertian concept of the nation-state to exclude…immigrants from crossing the borders," says Magness. "He gets the complete inversion of Mises' thought." In June, Magness wrote an article for Reason that inspired an ongoing plagiarism investigation at Princeton University of Kevin Kruse, a high-profile, very online professor of history. "This is a guy that would tweet 100 or 200 times a day," says Magness. "As soon as the word got out about plagiarism, he's dropped off the face of the earth." Indeed, Kruse's Twitter feed has stayed silent since June. Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with Magness at FreedomFest, the annual gathering in Las Vegas, to talk about intellectual accountability in academia, journalism, and the libertarian movement. Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki. Photo Credits: Acroterion, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Beowulf Sheehan/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Economic Policy Institute; CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Dreamstine; Fotostand / Freitag/picture alliance / Fotostand/Newscom; Gage Skidmore; James Cridland, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Richard B. Levine/Newscom; Slowking4, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons; Wittylama, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Music Credits: "Divine Attraction," (Instrumental Version) by A Seal to See, via Artlist.

A live discussion about how libertarians should think about the country's most controversial governor. --- No governor is more cheered and hated right now than Florida Republican Ron DeSantis, currently in the news for flying around 50 Venezuelan migrants to Martha's Vineyard. The 44-year-old Navy veteran and double-Ivy-Leaguer also headlined the third National Conservatism Conference, where he emphasized that the state should punish and reward businesses and individuals based on political positions. Controversially, DeSantis has yanked longstanding tax breaks for Walt Disney Corporation after the company criticized his stance on gay rights, signed legislation that would limit social media platforms' ability to moderate content and users (the law has been blocked by a federal court), banned mask mandates in public schools, and issued an executive order prohibiting businesses from requiring proof of vaccination from customers. He's also pushed cities such as Gainesville to abandon zoning reform aimed at creating more diverse, multi-family housing. If such top-down edicts seem at odds with traditional conservative support for local decision making and support for business interests, DeSantis has also gotten high marks for mostly keeping K-12 schools open during the pandemic and overseeing a boom in people moving to Florida to escape lockdowns elsewhere. When COVID death rates are adjusted for the age of residents, Florida's rate (275 per 100,000) draws close to California's (267 per 100,000), while both are below the national average (302 per 100,000). He's a strong supporter of gun rights and signed a $1.2 billion tax break package this spring, promising even more cuts if he gets reelected in November. Despite increased levels of spending each year of his governorship, the state is currently sitting on a $22 billion budget surplus. So how should libertarians think about Ron DeSantis? Is he "a retaliatory culture warrior" and the leading indicator of an "authoritarian convergence" of the right and left? Or is he a successful large-state governor, the future of the Republican party, and, quite possibly, the next president of the United States? How should libertarians think about his mix of bullying and bravura that is turning the Sunshine State from a joke to one of the hottest destinations in the country? Nick Gillespie leads a conversation about DeSantis and Florida with two recent blue-state refugees: Reason Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, who pulled up stakes in California, and New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz, who hightailed it out of New York.

Binyamin Appelbaum and Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Free market ideology is largely responsible for the dismal performance of the US economy over the past few decades." ----------- For the affirmative: Binyamin Appelbaum is the lead writer on business and economics for the New York Times editorial board. He previously worked as a Washington correspondent for the Times. He is the author of The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets and the Fracture of Society (2019). For the negative: Gene Epstein is the Director of the Soho Forum and former Economics and Books Editor of Barron's, a position he left in January 2018 after a 26-year stint. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read between the Lines when the Media Manipulate the Numbers. He 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 Prof. Richard Wolff has had more than five million views on Youtube.

Economic historian Phllip W. Magness on classical liberalism and abolition, Abraham Lincoln's contested legacy, and why history matters in contemporary politics. Full text and links: https://reason.com/video/capitalism-v... ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason ---------------- When The New York Times launched its 1619 Project last year, it sought to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." What began as a series of articles in the Times magazine morphed into a collection of lesson plans for K-12 students and provoked an immediate controversy. Five of the nation's most eminent academic historians co-signed a letter to the Times describing the project as "partly misleading" and containing "factual errors." And Northwestern University Professor Leslie M. Harris revealed that she had been a fact-checker on the series and that her warnings of a major error of interpretation had been ignored. But Harris also took "detractors of the 1619 Project" to task for "misrepresent[ing] both the historical record and the historical profession," writing that the "attacks from its critics are much more dangerous" than the Times' "avoidable mistakes." Enter Phillip W. Magness, an economic historian, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and the author of a new collection of essays on the project. Magness praises aspects of the series but he says that the project's editor, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is guilty of blurring lines between serious scholarship and partisan advocacy. And he has called for the retraction of an essay in the series by Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond, which was headlined, "In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation." Nick Gillespie spoke with Magness from his office in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, about what the Times gets right and wrong about U.S. history, capitalism and slavery, Abraham Lincoln's contested legacy, and why our interpretation of American history matters to contemporary society. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Photo credit: Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... Raquel Zaldivar/TNS/Newscom Chapters

The Network State author and serial entrepreneur on the future of freedom, online and offline. https://reason.com/video/2022/10/12/b... ----- In 2013, the serial entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan gave a widely discussed talk at the tech incubator Y Combinator on a paradigm derived from the work of political economist Albert O. Hirschman. There are two basic paths to reform, he explained: You can speak up and remake a system from within ("voice") or you can simply leave and build something new that might one day takes its place ("exit"). That latter concept is the framework through which Silicon Valley tends to solve problems, and it captures the worldview of Srinivasan, whom venture capitalist Marc Andreessen says has "the highest output per minute of new ideas of anybody I've ever met in my life." In his new book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country, Srinivasan makes the case for migrating much—though not all—of our lives onto the internet while changing how we get together in meatspace. Ever-improving digital tools give humans an unprecedented and always-accelerating ability to create opt-in, fully voluntary communities where people choose to meet, work, live, and love. From existing, terrestrial countries that are attracting immigrants with the promise of a better standard of living to blockchain communities that draw participants by laying out clear-cut, contractual rules, responsibilities, and obligations, Srinivasan articulates a future that is profoundly democratic and consensual—thus liberating us from a status quo in which self-determination is little more than a pipe-dream. Raised in suburban Long Island, Srinivasan holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford. He co-founded the genetic testing firm Counsyl and served as the first chief technology officer of Coinbase, the cryptocurrency exchange. He's been a fierce critic of the FDA, which might account for his being short-listed to head up the agency under President Donald Trump. "What if this coronavirus is the pandemic that public health people have been warning about for years?," he tweeted in January 2020, as Vox and mainstream outlets were busy attacking Silicon Valley venture capitalists for taking the crisis too seriously. "It would accelerate many pre-existing trends," he wrote, "border closures, nationalism, social isolation, preppers, remote work, face masks, distrust in governments." Reason talked with Srinivasan about The Network State, the rise of China as a tightly centralized global power, why billionaire Peter Thiel is part of the "descending class," and the future of freedom both online and offline. Credits: Depo Photos/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tolga Ildun/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Daniel Diaz/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; David Peinado/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tim Wagner/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Richard B. Levine/Newscom; LAURENT CHAMUSSY/SIPA/Newscom; Yonhap News/YNA/Newscom; Li Gang / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; James Lee/Newscom; Douliery Olivier/ABACA USA/Newscom; Kay Nietfeld/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; Sheldon Cooper / SOPA Images/Sip/Newscom; John Lamparski/Sipa USA/Newscom; Ron Adar / SOPA Images/Sipa USA/Newscom; Creative Touch Imaging Ltd/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Mark Finkenstaedt/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Michaal Nigro/Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Newscom

The rapper is undeniably brilliant. And outrageous. But how seriously should we take any artist's politics? A conversation with the host of The Re-Education podcast. Full text and links: https://reason.com/video/2022/10/13/s... - Ye—better known as Kanye West—is one of the great artists at work in contemporary America. But as brilliant as he is in a recording studio or on a fashion runway, he's equally prone to making outrageous, often-cryptic political statements, not to mention weird threats to former wife Kim Kardashian's former boyfriend Pete Davidson. He has very publicly struggled with mental health issues even as he continues to produce highly praised music and clothing. In 2018, he suggested that 400 years of African American slavery "sounds like a choice" and just this week his declaration that he was about to go "death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE" led to his Twitter and Instagram accounts being locked. In a recent, wide-ranging interview with Fox News' Tucker Carlson, Ye was personable, loquacious, and engaging, even as he suggested the fat acceptance movement was a type of "genocide of the Black race" and defended wearing a "White Lives Matter" shirt at his latest fashion show. He also talked about ideological orthodoxy in the entertainment industry, saying that it "drove me crazy not to be able to say I liked Trump." Is Ye a victim of a woke culture that he says attacks anyone "presenting new ideas?" Or is he the latest in a line of major artists--such as Picasso, T.S. Eliot, Alice Walker--whose personal lives or politics are beyond the pale? Should audiences separate artists from their art or should audiences dismiss them if they hold repellent views? Reason's Nick Gillespie and Natalie Dowzicky discuss all this and more with Commentary and New York Sun columnist Eli Lake, host of The Re-Education podcast and a Ye super-fan.

Sierra Pettengill's documentary focuses on the fake towns, built by the Army in the 1960s, to train law enforcement. Full text and links: https://reason.com/video/2022/10/07/r... --- Riotsville, U.S.A., a new documentary by filmmaker Sierra Pettengill, is a surrealist look at the dawn of police militarization in America. "Riotsville was a series of fake towns that look like low-budget film sets constructed on military bases in the late '60s for training in civil disturbance control," Pettengill explained to Reason. "People ranging from FBI agents, governors, rank and file police officers, and police chiefs were all brought in for this course. Riotsville was a sort of day-long stage reenactment." Following the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Americans become increasingly aware of the growing use of military tools and tactics by law enforcement. But, as Pettengill's film makes clear, the practice began decades earlier—in the 1960s—after protests erupted in cities across the country. In 1967 President Lyndon Johnson appointed the Kerner Commission to study what had caused the series of urban riots that led to deadly clashes between protesters and police. The commission's report recommended an ambitious set of initiatives to combat racism in America, and a minor measure calling for increased funding and training for police. It was that minor recommendation that President Johnson latched on to. "It is largely the first time that the federal government is funding local police departments directly," says Pettengill. Reason talked with Pettengill about her film, the lasting impact of the Army's creation of Riotsville, and the parallels she draws between the 1960s and today. Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg. Photos: Keystone Press Agency/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Tony Spina/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; UPPA/Photoshot/Newscom; James Cooper/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jim Vondruska / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; David Carson/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Shen Ting / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Timothy Tai/ZUMA Press/Newscom

At a pro-gun rally in Richmond, Virginia. Government tyranny is often cited as justification for the right to bear arms. When does government cross that threshold for you?

Jacobin's Ben Burgis says yes, Soho Forum's Gene Epstein says no. ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_.... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz.... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason​​​​​ Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- "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. Narrated by Nick Gillespie, edited by John Osterhoudt and Regan Taylor Photos: Hansjörg Keller on Unsplash; Khachik Simonian XYav on Unsplash; Kaan Kosemen on Unsplash; Mario Caruso on Unsplash; Dominik Bednarz on Unsplash; Renate Vanaga on Unsplash; Henry Co on Unsplash; Tim Foster on Unsplash; Doun Rain aka Tomas Gaspar on Unsplash; Samuel Regan-Asante on Unsplash; BP Miller on Unsplash; Justin Guariglia on Unsplash; Jamison Lottering on Unsplash; Michelle Ding on Unsplash; Ilse Orsel on Unsplash; Event photos by Brett Raney

Martha Bueno's organization, People 4 Cuba, smuggles food and medicine directly into the hands of suffering Cubans to help undermine an oppressive dictatorship. Full text and links: https://reason.com/video/2022/03/16/t... ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- A massive protest movement broke out in Cuba on July 11, 2021. Food, medicine, and electricity shortages exacerbated by the COVID pandemic were pushing an already desperate, oppressed, and impoverished nation to the brink of rebellion. Demonstrators used the internet—which has only been legally available in the country since 2018—to coordinate action in large and small cities across the island. "Freedom…I felt free. I have never experienced in my life something so spectacular and wonderful. You had to have lived it to understand," one Cuban citizen, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution from the Cuban government, told Reason. In the face of widespread protests, the Cuban government arrested hundreds of protesters and shut down the internet. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel appeared on state TV to call for the violent suppression of the protests against "counter-revolutionaries." In Miami, members of the sizable Cuban-American community planned to load their own fishing boats with supplies to make the 90-mile journey to the island themselves but were deterred by the U.S. Coast Guard. So they set off fireworks in international waters off the coast of Cuba instead. "I think what people don't understand is that the problem in Cuba stems from the fact that people can't do anything for themselves," says Martha Bueno, a Cuban-American activist. "You're only allowed to make money if the government says it's OK. And that's how the government throttles people. They'll throw you in jail if you decide to try and feed your family on your own." Bueno started the group People 4 Cuba following the protests. They assemble packages of dry foods and medical supplies and then pay people $35/pound to smuggle them onto the island. They've shipped more than 800 pounds so far, but she says it's become more difficult in recent months as the Cuban government has cracked down harder on smuggled medical supplies. "The big reason that we have to smuggle it into Cuba is because if I send it legitimately… the Cuban government will take that and then sell it in the stores," says Bueno. "I wanted people to receive it, people who needed it to be able to receive it without paying. And I especially won't help the Cuban government. I refuse to fund raise, pay for, and then give it to them so that they can sell it in the stores. I'm not that kind of girl." Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Dominic Easter. Photo credits: Al Diaz/TNS/Newscom; Yander Zamora/EFE/Newscom; Michele Eve Sandberg / SplashNews/Newscom; Elvis Gonzalez/EFE/Newscom; INSTARimages/Cover Images/Newscom; Ismael Francisco/AP; imageBROKER/Egon B�msch/Newscom; Ernesto Mastrascusa/EFE/Newscom; Cristian Mijea/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Circa Images/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Ardavan Roozbeh/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; YAMIL LAGE/TNS/Newscom; CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom; José Méndez/EFE/Newscom

Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. --------- That proposition was the subject of a November 5, 2019, debate hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Arguing in favor of the resolution was Richard D. Wolff, an economist at the University of Massachusetts and the author, most recently, of Understanding Marxism. Taking the other side was former Barron's economics editor Gene Epstein, who is also the Soho Forum's co-founder and director. Reason's Nick Gillespie served as moderator. It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event; the side that gains the most ground is victorious. It was a packed house, with about 450 people in attendance. The pre-debate vote found that 25 percent of the audience agreed that socialism was preferable to capitalism, 49.5 percent picked capitalism as the better system, and 25.5 percent were undecided. Despite a technical problem at the event itself, the Soho Forum was able to recover the final vote totals, which saw support for socialism drop by half a percentage point and support for capitalism increase to 71 percent. Produced by John Osterhoudt Photo Credit: Brett Raney

A live discussion with the editor in chief of The Dispatch about Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s incoming prime minister. Drop your questions in the chat!

A live conversation with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Zach Weissmueller, and environmentalist and writer Michael Shellenberger about Europe's looming energy crisis.

To mark the 70th anniversary of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS Director-General Paul Symon addressed the Lowy Institute on the past, present and future of foreign espionage from an Australian perspective. After the speech, Mr Symon spoke in conversation with Dr Michael Fullilove, Executive Director of the Lowy Institute. Paul Symon’s military career spanned 35 years and culminated in the rank of Major General. He served as the Deputy Chief of the Australian Army from late 2008 until 2011, and from 2011–14 was Director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation. In mid-2015, Paul left the military and joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He was appointed Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service on 18 December 2017. Recorded on Tuesday 10 May 2022

Yes, according to a growing body of research, says criminologist Adam Lankford. https://reason.com/video/2022/09/16/i... -- Don McLaughlin, the mayor of Uvalde, Texas, announced in June that Robb Elementary School would be demolished. "You can never ask a child to go back or a teacher to go back in that school, ever," he said. What happened in Uvalde was a gruesome tragedy that relates to some of America's worst pathologies: a fixation on violence, untreated mental illness, large swaths of alienated and angry young men, incompetent and unaccountable police. The media went looking for solutions: What if we could keep guns out of the wrong hands, or get the right people medicated, or reform the police, or fix what's plaguing angry young men? These are all legitimate questions. But one question the media rarely ask is this: Is the press part of the problem? A growing body of research says yes. "This is learned behavior and the media coverage is leading more people to learn it and to copy it," says University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford, who has studied mass killers for more than a decade. "The more victims they kill, the more fame and attention they get. They're being incentivized by the media coverage to be as destructive as possible." "There seems to be too much demand for fame in America," Lankford writes in one paper, "and not enough supply." One of Lankford's studies found that "winning a Super Bowl or Academy Award garnered less media attention than committing a high-profile mass killing." Perpetrators get pictured more on front pages than do their individual victims, and there's "a strong correlation between the number of victims harmed in these attacks and the amount of media attention that perpetrators receive." "The media's rewarding [these high body counts]," says Lankford. "I think part of [the motive] is clickbait, essentially." Produced and edited by Zach Weissmueller. Animations by Tomasz Kaye. Additional graphics by Nodehaus.

The creator of ultra-woke poet Titania McGrath makes the definite case against cancel culture. ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- Andrew Doyle is an Irish journalist and writer best known as the creator of the Twitter personality Titania McGrath, a parody of an ultra-woke, 24-year-old, militant vegan who thinks she is a better poet than William Shakespeare. Though the 43-year-old Doyle describes himself as a left-winger, he is a fierce critic of cancel culture and a proponent of Brexit. He holds a doctorate from Oxford in early Renaissance poetry, is the host of the new nightly show GB News, and is a columnist for Spiked Online. (He's a previous guest on The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie.) Doyle is also the author of the new book Free Speech and Why It Matters, a comprehensive, learned, and compelling argument in favor of unfettered debate and open expression. Nick Gillespie talks with him about why cancel culture is on the rise, how to combat it, and what Titania McGrath is up to as she approaches her quarter-life crisis.

How did the Castro regime's propaganda machine manage to fool so many for so long? reason.com/video/2022-04-18/The-Myth-of-Cuban-Health-Care ---------------- "If there's one thing they do right in Cuba, it's health care," said Michael Moore in a 2007 interview. "Cuba has the best health care system in the entire area," according to Angela Davis, "and in many respects much better than the U.S." "One thing that's well established in the global health community is the strength of the Cuban national health system," said Clare Wenham, a professor at the London School of Economics. Claims like these have appeared in hundreds of documentaries, newspaper articles, and magazine features over the years celebrating the supposed marvel of Cuba's health care system. It's a testament to the effectiveness of the Castro regime's propaganda apparatus that this myth, so deeply at odds with reality, has persisted for so long. "The Cuban health care system is destroyed," Rotceh Rios Molina, a Cuban doctor who escaped the country's medical mission while stationed in Mexico, tells Reason in Spanish. "The doctor's offices are in very bad shape." "People are dying in the hallways," says José Angel Sánchez, another Cuban doctor who defected from the medical mission in Venezuela, tells Reason in Spanish. According to Rios, Sánchez, and others with firsthand experience practicing medicine in Cuba, the island nation's health care system is a catastrophe. It's exactly what you'd expect in a country impoverished by communism. In the 15 years since the release of Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' which celebrated Cuban health care, everyday citizens have been armed with smartphones and social media, empowering them to tell the truth about what it's really like in Cuban hospitals. So how did the Castro regime's propaganda machine manage to fool so many for so long? According to Maria Werlau, executive director of the Cuba Archive, the answer lies with Cuba's foreign medical missions, which are teams of health care professionals dispatched to provide emergency and routine care to foreign countries. Rios participated in the medical mission in Sierra Leone in 2013, where health care specialists from around the world came to help contain the Ebola epidemic. The members of the mission were told that when they returned to Cuba, they would be received as heroes. Rios says that, while he did receive a stipend that went to cover his living expenses, medical personnel from other countries were generously compensated. In a 2020 report, Human Rights Watch said the Cuban medical missions "violate [doctors'] fundamental rights," including "the right to privacy, freedom of expression and association, liberty, and movement, among others." It noted that "many doctors feel pressured to participate in the missions and fear retaliation if they do not..." After the mission in Sierra Leone, Rios was redeployed to a military base in Mexico. One day, he was sent with a group of doctors to buy some phone cards so they could connect with their relatives back home. He decided to make his escape. Rios found a job at a Mexican pharmacy and started saving money to pay a coyote to bring him into the U.S. He was picked up by border officials, and taken to an immigrant detention center for 42 days. After his release, he could join his family in Miami. The medical missions are primarily a way of selling Cuban health care services abroad. So what's health care like for those living on the island? Julio Cesar Alfonso is the president of the Miami-based Solidarity Without Borders, which helps Cuban doctors who have escaped. He says that there are two health care systems in Cuba—one that is used by the majority of regular citizens, and another that is reserved for tourists and the Cuban elite. Sánchez thinks that, as the Castros' health care myth crumbles, ordinary Cubans are beginning to realize that they are not threatened by foreign enemies, as the regime propaganda machine has claimed for decades. "The only enemy of the Cuban people," he says, "is the Cuban government." Written and hosted by Daniel Raisbeck and Jim Epstein; narrated by Daniel Raisbeck; edited by John Osterhoudt; camera by Epstein, Osterhoudt, Isaac Reese, and Meredith Bragg; graphic design by Nathalie Walker; animations by Reese and Osterhoudt; additional editing support by Regan Taylor; ; additional research by Alexandra De Caires; translation assistance by María Jose Inojosa Salina; English subtitles by Caitlin Peters.

A deeply flawed documentary by the gray lady unwittingly makes the case for why the CDC shouldn't be studying gun violence. Full text: https://reason.com/video/2022/09/30/g... ------------------------ The New York Times published an 11-minute documentary in June titled "'It Was Really a Love Story.' How an N.R.A. Ally Became a Gun Safety Advocate," which tells a heartwarming story of how friendship transcended political differences and convinced a right-wing partisan to come to terms with the truth about firearms. The film stars a couple of improbable friends: Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg, who for many years oversaw research on gun violence at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the director of its National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and "NRA Pointman" Rep. Jay Dickey (R–Ark.), who was the author of an amendment inserted into a 1996 spending bill that prohibited the CDC from using federal funds to advocate for gun control. The story is also framed by the findings of a famous (or infamous) 1993 CDC-funded study, which was "the first piece that we funded by external scientists," Rosenberg recounts. It allegedly showed that owning guns made Americans overwhelmingly less safe. According to the film, the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbied for the Dickey Amendment because of the 1993 study's damning results. The organization "didn't think it would be good for business," Rosenberg says, "and they went to Congress, and they said, 'You have got to stop this research because it's going to result in all Americans losing their right to have a gun in their homes.'" Dickey and Rosenberg started out as "mortal enemies," but after making small talk about their kids during a chance conversation they developed "an incredible friendship," as Rosenberg recounts. Years later, they were habitually ending their conversations by telling each other "I love you," and "we really meant it," Rosenberg says. Through the power of this human connection, Dickey ends up seeing reason and changing his mind. He comes to believe that the amendment bearing his name was a mistake. It's a story of redemption through friendship that's well-tuned to our own hyperpolarized times. The lesson is that if blind partisans aren't swayed by empirical evidence, human connection might just do the trick. "Underneath what people think are such opposing forces are some very important shared values," Rosenberg says. Although the moral of the documentary is undoubtedly true, every other detail is wrong. The takeaway from the story of Dickey, Rosenberg, and the 1993 gun study at the center of the piece is that the congressman was correct to begin with. The CDC shouldn't be studying gun violence. Despite the study's problems, which have been written about widely, Rosenberg attributes all of the criticism to gun manufacturers concerned about potential loss of sales. Though the Dickey amendment prohibited the CDC's Injury Center from spending money on gun control promotion and advocacy, Rosenberg blames it for shutting off all research into gun violence. Rosenberg sums up the Dickey amendment as follows: "If you do research in this area, we will harass you." An example of the harassment Rosenberg gives is "the threat of congressional inquiries" that can "wreak havoc with your research." Why does Rosenberg think that taxpayer-funded research shouldn't be subject to congressional inquiry? Rather than stating that he was willing to answer sensible and relevant questions, Rosenberg wanted to be shielded from congressional Republicans like Dickey, who he deemed ignorant and evil. "Worse than not understanding," Rosenberg says, "he doesn't care." The Dickey amendment didn't prevent the CDC from gathering and analyzing data on gun injuries and deaths. Many gun control researchers rely on CDC data. But gun control is part of a much larger issue of crime, violence, rights, and policy effects; it's not something that can be studied usefully with only infectious disease models, methods, and data. Written by Aaron Brown and John Osterhoudt; edited by Osterhoudt; graphics by Adani Samat; additional graphics by Regan Taylor and Isaac Reese. Photos: Associated Press; Cottonbro/Pexels; Roll Call/Newscom

Discredited 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus still haunts the environmental debate. ---------------- Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth," said climate activist and Time magazine person-of-the-year Greta Thunberg before the United Nations in the summer of 2019. "How dare you!" Some praised Thunberg's performance as a stinging rebuke to the rich and powerful for failing to put the survival of the planet above their own needs. Others saw the exploitation of a young woman with emotional problems for propagandistic ends. There's no question that Thunberg's style of environmentalism—strident, urgent, and critical of global capitalism—has gained a strong foothold in contemporary politics. A 2019 paper from the journal Bioscience, co-signed by more than 11,000 scientists, asserted that Earth's population "must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced." And some politicians have questioned the morality of having children at all. Whether contemporary proponents of these ideas know it or not, they are all the intellectual heirs of the misguided 18th-century thinker Robert Thomas Malthus, who believed that when human population increased, famine and environmental destruction would ensue. Reason's science correspondent Ron Bailey, who is the author of the 2015 book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, says that Malthus failed to see that as human population increased, so too would livestock and crop populations with the help of ever-improving agricultural technology, which is why food availability steadily increased over the past two centuries, outpacing population growth. "Basically, the Malthusian prescription turns out to be completely wrong," says Bailey. is it really possible that the world could run out of food? While the International Food Policy Research Institute projects that farmers will have to produce 70 percent more food over the next 30 years to feed everyone on the planet, the technology already exists to accomplish that goal. Agronomist Paul Waggoner calculates that if all farmers became as efficient as today's U.S. corn growers, the world could feed 10 billion people today on half as much land. Today's Malthusians are most concerned about the disruptive effects of climate change. Citing global warming and habitat destruction, documentarian David Attenborough described humanity as a "plague upon the Earth." Meanwhile, the Bioscience paper signed by 11,000 scientists projects total societal collapse if population isn't managed properly. "I think that there's a kind of a catastrophizing, apocalyptic undercurrent," says Ted Nordhaus, founder of the Breakthrough Institute, which advocates technological solutions to environmental problems. He believes the environmental movement has long been hindered by its anti-growth paradigm. "Conventional environmental ideology posits human development and environmental protection, oppositionally, and I have exactly the opposite view," he says. Nordhaus says that the most effective way to deal with climate change is by promoting policies that accelerate economic growth. And so Nordhaus advocates for greater reliance on clean, abundant energy like nuclear power to fuel advanced economies towards possibly innovating even lower impact alternatives. But the third-world may still need to rely on traditional fossil fuels on its path to prosperity and population stabilization. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by John Osterhoudt, James Lee Marsh, and Meredith Bragg. Photo credits: Greta Thunberg in train station, Hansson Krister/ZUMA Press/Newscom; David Attenborough at conference, David Perry/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Greta Thunberg and others on stage at UN, Jacques Witt/SIPA/Newscom; Greta Thunberg speaking at UN, JEMAL COUNTESS/UPI/Newscom; Greta Thunberg smiling and listening at UN, Abaca Press/Roses Nicolas/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom; Starving baby, Nie Yunpeng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Starving kids' hands, Nie Yunpeng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom;

The government and media relied on studies plagued by shoddy statistics to make the case for blocking evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. For full text, links, and more, go to: https://reason.com/video/2021/07/01/t... ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) halted residential evictions in the United States for nonpayment of rent due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many states and municipalities got there first, imposing at least partial eviction moratoriums starting in March and April of 2020. The theory behind these emergency orders was that if Americans were forced to leave their homes and move into more crowded settings, it would increase transmission of COVID-19. The federal ban was supposed to expire at the end of 2020. Then it was extended a month, then two more months, then through the end of June, and then last week, the CDC extended it again until the end of July. Many states and cities have also extended their moratoriums—in some cases through the end of September, even as COVID-19 infection and death rates are plummeting. Were the eviction bans necessary to protect public health during the pandemic? Two studies that got widespread media attention, and that have been cited by the federal government to support its policies, claim to show that the moratoriums saved thousands of lives. "Researchers estimated that the lifting of moratoriums could have resulted in between 365,200 and 502,200 excess coronavirus cases and between 8,900 and 12,500 excess deaths," noted NPR, in an interview with postdoctoral researcher Kathryn Leifheit of UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. Leifheit was the lead author of "Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality," a study cited by the CDC in its order extending the federal moratorium. (Leifheit didn't respond to Reason's interview request.) The second study, which also makes dramatic claims about the eviction moratoriums, was authored by a team of researchers at Duke University. It got widespread media attention and was cited twice by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the federal register as justification for its rulemaking. These studies are deeply flawed. Their underlying data are incomplete and inconsistent. Their results are implausible. The size of the effect is wildly disproportionate to other public health interventions. The researchers also claim an absurd amount of certainty in their results despite the large uncertainties in the data they use, and they assert a causal effect based solely on correlation. If the authors were correct, they would have arrived at one of the greatest public health discoveries in history. It took over a year and perhaps $100 billion to reduce COVID-19 rates by 40 percent with vaccinations; the Duke researchers claim that if a universal eviction moratorium had been implemented six months earlier, it could have reduced death rates by over 40 percent. Researchers have struggled to demonstrate the benefits of masks, social distancing, and lockdowns with high levels of certainty. Yet these eviction moratorium researchers find high confidence for a gigantic immediate effect from a legal change affecting a tiny subset of the population. Finally, the authors of the Duke study declined to share their dataset with Reason for scrutiny on the grounds that it hasn't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, which not only raises additional red flags but is a violation of basic research ethics—particularly in the case of a study that's been widely reported on in the media and is cited by a government agency as justification for federal policies. Produced and edited by Justin Monticello. Written by Monticello and Aaron Brown. Graphics by Isaac Reese. Audio production by Ian Keyser. Music: Aerial Cliff by Michele Nobler, Land of the Lion by C.K. Martin, The Plan's Working by Cooper Cannell, Thoughts by ANBR, Flight of the Inner Bird by Sivan Talmor and Yehezkel Raz, and Run by Tristan Barton. Photos: Marilyn Humphries/Newscom; John Rudoff/Sipa USA/Newscom; Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom; Marilyn Humphries/Newscom; John Rudoff/Sipa USA/Newscom; Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom; Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom; Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom Eviction protest footage: Liberation News/YouTube

The data behind apocalypse 2030 is based on placing blame, not predicting the future. For full text, links, and credits, go to: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/30/1... ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- Many officials and climate activists claim we have only 12 years to act on global warming. Where does this figure come from? A 2018 Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The second sentence of that document reads, "Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate." The 12-year figure comes from subtracting the year of the report, 2018, from the earliest possible date of 1.5 degrees C warming, 2030. The problem is that this was a statement about the past, dressed up to suggest that it's about the future. It's not about what will happen; it's extrapolating from what has already happened. Actual temperatures in 2030 will depend on whether warming speeds up or slows down, and also on whether the year is warmer or colder than the long-term trend. Why the 22-year range? The authors of the IPCC report defined the current rate using data from 1960 to 2017. Using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) land-ocean temperature series that underpins most popular reporting about warming, global excess temperatures were 0 in January 1960 and 0.94 degrees C in December 2017. So the Earth has to warm another 0.56 degrees C to reach 1.5 degrees C. Some fifth-grade math tells us that should happen in 34.55 years if warming continues at the same rate. We'd hit 1.5 degrees C on July 21, 2051. Different measurements might give a couple of years either way, but not 22 years. The range of 2030 to 2052 is not about how warm the earth is but who's responsible for the change in temperature. The figures reflect "anthropogenic warming," or warming rooted in human activity. By citing a range of 2030 to 2052, the authors are indicating a high level of uncertainty. They're not sure how much of the 0.17 degrees C per decade warming is "anthropogenic," or rooted in human activity. They think it's possible that humans are warming the Earth 0.3 degrees C and some unknown factor is actually cooling the Earth 0.13 degrees C. (The IPCC declined to make any of the report's authors available for an interview). If you think the problem with global warming is hotter temperatures (melting ice, rising sea levels, and other physical effects), then you should care about the year 2052, not 2030. But if you think the problem with global warming is that humans are tampering with something pristine—and you only consider the worst possible scenario—then 2030 is your date. Focusing on anthropogenic warming suggests that what's happening in the real world matters less than who's at fault. Produced and edited by Justin Monticello; written by Monticello and Aaron Brown; camera by Zach Weissmueller; graphics by Isaac Reese; audio production by Ian Keyser. Music: Aerial Cliff by Michele Nobler, Land of the Lion by C.K. Martin, Thoughts by ANBR, Flight of the Inner Bird by Sivan Talmor and Yehezkel Raz, and Run by Tristan Barton

Out of 27,900 research publications on gun laws, only 123 tested their effects rigorously. ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV?sub_... Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- After reaching historic lows in the mid-2010s, gun violence rates in America have gone up in recent years, and they remain higher than in some other parts of the developed world. There are hundreds of laws and regulations at the federal and state level that restrict Americans' access to guns, yet according to some advocates, social science research shows that a few more "simple, commonsense" laws could significantly reduce the number of injuries and deaths attributed to firearms. There has been a massive research effort going back decades to determine whether gun control measures work. A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously. Some of the other 27,777 studies may have been useful for non-empirical discussions, but many others were deeply flawed. We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws. The answer: nothing. The 123 studies that met RAND's criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems. And these glaring methodological flaws are not specific to gun control research; they are typical of how the academic publishing industry responds to demands from political partisans for scientific evidence that does not exist. Not only is the social science literature on gun control broadly useless, but it provides endless fodder for advocates who say that "studies prove" that a particular favored policy would have beneficial outcomes. This matters because gun laws, even if they don't accomplish their goals, have large costs. They can turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, they increase prosecutorial power and incarceration, and they exacerbate the racial and socioeconomic inequities in the criminal justice system. For full text, links, and more, go to https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/d... Produced and edited by Justin Monticello. Written by Monticello and Aaron Brown. Graphics by Adani Samat and Isaac Reese. Audio production by Ian Keyser. Music: Aerial Cliff by Michele Nobler, Land of the Lion by C.K. Martin, The Plan's Working by Cooper Cannell, Thoughts by ANBR, Flight of the Inner Bird by Sivan Talmor and Yehezkel Raz, and Run by Tristan Barton. Photos: Hollandse-Hoogte/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Robin Rayne/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Ted Soqui/Sipa USA/Newscom; YES Market Media/Yaroslav Sabitov/YES Market Medi/Newscom; Chuck Liddy/TNS/Newscom; YES Market Media/Yaroslav Sabitov/YES Market Medi/Newscom; Brett Coomer/Rapport Press/Newscom; Martha Asencio-Rhine/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Jebb Harris/ZUMA Press/Newscom; John Gastaldo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Greg Smith/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Richard Ellis/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Matthew McDermott/Polaris/Newscom; KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Sandy Macys / UPI Photo Service/Newscom; E. Jason Wambsgans/TNS/Newscom; Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom; Matthew McDermott/Polaris/Newscom

New York Carry Must Show Cause is Ruled Unconstitutional Violating the 2nd Amendment. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/supre... Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/Kotaboy32 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/kotaboy32 Email: kotaboy32@gmail.com Kotaboy32 Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Kotaboy32-14... Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK. All work on firearms should be carried out by a licensed individual and all state and federal rules apply to such. We (including YouTube) will not be held liable for any injury to yourself or damage to your firearms resulting from attempting anything shown in any our videos. I do not endorse any specific product and this video is not an attempt to sell you a good or service. I am not a gun shop and DO NOT sell or deal in Firearms. Such a practice is heavily regulated and subject to applicable laws. I DO NOT sell parts, magazines, or firearms. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately. By viewing or flagging this video you are acknowledging the above. Fair Use: In the rare instance I include someone else’s footage it is covered in Fair Use for Documentary and Educational purposes with intention of driving commentary and allowing freedom of speech.