Anyone over age 21 in California can now walk into a store and pick up some marijuana. After three months of legalized recreational cannabis sales, how is the industry doing?
To learn more, we tracked one product—the Kiva chocolate bar—up the supply chain, from seed to sale.
What we found was surprising: Cannabis entrepreneurs are anxious about the future of the legal market under California's highly regulated and highly taxed system. Under these conditions, some industry insiders expect the black market will continue to thrive.
"The situation in the market is pretty dire," says Kristi Knoblich Palmer, COO and co-founder of KIVA, which recently had to lay off employees for the first time in its history. "That has everything to do with the cost of cannabis to the end consumer."
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning and Weissmueller.
"kick, push" by Ryan Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little/~/kick_push
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little
"Soul High" by Ryan Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little/Before_Dawn_II/02_Soul_High
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little
"Sand Castles" by Ryan Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little/Before_Dawn_II/06_Sandcastles
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little
"Street Light" by Ryan Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little/Before_Dawn_II/11_Street_Light_-_LIFE_Ryan_Little_Boom_Bap_Edit
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little
"Get Up" by Ryan Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little/Before_Dawn_II/07_Get_Up
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ryan_Little
"Cast in Wicker" by Blue Dot Sessions is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/Aeronaut/Cast_in_Wicker
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/
"Tranquility Base" by A.A. Aalto is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/A_A_Aalto/Bright_Corners/Tranquility_Base
Artist: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/A_A_Aalto
The post California's Legal Weed Is So Heavily Taxed and Regulated That the Black Market Might Survive appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>On a hot summer night in July, crowds of people gathered in a remote wooded area in front of a concert stage. Their faces were covered in clown makeup and their arms and legs painted with hatchetman tattoos.
By the end of the night, they'd all be covered in sticky, cheap soda.
This was the annual "Gathering of the Juggalos" in Oklahoma City, where thousands flock to see their favorite rap group, Insane Clown Posse (ICP).
The Juggalos aren't just ICP fans— they've built a cultural identity around the music, the rap duo, and what it represents. In turn, ICP has stood up for its followers as they've been harassed and profiled all over the country. Unwittingly, these two white rappers from Detroit have become some of the nation's most determined advocates for free expression.
On September 16, 2017, ICP will lead the Juggalos in a march on the National Mall in Washington D.C. They'll be protesting the FBI's decision to label the group as a "hybrid gang" back in 2011 in the agency's National Gang Threat Assessment. Since then, local police have used the report as guidance, resulting in rampant harassment and profiling of a group defined by its love for a music group.
ICP sued the FBI in 2014, but after three appeals, the case hasn't made it to trial. So now the group is heading to D.C.
"It's a publicity stunt," says ICP's Violent J (Joseph Bruce). "We want to say to everybody, 'we're not cool with that.'"
"[If] Juggalos are being fucked with, we got to do something about it," says Violent J's partner Shaggy 2 Dope (Joseph Utsler). "If that ties us into some First Amendment movement, whatever, we're First Amendment warriors. I don't know."
In the early 1990s, the rap duo from Detroit started to notice that its unique brand of scary horror rap was attracting poor, scrubby, white kids also from the Motor City.
"We represent people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth but instead with a rusty fork," said Violent J in a 1995 interview.
So Violent J. and Shaggy 2 Dope started painting their faces like clowns as a point of pride. If society was going to treat the poor like carnival freaks, they would play along. The duo also started bringing bottles of the cheap soda pop Faygo on stage to spray the audience during their sets.
In 1997, ICP had its album pulled from stores by Hollywood Records, a subsidiary of Disney. A few years later the duo had a disappointing experience at Woodstock '99, a corporate reboot of Woodstock '69. So ICP decided to chart its own path away from the mainstream.
In 2000, the group held the first "Gathering of the Juggalos," which was around when their fans started to draw negative attention.
"They're the poor white people that everybody has no problem mocking," says pop culture writer Nathan Rabin, who's the author of the Juggalo-centric books You Don't Know Me But You Don't Like Me and 7 Days in Ohio.
But ICP used its pop-culture-punchline status to bolster its fan base. Getting demonized by society brought the community closer. Juggalos often refer to each other as family.
"We feel like whatever the magic is that's bringing us all together, whatever the magic is they're hearing, is the same magic we're feeling," says Violent J."This shit saved our lives too."
"It's very validating and exciting to be around people who love you just because of what you do and what you like," says Rabin.
Then came the FBI's gang classification, which ICP initially took lightly.
"When we first heard about it, you know, we were just like, 'yo, that's pretty cool'" says Shaggy 2 Dope.
"Like out of all the nations top gangs, they actually think we're a gang. We must really be out there," says Violent J. "We had no idea of any repercussions that were going to happen because of that."
Then Juggalos started getting harassed by the police for having hatchetman stickers on their cars, and identification with the group started coming up in child custody cases.
"I didn't have a problem with this country. Then all of a sudden they technically made it illegal to be a Juggalo," says Violent J. "It's like they took that one thing away that made me not have a problem with the government."
Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Shot by Detrick and Alex Manning.
Hall of the Mountain King by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1200072
Artist: http://incompetech.com/
White Atlantis by Sergey Cheremisinov is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Sergey_Cheremisinov/White_Atlantis/Sergey_Cheremisinov_-_White_Atlantis_-_05_White_Atlantis
Artist:https://www.s-cheremisinov.com/
When You Leave by Sergey Cheremisinov is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Sergey_Cheremisinov/Charms/Sergey_Cheremisinov_-_Charms_-_04_When_You_Leave
Artist:https://www.s-cheremisinov.com/
Jump in Infinity by Sergey Cheremisinov is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Sergey_Cheremisinov/The_Signals/Sergey_Cheremisinov_-_The_Signals_-_01_Jump_In_Infinity
Artist:https://www.s-cheremisinov.com/
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post Insane Clown Posse: 'We're First Amendment Warriors' for Juggalo Nation appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Tech entrepreneur George Burke consumes a tiny amount of LSD (about a tenth of a typical dose) every morning before he goes to work.
He says "microdosing" subtly improves his cognitive functioning.
"I notice that my brain seems to be able to solve problems a little bit better than…before," says Burke, who runs a startup called Fuel that helps its clients custom tailor their diets to their unique genetic makeups.
The use of psychedelics as productivity and creativity hacks is deeply rooted in Silicon Valley culture. Burke was partly inspired to go public about his drug use by the late Steve Jobs, who told his biographer Walter Isaacson, "[t]aking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life."
"People have to actually have to step up and state what they've been doing," says Burke.
Reason spoke with Burke and with James Fadiman, a scientist researching the effects of microdosing.
Watch the full video above.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera Alex Manning. Additional graphics by Meredith Bragg. Music by Kai Engel and Broke for Free.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post LSD Microdosing: The New Silicon Valley Productivity Hack appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The study of psychedelics is "bringing psychotherapy and medicine together," says David Nutt, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London and a co-author of the first imaging study looking at the effects of LSD on the human brain. "Drug-assisted psychotherapy is going to be the great advance in the [field in the] next 20 years."
In 2009, Nutt was fired from his job as a drug adviser to the British government after he made comments about ecstasy and other illegal drugs being less dangerous than alcohol and even horseback riding.
Reason's Zach Weissmueller sat down with Nutt at the Psychedelic Science 2017 conference in Oakland to talk about the results of his groundbreaking imaging study, what he learned about drug policy while working as a science adviser for the English government, and what he sees for the future of psychedelics and mental health treatment.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller
Camera by Alex Manning. Additional graphics by Meredith Bragg.
Music by Sergey Cheremisinov.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
This is a rush transcript—check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.
Zach: Hi I'm Zach Weissmueller for Reason. We're here at the Psychedelic Science 2017 conference in Oakland. I'm here with David Nutt. He is the Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at the Imperial College of London. Thank you very much for joining us Dr. Nutt.
Dr. Nutt: Good to be here.
Zach: You were the chief drug advisor in England. Something happened, could you just tell us that story?
Dr. Nutt: For nine years I was the head of the group that assessed drug harms for the government and over that time we did an enormous amount of research into the comparative harms of drugs. As a result of that I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that alcohol was actually the most harmful drug in the UK. The drugs that politicians like to get hysterical about like cannabis and MDMA, Ecstasy, are comparably much less harmful. So then I started explaining that to the government saying, "Well, our drug laws are wrong. Actually putting people in prison for cannabis possession is not fair because alcohol is more dangerous." They did not want to hear that. They said, "Stop saying that."
Zach: They sacked you for looking at the data and giving your analysis. Isn't that your job as the Drug Advisor of the government?
Dr. Nutt: Well, I thought it was my job, yeah. I thought my job was to evaluate evidence and make recommendations, but they said, "Oh no, no, he's doing more than that. He's trying to change government policy." I said, "I thought that's what all scientists did." If the evidence suggests the policy's wrong then we want to change the policy, once you been sacked you've got no comeback. Although, of course, what did happen was that it brought the whole issue of drug harms and comparative harms in the public domain. There was an enormous outcry and a lot of scientists wrote petitions saying they should reinstate me. I became famous and the whole drug debate went viral. So for the first time we actually had a proper debate. The government shot itself in the head really because it went from drugs being something you didn't talk about to drugs being something everyone wanted to talk about.
Zach: Why was that such a taboo thing to say?
Dr. Nutt: There are some things which you can't have what you might call a balanced debate because everyone has a strong view. Drugs are bad, drugs are bad, War on Drugs, we've got to get rid of drugs. That was our policy the same way it's been American policy. Anyone challenging that was actually really cutting to the heart of the prejudices which underpin the British establishment. And it went right through government. It went certainly through both the right wing and the left wing parties.
Zach: It's my understanding that the US drug policy really drives a lot of policy in other countries. Could you speak to that as someone involved in the European drug policy?
Dr. Nutt: Absolutely. US policy on drugs was basically rolled out across the world through the United Nations. The US said "Jump", we said, "How high sir?" Every single drug policy in Britain was driven to comply with American policy. And I know that, I know there were drugs which were not controlled in Britain, like khat and I know that the US government pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed our government to eventually get khat bound. I managed to hold that back actually until I was sacked. We didn't make it illegal, but eventually they gave in.
Zach: Is the pressure coming through trade deals? Is it the UN? How does that work exactly?
Dr. Nutt: Yeah, well that's a good question because of course there's no pressure. There's nothing public. It's all behind the scenes. A few weeks later you'll hear from the Department of Health, "We don't like the policy on cannabis." "What's changed? Was it the fact that our Prime Minster was talking to George Bush?" It was those sorts of things. It's all off the record. It's just back story political pressure.
Zach: Your first and foremost a drug researcher. You've just completed some very interesting research in conjunction with the Beckley Foundation. It was a brain imaging study in relation to LSD. Could you tell me how that study was structured?
Dr. Nutt: LSD, a fascinating drug. In the 1950's and 60's it was going to solve the world's problems. The National Institute of Health in America funded 140 separate studies on LSD. A thousand papers were published, 40,000 patients, it was the revolutionary drug. Then as soon as it started being used recreationally, it suddenly became the evil drug and it got banned. Since then there's never been a single study of LSD in America and there's never been an imaging study of LSD. As a scientist, as a psychiatrist, a drug that has such profound opportunities to change the way, for instance, people are addicted, seemed to me we must study it. So having done studies with a sort of simpler, less threatening psychedelic, Psilocybin, mushroom juice, we decided it was time to bite the bullet and do the first brain imaging study of LSD.
Zach: So you were quite literally looking at, "This is your brain on drugs" and what is our brain on this particular drug?
Dr. Nutt: Well the good news is no one's brain got fried, but what we saw, we saw effects which were somewhat similar to what we'd seen with Psilocybin, but more profound, which you might expect because LSD has a very profound effect on many aspects of brain function. The key messages are that LSD breaks down the normal structure of brain integration. Our brains are trained over decades to do things exactly the same way as everyone else and exactly the same way everyday, every hour, every minute, every second. Those structures we thought were hardwired, but it turns out they're not hardwired. They can be disrupted by LSD. LSD basically makes the brain much more connected.
Parts of the brain which haven't been allowed to talk to each other for 30, 40 years can talk to each other again, huge amount of crosstalk. We call this the entropic brain or the much more flexible brain. We think that's what underlies the experiences that people have during the trip, even got good evidence for that, but also explains why afterwards people often feel different and better because they've been allowed to … actually the brain's been allowed to work in a slightly different way for the first time, perhaps ever.
Zach: My understanding is that when people were closing their eyes the part of the brain that's associated with vision was actually still active. Could you tell me what you take away from that?
Dr. Nutt: Yeah, so what we showed was that the so-called … the complex visual hallucinations that people say under psychedelics. They close their eyes and they say it's like films going on in front of their eyes even though their eyes are closed. We discovered why that is, it's because normally I close my eyes and there's very little activity in my visual cortex and there's not activity linking the visual cortex to the rest of my brain, but under LSD the visual cortex was connected to every part of the brain. So there was crosstalk and, of course, crosstalk for the visual system is visual talk so that's why you have these fascinating, complex, interesting images.
Zach: If one of the big takeaways from this is that on LSD different parts of the brain that don't usually work together are suddenly somehow connected, what does that mean in practicality, in application? Where does that take us? What questions should we now be asking that we have that information?
Zach: Hi I'm Zach Weissmueller for Reason. We're here at the Psychedelic Science 2017 conference in Oakland. I'm here with David Nutt. He is the Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at the Imperial College of London. Thank you very much for joining us Dr. Nutt.
Dr. Nutt: Good to be here.
Zach: You were the chief drug advisor in England. Something happened, could you just tell us that story?
Dr. Nutt: For nine years I was the head of the group that assessed drug harms for the government and over that time we did an enormous amount of research into the comparative harms of drugs. As a result of that I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that alcohol was actually the most harmful drug in the UK. The drugs that politicians like to get hysterical about like cannabis and MDMA, Ecstasy, are comparably much less harmful. So then I started explaining that to the government saying, "Well, our drug laws are wrong. Actually putting people in prison for cannabis possession is not fair because alcohol is more dangerous." They did not want to hear that. They said, "Stop saying that."
Zach: They sacked you for looking at the data and giving your analysis. Isn't that your job as the Drug Advisor of the government?
Dr. Nutt: Well, I thought it was my job, yeah. I thought my job was to evaluate evidence and make recommendations, but they said, "Oh no, no, he's doing more than that. He's trying to change government policy." I said, "I thought that's what all scientists did." If the evidence suggests the policy's wrong then we want to change the policy, once you been sacked you've got no comeback. Although, of course, what did happen was that it brought the whole issue of drug harms and comparative harms in the public domain. There was an enormous outcry and a lot of scientists wrote petitions saying they should reinstate me. I became famous and the whole drug debate went viral. So for the first time we actually had a proper debate. The government shot itself in the head really because it went from drugs being something you didn't talk about to drugs being something everyone wanted to talk about.
Zach: Why was that such a taboo thing to say?
Dr. Nutt: There are some things which you can't have what you might call a balanced debate because everyone has a strong view. Drugs are bad, drugs are bad, War on Drugs, we've got to get rid of drugs. That was our policy the same way it's been American policy. Anyone challenging that was actually really cutting to the heart of the prejudices which underpin the British establishment. And it went right through government. It went certainly through both the right wing and the left wing parties.
Zach: It's my understanding that the US drug policy really drives a lot of policy in other countries. Could you speak to that as someone involved in the European drug policy?
Dr. Nutt: Absolutely. US policy on drugs was basically rolled out across the world through the United Nations. The US said "Jump", we said, "How high sir?" Every single drug policy in Britain was driven to comply with American policy. And I know that, I know there were drugs which were not controlled in Britain, like khat and I know that the US government pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed our government to eventually get khat bound. I managed to hold that back actually until I was sacked. We didn't make it illegal, but eventually they gave in.
Zach: Is the pressure coming through trade deals? Is it the UN? How does that work exactly?
Dr. Nutt: Yeah, well that's a good question because of course there's no pressure. There's nothing public. It's all behind the scenes. A few weeks later you'll hear from the Department of Health, "We don't like the policy on cannabis." "What's changed? Was it the fact that our Prime Minster was talking to George Bush?" It was those sorts of things. It's all off the record. It's just back story political pressure.
Zach: Your first and foremost a drug researcher. You've just completed some very interesting research in conjunction with the Beckley Foundation. It was a brain imaging study in relation to LSD. Could you tell me how that study was structured?
Dr. Nutt: LSD, a fascinating drug. In the 1950's and 60's it was going to solve the world's problems. The National Institute of Health in America funded 140 separate studies on LSD. A thousand papers were published, 40,000 patients, it was the revolutionary drug. Then as soon as it started being used recreationally, it suddenly became the evil drug and it got banned. Since then there's never been a single study of LSD in America and there's never been an imaging study of LSD. As a scientist, as a psychiatrist, a drug that has such profound opportunities to change the way, for instance, people are addicted, seemed to me we must study it. So having done studies with a sort of simpler, less threatening psychedelic, Psilocybin, mushroom juice, we decided it was time to bite the bullet and do the first brain imaging study of LSD.
Zach: So you were quite literally looking at, "This is your brain on drugs" and what is our brain on this particular drug?
Dr. Nutt: Well the good news is no one's brain got fried, but what we saw, we saw effects which were somewhat similar to what we'd seen with Psilocybin, but more profound, which you might expect because LSD has a very profound effect on many aspects of brain function. The key messages are that LSD breaks down the normal structure of brain integration. Our brains are trained over decades to do things exactly the same way as everyone else and exactly the same way everyday, every hour, every minute, every second. Those structures we thought were hardwired, but it turns out they're not hardwired. They can be disrupted by LSD. LSD basically makes the brain much more connected.
Parts of the brain which haven't been allowed to talk to each other for 30, 40 years can talk to each other again, huge amount of crosstalk. We call this the entropic brain or the much more flexible brain. We think that's what underlies the experiences that people have during the trip, even got good evidence for that, but also explains why afterwards people often feel different and better because they've been allowed to … actually the brain's been allowed to work in a slightly different way for the first time, perhaps ever.
Zach: My understanding is that when people were closing their eyes the part of the brain that's associated with vision was actually still active. Could you tell me what you take away from that?
Dr. Nutt: Yeah, so what we showed was that the so-called … the complex visual hallucinations that people say under psychedelics. They close their eyes and they say it's like films going on in front of their eyes even though their eyes are closed. We discovered why that is, it's because normally I close my eyes and there's very little activity in my visual cortex and there's not activity linking the visual cortex to the rest of my brain, but under LSD the visual cortex was connected to every part of the brain. So there was crosstalk and, of course, crosstalk for the visual system is visual talk so that's why you have these fascinating, complex, interesting images.
Zach: If one of the big takeaways from this is that on LSD different parts of the brain that don't usually work together are suddenly somehow connected, what does that mean in practicality, in application? Where does that take us? What questions should we now be asking that we have that information?
Dr. Nutt: Well, I think what's fascinating about it is it doesn't just explain the psychedelic state, but it also helps us make sense of why drugs like LSD can change the way people behave in the long term. There were six trials in American for LSD to be used to treat alcoholism. In fact, the founder of AA, Bill Wilson, he got his liberation from his alcoholism, the chains that held him to his drink were broken by a psychedelic experience. He became a profound enthusiast for LSD. He pioneered these six trials of using LSD for alcoholism. It works, people are much less likely to relapse back to drinking after they've had a psychedelic experience because they can see there's a world out there which isn't all about the bottle.
Zach: How difficult or easy was it to study this in the first place?
Dr. Nutt: Well, it wasn't easy, but because it was an experiment on normal volunteers it was a lot easier than doing it in patients. So the big challenge then, or now, is to go from these interesting studies in normal volunteers and take them into patients. That becomes a lot more complicated because an experiment is controlled by a different kind of ethics than a medicine.
Zach: At this conference we've heard researchers talk about some potentially promising results using psychedelics to treat things like PTSD, depression, anxiety. Do the brain scans that you did offer any clue as to why psychedelics seem to offer some relief to these kind of conditions?
Dr. Nutt: Psychiatric disorders, say like depression or PTSD, exist because people cannot disengage. They get locked into a form of thinking. Depressed people keep thinking negative thoughts. "I made a mistake. I was a bad mother." "I made a mistake. I was a bad person." They can't disengage those thoughts. PTSD, people can't disengage from the memory and over time those circuits in the brain become completely self-determining. They just go on and on and on, even if the person wants to stop them. And they can't. I think the disruption of circuits, the breaking down of these regimented silos of function of the brain by psychedelics is one explanation as to why people can escape from those underlying disorders.
Zach: Some critics might think why study psychedelics at all? We have pharmaceuticals that treat anxiety, depression, that are specifically designed to help with these disorders. Why open this can of worms and study psychedelics at all?
Dr. Nutt: Yeah, that's a really important question. And the people who are against psychedelics often say that, "We don't need it. We've got good treatments." Well, the truth is we don't have very good treatments. Half of all people who are treated with antidepressants don't respond to the first dose. To get 90% to respond you usually have two or three trials. So there are people who don't respond and never respond so there's an opportunity for them. Disorders like alcoholism response rates are like 10% not 80%. So there's a huge unmet need, that the first thing. Second thing is, these are fundamental states of ordered consciousness. I would argue the greatest goal for science is understanding the human brain. You can understand the human brain if you don't understand how the human brain is different when it's on a psychedelic. To me, this is one of the most fundamental questions.
Zach: Do you think psychedelics could offer a scientific glimpse into the phenomemon of consciousness itself?
Dr. Nutt: The conclusion I've come to from our work is there are at least two forms of consciousness. There's a consciousness which most people talk about when they talk about consciousness, which is whether you're awake or asleep, whether you actually know what you're doing, whether you can actually remember what you're saying, whether you've got self-awareness, that's one consciousness. We know what drives that. That's driven by neurotransmitters called glutamate and GABA. And there's another form of consciousness and this is what psychedelics, psychedelics change the nature consciousness. Not the amount of it, but the content. It's completely different access of brain function. That's driven by serotonin, the serotonin receptors that psychedelics work on. That is fascinating to me. I think that access is actually an access that scientists don't know about because that's not the scientific access. That's the access that artists, creative people work on, your poets, painters. Scientists think very linearly, but this is a nonlinear kind of experiential thinking. We've opened up, I think, the scientific study of things like creativity.
Zach: As you mentioned before, back in the 50s and 60s these were questions that started to be explored and then there was this long period that coincided with The War on Drugs where it was just not explored. Now people are starting to pick these questions back up and again and start asking them again. This conference we're attending right now has been around since 2010. Back then there were only a few scientists actually running studies, you were one of them. Now it seems like it's spread. There's more people, the studies are getting bigger and bigger. Could you give us just a lay of the land? Where is psychedelic science at this moment?
Dr. Nutt: It's entering the mainstream. It's like going to college. It's a freshman, jut getting there in the first term. People seeing it and saying "Well, it's not killing people, it's actually giving us interesting insights into the brain. It may be offering new treatments." The next stage is getting what you might call the mainstream, scientists say. We can progress our science more if we use these drugs. That's going to be the next big hike. Maybe in fours years time we'll see another big expansion. The science here compared with four years ago is it's five times more. Maybe in five years time it will 25 times more.
Zach: Are there any policy changes either here in the United States or in Europe that would enable us to proceed even more quickly?
Dr. Nutt: Oh yes, well, I mean it's still very difficult. We've got to change the regulations. These drugs are all stuck in what's called Schedule I under the UN Conventions under the USA law. We've got to get them out of Schedule I. We've got to get them in Schedule II or any other schedule with allows scientists to work with them without being treated as if they're criminals.
Zach: How would you envision these types of drugs being integrated into society or the medical establishment?
Dr. Nutt: These are the drugs which bring together psychiatry and psychology. These drugs are not drugs you take every day to hold at bay your depression or your anxiety. These are drugs which you use with a psychotherapist to change the way you deal with life and that way you get mastery over your anxiety or depression. So I see these drugs as being enormously powerful ways of bringing psychotherapy and medicine together. That, I think, is going to be a huge element of psychotherapy in the future. It's going to be drug-assisted psychotherapies. It's going to be the great advance in the next 20 years.
Zach: David Nutt, thank you very much for your time.
Dr. Nutt: Thank you.
Zach: For Reason, I'm Zach Weissmueller.
The post This is Your Brain on Acid (Seriously) appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>A recent study found that MDMA-assisted therapy could help veterans suffering from PTSD. Another paper from Johns Hopkins presented evidence that therapy in conjunction with psilocybin mushrooms can help ease the mental suffering of terminal cancer patients.
These findings, among others, were presented at the 2017 Psychedelic Science Conference in Oakland, California, where researchers gather every few years to discuss the potential medical applications of psychedelics, including LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and MDMA. The field has exploded thanks to reforms at the Food and Drug Administration that allow researchers, for the first time in decades, to study the effects of these drugs.
The organizer of the conference was the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which is also funding much of this breakthrough research.
"It's a fundamental right to explore one's own consciousness," says MAPS founder Rick Doblin. "We have the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of religion, and all those are based on the freedom of thought."
At this year's conference, Reason talked to researchers about the past, present, and future of this controversial and promising area of medical research.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Alex Manning and Weissmueller. Music by Kai Engel, Selva de Mar, and Lee Rosevere.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post Psychedelic Drugs: The Future of Mental Health appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called marijuana "only slightly less awful" than heroin. But with cannabis legal in 28 states and Washington, D.C., it's clear that federal and state drug policies are at odds. Does the Trump administration want to stop marijuana legalization? How is California dealing with the uncertainty that surrounds this legal industry? What can we expect in the next four years and beyond?
On April 20, 2017, Reason hosted a panel of experts interested in the state of marijuana legalization. Lynne Lyman, California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, Diane Goldstein of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Kenny Morrison, president of the California Cannabis Manufacturer's Association and founder of the edibles manufacturer VCC Brands, and Jeff Chen, a researcher at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, answered questions from Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller as well as viewers watching live on Facebook about the future of marijuana in America, what California's market might look like, how law enforcement is reacting to the changes, and the current state of marijuana science.
Hosted by Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Alex Manning. Camera by Manning and Paul Detrick.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post Marijuana Policy in the Trump Era appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Building a network of successful charter schools isn't easy, especially in a state as wary of school choice as California. But Dan Katzir and Gloria Romero have transformed public education in the face of tough opposition from political party leaders, union bosses, and school administrators. Katzir and Romero discussed the challenges of school choice with Lisa Snell at Reason Weekend, part of a series of lectures held annually by Reason Foundation.
—|-
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.
—|
Gloria Romero, a former California state senator and Democratic majority leader, says she's "gone rogue" on her own party. Starting her own charter school, Scholarship Prep, required challenging the prevailing wisdom of party bosses, who tried to expel her from the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.
But Romero wouldn't be silenced. "Even if the pope were to tell me to stop talking about reproductive rights," she said, "I wouldn't, having grown up a Catholic, I wouldn't have listened to him, either."
Romero's determination comes from having watched public schools repeatedly fail poor and immigrant students. She watched the bureaucracy in Sacramento prioritize pay, perks, and pensions over student achievement. "Our schools are more of a public works program than a public education program," she says. "We've got to blow the system up."
On the other side of the panel sits Dan Katzir. Katzir is president and CEO of The Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, a network of 28 high-performing Los Angeles charter schools.
Opposition to school choice is baked into California's education system from the beginning. "You can't open a public school unless someone authorizes you," Katzir warns. "You essentially have to go to the monopoly provider and ask permission to compete against them."
Getting a charter school proposal authorized by the state is the first challenge of many. Then, says Katzir, "you sign a five-year contract with the devil. Because over those five years they have oversight and regulatory responsibility for you. Which in bureaucrat-ese means we are going to make your life as miserable as possible, because we now control you."
Despite formidable politcal challenges, California boasts some of the most successful charter schools in the nation. Katzir and Romero show how transformative change is possible, even against the most powerful and entrenched state bureaucracies.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post War Stories From the Charter School Movement appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Building a network of successful charter schools isn't easy, especially in a state as wary of school choice as California. But Dan Katzir and Gloria Romero have transformed public education in the face of tough opposition from political party leaders, union bosses, and school administrators. Katzir and Romero discussed the challenges of school choice with Lisa Snell at Reason Weekend, part of a series of lectures held annually by Reason Foundation.
—|-
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.
—|
Gloria Romero, a former California state senator and Democratic majority leader, says she's "gone rogue" on her own party. Starting her own charter school, Scholarship Prep, required challenging the prevailing wisdom of party bosses, who tried to expel her from the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.
But Romero wouldn't be silenced. "Even if the pope were to tell me to stop talking about reproductive rights," she said, "I wouldn't, having grown up a Catholic, I wouldn't have listened to him, either."
Romero's determination comes from having watched public schools repeatedly fail poor and immigrant students. She watched the bureaucracy in Sacramento prioritize pay, perks, and pensions over student achievement. "Our schools are more of a public works program than a public education program," she says. "We've got to blow the system up."
On the other side of the panel sits Dan Katzir. Katzir is president and CEO of The Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, a network of 28 high-performing Los Angeles charter schools.
Opposition to school choice is baked into California's education system from the beginning. "You can't open a public school unless someone authorizes you," Katzir warns. "You essentially have to go to the monopoly provider and ask permission to compete against them."
Getting a charter school proposal authorized by the state is the first challenge of many. Then, says Katzir, "you sign a five-year contract with the devil. Because over those five years they have oversight and regulatory responsibility for you. Which in bureaucrat-ese means we are going to make your life as miserable as possible, because we now control you."
Despite formidable politcal challenges, California boasts some of the most successful charter schools in the nation. Katzir and Romero show how transformative change is possible, even against the most powerful and entrenched state bureaucracies.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post War Stories From the Charter School Movement appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>In an era of daily internet outrage, Dave Rubin stands out for his willingness to engage a wide spectrum of political opinions with a civil tone. His show, The Rubin Report, has hosted the likes of alt-right gadfly Milo Yiannopolous, crusading atheist Sam Harris, and ex-governor-turned-conspiracy-theorist Jesse Ventura, all in a spirit of non-partisan intellectual inquiry.
Chatting with political adversaries has affected Rubin's politics in unexpected ways. As his beliefs turned towards individualism, he broke with the progressive show The Young Turks over the issue of identity politics. Rubin explains his ideological shift in his influential video, Why I Left the Left, which has racked up 1.7 million views in just a few months.
Today, Rubin describes himself as a classical liberal. "I do believe that the state has some use," he explains. "Now I don't want a huge state. I firmly believe in individual liberty more than anything else. And that you have to live the life you want for yourself." The one-time progressive even cast a vote for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the last presidential election.
Although his even-keeled approach to dialogue hasn't changed much, he now sees value in the outrageous style of internet punditry. "Sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people, because out of the chaos of that, you can actually build some bridges, you can actually find some people waking up," he says.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Zach Weissmueller and Austin Bragg.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: This is a rush transcript. Check against video for accuracy.
Rubin: Sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people because out of the chaos of that, you can actually build some bridges, you can actually find some people waking up.
Reason: Hi, I'm Nick Gillespie with ReasonTV, and today we are talking with Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report. It's an online talk show that is extremely well regarded for it's civil tone, and depth, and breath of topics. Dave Rubin, thanks for talking to Reason.
Rubin: Nick, it's good to be with you. Civil tone. I'm not bringing that here.
Reason: No, no. That's on your show. Now we're doing this.
Rubin: I'm going to be doing something completely different.
Reason: A lot of cursing and below-the-belt shots. You've hosted people ranging from alt-right rockstar, Milo Yiannopoulos to Sam Harris, the atheist, anti-Islam crusader, and we'll talk a little bit about him. Jesse Ventura, Reason contributing editor Deirdre McCloskey, the economic historian [Ian Herseley 00:00:55]. A lot of people, a lot of different types of people. You also talk about the regressive left a lot. What do you mean by that term? The regressive left?
Rubin: Yeah, well first on the guest portion of it, it's funny, people say, "You talk to people from all over the political map," as if that's something so special or inventive, or I'm doing something that is so wild. It's like, "When did sitting down with someone that you might disagree with become so rare?" It's actually kind of sad. I cherish that. I love doing that. I hope in the course of this we'll find some things that we disagree on.
Reason: I think we already have.
Rubin: That right there. I would say the regressive left, I considered myself a progressive. I was far on the left, I worked at the Young Turks Network, they're an online news network, progressive, and what I realized is that these ideas, they're all based in collectivism, basically, that we should judge as a group, usually on immutable characteristics, so we're judging everyone on their color, on their religion, on their sexuality, on all of these things, and yet they're telling you that everyone else is the bigot, and the racist, and all of that stuff, when really we should all be judged as individuals. Now I know you guys at Reason are all about this. This is so obvious that we should all be judged only as our own thoughts dictate, and as our actions dictate. What I realized is that this progressive ideology, which sounds good. It sounds liberal. We're looking out for gay people, we're looking out for trans people, we're looking out for Muslim people, this is not progressive any more. It's actually regressive because what you have to do is throw out the minorities within the minorities if you're judging as a group. Sadly, I think it's only gotten worse, although I think I've moved the dial back a little bit and got some liberals to go, "Wait a minute, something's not right here."
Reason: Why were you part of … Before we talk about how you got to leaving the left, and in February you did a piece for Prager University, a video which has been viewed over 5 million times saying, "Why I Left the Left," and I want to get to that, but why were you on the left originally? Where did you start out and why were you a progressive?
Rubin: To me, I've said this many times, in 1988, when Michael Dukakis was running against George H. W. Bush I was in seventh grade, I was in a mock election, and I was running Michael Dukakis's campaign, and he was a liberal, and I remembered H. W. Bush said to him, "You're a liberal," meaning this as a bad thing.
Reason: "A card-caring member of the ACLU," and that was like a bad thing.
Rubin: Then he backed off and it was suddenly liberal was a bad word. I didn't understand that. Liberals were always looking out for people. Liberals cared about the other. Liberals cared about poor people. All of these things. I think progressives really saw that and just grabbed it. For example, something like five years ago I married … I'm gay married. I'm married to a guy. I'm for gay marriage.
Reason: Are you for gay divorce as well, or …
Rubin: I'll let you know in a couple years.
Reason: Five years. You've got two more good years.
Rubin: Yeah, I'm not even in … I'm only like 10 months in right now. So far so good. Basically I think progressives grabbed all of this stuff, this social stuff, and they made everyone think that if you don't agree with them … The second they evolve on something, so the second they evolved on gay marriage, if you don't evolve the day they evolved, then you're a bigot. Now, Barack Obama, the first time he ran for president, was not for gay marriage. I suspect he was not a homophobe at the time, but right now, there are people out there in the country, there are Christians in the middle of the country who I may disagree with on virtually every political thing, and philosophical thing, and religious thing, but they have personally held beliefs that they're not for gay marriage. Now I don't want them to legislate those beliefs, but I can't expect them to evolve the second I want them to and that in and of itself doesn't make them a bigot.
Reason: Doesn't it make them a bigot against gay people if they say, "I should be able to marry who I want, but you can't?"
Rubin: I don't know that it makes them a bigot. I don't like that … I think in general we use these words way too easily. Everyone that we disagree with is a racist, and a homophobe, and Islamophobe, and a bigot. It's just silly. It's lazy thinking, and I think it gets us nowhere. It gets us nowhere to have this, right? I don't think if you, and your parents, and your grandparents, and go all the way back, even if you're looking at a religious text that I think is completely irrelevant and not real, if you have a personally held belief, you're allowed to have a personally held belief. You just are.
Now, if you're out there … The Mormon church, for example, which was putting al to of money to fight against gay marriage, now that's a problem because now we have a company, a company in fact, it's a religious organization, but acting as something to move the political dial while they're tax exempt. I have a problem with that. The average person, I think … Let's put it this way. I think for me, as a gay person, I can convince a lot more people to be fore gay marriage by not screaming at them, and berating them, and embarrassing them, and belittling them, but by showing them that we're all exactly the same. I think you can win a lot more people like that, and I don't even think it. I know it because of the evidence that I get from doing my show and what people are saying to me.
Reason: When you worked with the Young Turks, and then you had a pretty public falling out, or a big falling out with Cenk Uygur, the kind of he head of the Young Turks. What? The mullah? The imam of the Young Turks?
Rubin: I'll let you [crosstalk 00:06:24].
Reason: Okay, yes. The patriarch.
Rubin: Sultan, I think.
Reason: The sultan of … That's the word I'm looking for. Talk a little bit about that, because that is a … It's an interesting case where he has Sam Harris on, who is a critic of Islam, and Sam Harris says that there are certain types of that Islamic jihad, you know the Islamic part matters, and they had a big, long conversation about that. What about the tenor and tone of that conversation turned you off and had you go it on your own?
Rubin: There's so many people that I think had their political awakening right around where I did, and mine sparked the night that Sam Harris was on Real Time with Bill Maher and he got into that big fight with Ben Affleck.
Reason: With Batman.
Rubin: Yeah, with Ben Affleck.
Reason: I like to think of him as Daredevil, but I realize I'm in the minority.
Rubin: I know he's not that happy being Batman right now, so he'd probably prefer that too, but basically Bill Maher, who had been the standard-bearer for the left, the most outspoken liberal there is, who has fought against wars, who has fought for every minority, and [inaudible 00:07:26], and welfare, and all of these things. He's been a standard-bearer of the left, and suddenly this guy Sam Harris, I didn't even know who this guy was, I asked the guys on the streets, I wasn't even following him on Twitter, didn't know who he was. Here's this calm guy, lays out a couple of PEW statistics, talks about the difference between the nominal Muslim, the Islamist who wants to change things using political power versus the jihadist who wants to use violence, et cetera, et cetera. The response from Ben Affleck is, "You're gross and racist."
Then suddenly the next day the onus was on Bill Maher and Sam Harris to prove that they weren't racist, now forgetting that Islam isn't a race, but that's a whole other thing that gets lost in the conversation. My point being it exposed so many things. It exposed lazy thinking of progressives, in this case, Ben Affleck, where we're trying to have a complex discussion, you immediately go to these buzzwords, it shuts down the conversation, but it also showed me some other things.
For example, the next day, all the newspapers, all the online outlets, now saying, "Is Bill Maher a racist?" I mean, Bill Maher. No one can point to evidence of him ever being racist. Then Sam got dragged into that. Then Sam sat down for a three hour conversation with Cenk. I was still working at the Young Turks at the time. It was just … I would welcome any of your viewers to watch it because for three hours Sam sits there calmly with his leg crossed and one glass of water and just absolutely decimates Cenk, who's freaking out the whole time, and can't get a cogent point across.
Speaker 3: If you're being incredibly specific on suicide bombers, we had Buddhist suicide bombers, kamikaze fighters. We've had them all.
Speaker 4: Let's not be so scatter shot here. I've written and spoken about the link between Zen Buddhism and the kamikaze pilots, right? You can get a death cult out of some quasi-Buddhist ideas …
Rubin: I realized in the midst of that that I thought this … I don't really want to work here. Then a couple months later Charlie Hebdo happened, there was a lot of pushback from various hosts on the network about we shouldn't do this. Yes, you can do it, but you shouldn't upset people with cartoons. Then it was just enough.
Reason: You now tend to define yourself as classical liberal. Is that different to you than libertarian? I mean these sort of terms that are often used interchangeably, what goes into your definition of a classical liberal?
Rubin: This has been one of the biggest issues that I've talked about for the last couple of months. First of all, a liberal … People don't understand this, but a true liberal really is a live and let live attitude, which people usually prescribe to libertarianism. The only way that I can say there's, at least in my view, a difference between the classical liberal and the libertarian is that a classical liberal sees a little more utility for the state, and Deidre McCloskey, for example, had on … We discussed this. There's an … I do see some use for the state, in terms of that I don't think tax is theft automatically, and that we do need roads, and that I'm a product from SUNY Binghamton upstate …
Reason: Cut this. This interview is over.
Rubin: I'm a product of state schools, SUNY Binghamton, and I do believe that the state has some use. Now I don't want a huge state. I firmly believe in individual liberty more than anything else, and that you have to live the life you want for yourself. That's the best way for humans to prosper.
Reason: You're talking about a basic social safety net, that national defense is a legitimate function of government, some roads, courts, things like that.
Rubin: Absolutely. There are plenty of libertarians that believe in all that stuff. That's the interesting thing about libertarians, which I'm sure some libertarian out there could probably sit me down long enough and get me to say I'm a libertarian. The whole point of libertarian, because it's about liberty, it's a pretty wide net. That also is the weakness of libertarianism because it's hard to get these people to coalesce around anything and actually make something happen, which if you look at the libertarian party today, I think it's a good example of that.
Reason: Why do you think the left, broadly speaking, or the contemporary liberal or progressive, why are they becoming more authoritarian? Why are they becoming more collectivist? You're right. Say, in the 19th century, and still in Europe, when people say they're liberal, they mean more or less libertarian. Minimal state, maximum freedom. What's going on in the left that they're becoming more authoritarian and saying, "It's our way or the highway?"
Rubin: It is my way or the highway with them. I mean, that really is what it is. This is why we see violence at colleges when people speak. People who you don't like. Interestingly you mention Milo Yiannopoulos before. I spoke at UCLA with him. We did a little talk about a year ago, and there were about 500 kids that were there for it. About 200 protesters. The kids that were there were great. Great all over the political map. There were liberals, and leftists, and Trump people, and conservatives, and they were having a great time. The people that were protesting, they literally created a wall. They created a physical wall, so they're not against walls, they're just against Trump's wall, and they were spitting in people's faces, dumping garbage cans, getting up in cops faces and putting cell phones, just waiting for a reaction so they can Snapchat it and all that stuff.
Why are they becoming less tolerant? I think it's a function of the words that they use. It started with words. If everyone that is your intellectual opponent is a racist, or a bigot, or now it's a Nazi, right? Their new thing is now everybody is a Nazi. There are these white supremacists coming to get all of us. Now, by the way, what's the new thing after Nazi? Now you're allowed to punch Nazis, because you probably saw that guy Richard Spencer get punched, and suddenly all these people on the left were saying, "We should be out there punching Nazis." They think we're in Indiana Jones, and this is 1941, and we're fighting Hitler. It's just not real. When you've pinned yourself into an intellectual corner where everyone against you truly is evil, then of course de-platforming is fine, and burning things down is fine, and punching people and the rest of it. It's just an obvious extension of the ideology that they've laid out.
Reason: In the election of 2016, you flirted with Gary Johnson, you were a big Gary Johnson fan, and then you lost …
Rubin: Oh, Gary …
Reason: You ended up voting for him, right?
Rubin: I did vote for Gary.
Reason: Talk … If we go off the campus, say, where students always tend to be a little bit more extreme, do you see the same problems that you see on campuses with the regressive left? Is that also infecting national politics?
Rubin: Oh yeah.
Reason: Are Democrats part of the regressive left, but then is the Republican party also to blame? I mean, they're very extreme. There are no Republicans in Congress who will say, "I support a woman's right to an abortion."
Rubin: Yeah.
Reason: That's just not allowed.
Rubin: No.
Reason: Talk a little bit how this plays out in your national partisan politics.
Rubin: To the second part of that … First, it's funny. People say to me, "You're always attacking the left. You must be a conservative. You must be a Republican." No. I'm not even proud to say this, but I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life. I think the last time Giuliani ran for that third term, I'm not even sure if he was an independent at the time, or a Republican, but I did vote for him, so maybe once, but I've never … I voted for Obama twice, I voted for Bill Clinton, so I've never even voted for a Republican. I don't defend the Republicans. They've created a huge set of problems. If they would have been willing to negotiate with Obama over the course of eight years we wouldn't have seen this now reaction to them, which by the way, now the Democrats are being as intolerant as the Republicans were. I thought liberals were supposed to be liberal, meaning you were supposed to be a little better than the worst of the people that you're constantly railing against.
The open liberal in the Democratic party basically doesn't exist. Imagine John F. Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Reason: Which, by the way, as a libertarian, I find a repulsive thought.
Rubin: Fair enough. You might find it a repulsive thought, but imagine a democrat saying … Imagine Bernie Sanders saying that right now. He would be booed off the stage. As a Democrat, you're supposed to say, "No, we will give you this. You will get free education. We will artificially force the minimum wage to be higher."
Reason: Even somebody like Bill Clinton, who you said you voted for, was a free-trade Democrat. They don't exist anymore.
Rubin: Sure. They've consistently gone to the left now. There is no home for an actual liberal. This is why recently on my show I've found it much easier to build bridges with guys that five years ago I thought I would never talk to. Just in the last couple of weeks I've had Glenn Beck on, I've had Dennis Prager on, Ben Shapiro. These guys are staunch conservatives, and yet because we care about liberty, individual liberty, even if I disagree with them on some tax stuff, some of them on gay marriage, and things that I hold very dear, and abortion, and death penalty, where I disagree with all of them on all of those things I think, I can see some bridge-building there because we're trying to create the most opportunity for human liberty versus where are the bridges to build with the progressives if their only resolution is more state power, but not only that, if they're just going to say that if you don't agree with them then you're a bigot and a racist. I know that sounds a little collective, right, if I say "them," but sometimes you get caught in we have to use labels to describe people.
Reason: Who were your show … I mentioned it in the intro. There is a civil tone to it. You talk to all sorts of different people. Who are your idols as talk show hosts? I mean, it is always struck me as particularly strange that now we have an infinite amount of time where we can talk, we have different media, different platform, everything is still super polarized and super partizan. Where is this coming from?
Rubin: I think for me personally I just truly truly don't feel the need to be right all the time, or to know everything all the time. I actually genuinely like listening to people, and I like seeing the gears working. How do they think. Maybe you can … I learn something from everybody that I have one. Sometimes I learn just that they're bullshit artists.
Reason: What did you learn from Milo?
Rubin: What did I learn from Milo? What I learned from Milo is that sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people because sometimes in the chaos of that you can actually build some bridges. You can actually find some people waking up. The best way I can lay that out is when I was at UCLA with Milo there were kids coming up to me after who were saying, "Dave, I don't even really like Milo, but I found you because of him, and I like sort of the more measured, decent conversation." There's value in what he does. That doesn't mean I agree with everything. Of course I don't. You know people say this all the time. "I don't agree with everything that person says." Since when was that even a thing that you had to agree with someone all the time. I genuinely like talking with him.
To answer your question, Johnny Carson, I remember when I was in high school and I just stay up for a little bit of the interviews, that he just seemed decent. He just seemed decent. I always liked that. My friend and mentor is Larry King. He's truly the king of this, and I think the best piece of advice he ever gave me and I think I had already incorporated it without even knowing it, is that he said to me, he said, "Dave, when I had the show on CNN it was called Larry King Tonight. My name was in it already, so my ego had already been stroked, so how much more did I need?" I try to view it the same way. The show is called the Rubin Report. They're not replacing me. You can try, Nick, but it's going to be tough.
Reason: I'll change my name.
Rubin: It is possible, I suppose, but because of that it's like what would be the point of every week me bringing on somebody so that I can berate them or battle with them or whatever? Let me … If you let someone talk, usually you'll watch them put the noose around their neck and hang themselves, which I may have done here today.
Reason: What do you think has to happen to make classical liberalism, libertarianism, more popular? You mentioned Gary, and I like Gary Johnson, I think he did very well. Not as well as a lot of us would have hoped. What has to happen for the idea of freedom for me and for you, and of people being able to disagree but get along at the same time? What has to happen for this to become the next big political or cultural identity?
Rubin: I think it's happening right now. I think it's obvious that it's happening right now because people are seeing that the sides, the extremes make no sense. Look at the far right. Look at the far left. Most people, most thinking people, don't agree with either of that. We've been caught in it. We live in a world of Twitter where we're just caught between everyone aiming at each other all the time and firing at each other all the time. Most people, if we can get the ideas across, we can just use media to get the ideas across, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. I simply don't. You could do whatever you want, and as long as it's legal, whatever you're doing, and I don't … Actually if you were doing something illegal, if you were smoking some illegal drugs in your house, I personally wouldn't care about that either, but I think most people really do feel that, that it is your life to live, it is your responsibility to get something good out of it, it's your responsibility to take what's yours and not be owed anything. None of us are owed anything.
I think this idea that the left has given us, this idea of the oppression Olympics where victimhood is the highest virtue, and that you have to be more of a victim than the next person because that means that you're higher up on there scale, and by the way, what do they hold on the top of that pyramid is Islam, which is the most regressive ideology there is. Islam, wherever it is, this is simply the truth. I know this sounds upsetting, but it is true, wherever it is, it's bad for everybody, including Muslims. Wherever Islam has taken root, it is bad for gays, for women, certainly for any religious minority, and it's bad for any free-thinking Muslims at the same time.
Reason: I will question that. It is certainly the case in many places, particularly in the middle east, places like Malaysia and Indonesia it's more temperate.
Rubin: It is.
Reason: There's more than one type of Islam.
Rubin: No, but that's … The people that you're talking about, that are more temperate, they've done the work of not paying attention so much to the ideology. The ideology remains. The simple fact is if we were, right now, if we were in any Islamic-controlled country, we would have much different feelings about having this conversation.
Reason: We would not be having this conversation in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, most of Iraq.
Rubin: That's why I'm making the distinction between a doctrine, a set of ideas … This can't be overstated, but I know …
Reason: You have to repeat it all the time.
Rubin: Right, because I am not talking about the average Muslim person. I judge everyone on what they say and think and do. I don't judge everybody on the doctrine of anything. There's plenty of stuff in the Old Testament that's completely bananas. Fortunately there aren't a lot of Jews walking around that believe in that. There's actually …
Reason: Not even that many Christians.
Rubin: There's not even that many Christians that believe in it. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of Jews that I would disagree with on some Biblical stuff, obviously, and Christians that I would disagree with. As I said before, there's a lot of the anti-gay marriage stuff in this country was religiously-based. The simple fact is that where Islam has taken root, it is bad for everybody. It's an ideology I don't know that we need to defeat it, but we should be pushing out better ideas and if liberals were acting liberally they would realize that this isn't the ideology that you should be holding hands with.
Reason: As a final question, how do you feel about Trump? You've talked a lot about him recently on your show, obviously. Surprisingly wins the election, he gets inaugurated. What are your fears, what are your hopes for the Trump era?
Rubin: First off, I wasn't surprised that he won. I was on Joe Rogan's show the day before and I said I truly believe this is 50/50. Now I guess that's not the greatest betting man thing ever to say, but everyone was saying this thing is over. If you look at what Nate Silver was saying that day it was 90% and all that stuff.
Reason: Then one of your guests, Scott Adams called it for Trump months before.
Rubin: Exactly. The reason that I felt that it wasn't in the bag was because I listened to people. I listened to Scott Adams. I listened to Mike [inaudible 00:23:37]. These people that I disagree with on plenty of stuff, I listened to Milo, and I thought, there's something happening here. There's something that the media is missing. There's an outrage that a certain amount of people are feeling that is not being addressed. I think Clinton was a terrible candidate for a series of reasons.
Reason: Have you seen the recent … A bunch of economics redid the debates …
Rubin: Someone sent it to me this morning. I haven't seen it yet.
Reason:: It's kind of fascinating in that a lot of Hilary supporters when they saw Trump's message being addressed to them from a female, from a woman, they were like, "I understand why Trump won, because he had a very direct, insistent, and repeatable message that spoke to a lot of people's anger or sense of alienation."
Speaker 5: I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that help to create more jobs.
Speaker 6: You haven't done it in 30 years, in 26 years.
Speaker 5: [crosstalk 00:24:30]
Speaker 6: You haven't done it. Excuse me.
Rubin: The simple fact is most people think politics is absolute bullshit, and it basically is. We have created a system where people who are all in bed with each other, who now we know through Wikileaks, are all in bed with the media, and look how many administration officials are married to people that are executives at the news networks. The whole thing is absurd. Even now, Trump said he's not going to do the White House Correspondents Dinner. The White House Correspondents Dinner, watch them for the last eight years. I'm sure you've watched them. This is … They call it nerd prom because they love thinking that they're so nerdy too. This is the worst kind of collusion there is. The people who are supposed to be guarding the power, the fourth estate, what are they doing? They're going to dinner, they're having drinks. Guess what? If the president walked in here and took a picture with us and we could have dinner with him, we might treat him a little bit differently as media members, but this is what we've allowed them all to do.
My fears with Trump are he absolutely has an authoritarian side. There's no doubt about it. I was against executive actions when George W. Bush was doing them. I didn't like them under Obama. I don't like them now. We're seeing why they're so weak, right? All it takes is a new guy to come in and sign something and that's that. If you legislate via executive action, get ready for it to be reversed via executive action. By the way, where's Congress right now? Why aren't these people … The Republicans have the House. Why don't you maybe write a law? Let the guy sign a law instead.
They're all to blame and I think until we realize that these people are just doing nothing … That's why the answer … What's the answer? Stop giving them so much power? The answer is take away the power for these career politicians and all this money to control us. You know who you should control? Who should control you? Is you. Who should control me? It's me.
Reason: Also me.
Rubin: Also you. I almost butchered that. In which case, that would have been very …
Reason: Well, we will leave it there. Thank you so much.
Rubin: My pleasure.
Reason: We have been talking with Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report. Check out his YouTube channel and check him out online. Dave, thanks so much for talking with us.
Rubin: Absolutely.
Reason: For ReasonTV, I'm Nick Gillespie.
The post Dave Rubin's Political Awakening appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>In an era of daily internet outrage, Dave Rubin stands out for his willingness to engage a wide spectrum of political opinions with a civil tone. His show, The Rubin Report, has hosted the likes of alt-right gadfly Milo Yiannopolous, crusading atheist Sam Harris, and ex-governor-turned-conspiracy-theorist Jesse Ventura, all in a spirit of non-partisan intellectual inquiry.
Chatting with political adversaries has affected Rubin's politics in unexpected ways. As his beliefs turned towards individualism, he broke with the progressive show The Young Turks over the issue of identity politics. Rubin explains his ideological shift in his influential video, Why I Left the Left, which has racked up 1.7 million views in just a few months.
Today, Rubin describes himself as a classical liberal. "I do believe that the state has some use," he explains. "Now I don't want a huge state. I firmly believe in individual liberty more than anything else. And that you have to live the life you want for yourself." The one-time progressive even cast a vote for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the last presidential election.
Although his even-keeled approach to dialogue hasn't changed much, he now sees value in the outrageous style of internet punditry. "Sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people, because out of the chaos of that, you can actually build some bridges, you can actually find some people waking up," he says.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Zach Weissmueller and Austin Bragg.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: This is a rush transcript. Check against video for accuracy.
Rubin: Sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people because out of the chaos of that, you can actually build some bridges, you can actually find some people waking up.
Reason: Hi, I'm Nick Gillespie with ReasonTV, and today we are talking with Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report. It's an online talk show that is extremely well regarded for it's civil tone, and depth, and breath of topics. Dave Rubin, thanks for talking to Reason.
Rubin: Nick, it's good to be with you. Civil tone. I'm not bringing that here.
Reason: No, no. That's on your show. Now we're doing this.
Rubin: I'm going to be doing something completely different.
Reason: A lot of cursing and below-the-belt shots. You've hosted people ranging from alt-right rockstar, Milo Yiannopoulos to Sam Harris, the atheist, anti-Islam crusader, and we'll talk a little bit about him. Jesse Ventura, Reason contributing editor Deirdre McCloskey, the economic historian [Ian Herseley 00:00:55]. A lot of people, a lot of different types of people. You also talk about the regressive left a lot. What do you mean by that term? The regressive left?
Rubin: Yeah, well first on the guest portion of it, it's funny, people say, "You talk to people from all over the political map," as if that's something so special or inventive, or I'm doing something that is so wild. It's like, "When did sitting down with someone that you might disagree with become so rare?" It's actually kind of sad. I cherish that. I love doing that. I hope in the course of this we'll find some things that we disagree on.
Reason: I think we already have.
Rubin: That right there. I would say the regressive left, I considered myself a progressive. I was far on the left, I worked at the Young Turks Network, they're an online news network, progressive, and what I realized is that these ideas, they're all based in collectivism, basically, that we should judge as a group, usually on immutable characteristics, so we're judging everyone on their color, on their religion, on their sexuality, on all of these things, and yet they're telling you that everyone else is the bigot, and the racist, and all of that stuff, when really we should all be judged as individuals. Now I know you guys at Reason are all about this. This is so obvious that we should all be judged only as our own thoughts dictate, and as our actions dictate. What I realized is that this progressive ideology, which sounds good. It sounds liberal. We're looking out for gay people, we're looking out for trans people, we're looking out for Muslim people, this is not progressive any more. It's actually regressive because what you have to do is throw out the minorities within the minorities if you're judging as a group. Sadly, I think it's only gotten worse, although I think I've moved the dial back a little bit and got some liberals to go, "Wait a minute, something's not right here."
Reason: Why were you part of … Before we talk about how you got to leaving the left, and in February you did a piece for Prager University, a video which has been viewed over 5 million times saying, "Why I Left the Left," and I want to get to that, but why were you on the left originally? Where did you start out and why were you a progressive?
Rubin: To me, I've said this many times, in 1988, when Michael Dukakis was running against George H. W. Bush I was in seventh grade, I was in a mock election, and I was running Michael Dukakis's campaign, and he was a liberal, and I remembered H. W. Bush said to him, "You're a liberal," meaning this as a bad thing.
Reason: "A card-caring member of the ACLU," and that was like a bad thing.
Rubin: Then he backed off and it was suddenly liberal was a bad word. I didn't understand that. Liberals were always looking out for people. Liberals cared about the other. Liberals cared about poor people. All of these things. I think progressives really saw that and just grabbed it. For example, something like five years ago I married … I'm gay married. I'm married to a guy. I'm for gay marriage.
Reason: Are you for gay divorce as well, or …
Rubin: I'll let you know in a couple years.
Reason: Five years. You've got two more good years.
Rubin: Yeah, I'm not even in … I'm only like 10 months in right now. So far so good. Basically I think progressives grabbed all of this stuff, this social stuff, and they made everyone think that if you don't agree with them … The second they evolve on something, so the second they evolved on gay marriage, if you don't evolve the day they evolved, then you're a bigot. Now, Barack Obama, the first time he ran for president, was not for gay marriage. I suspect he was not a homophobe at the time, but right now, there are people out there in the country, there are Christians in the middle of the country who I may disagree with on virtually every political thing, and philosophical thing, and religious thing, but they have personally held beliefs that they're not for gay marriage. Now I don't want them to legislate those beliefs, but I can't expect them to evolve the second I want them to and that in and of itself doesn't make them a bigot.
Reason: Doesn't it make them a bigot against gay people if they say, "I should be able to marry who I want, but you can't?"
Rubin: I don't know that it makes them a bigot. I don't like that … I think in general we use these words way too easily. Everyone that we disagree with is a racist, and a homophobe, and Islamophobe, and a bigot. It's just silly. It's lazy thinking, and I think it gets us nowhere. It gets us nowhere to have this, right? I don't think if you, and your parents, and your grandparents, and go all the way back, even if you're looking at a religious text that I think is completely irrelevant and not real, if you have a personally held belief, you're allowed to have a personally held belief. You just are.
Now, if you're out there … The Mormon church, for example, which was putting al to of money to fight against gay marriage, now that's a problem because now we have a company, a company in fact, it's a religious organization, but acting as something to move the political dial while they're tax exempt. I have a problem with that. The average person, I think … Let's put it this way. I think for me, as a gay person, I can convince a lot more people to be fore gay marriage by not screaming at them, and berating them, and embarrassing them, and belittling them, but by showing them that we're all exactly the same. I think you can win a lot more people like that, and I don't even think it. I know it because of the evidence that I get from doing my show and what people are saying to me.
Reason: When you worked with the Young Turks, and then you had a pretty public falling out, or a big falling out with Cenk Uygur, the kind of he head of the Young Turks. What? The mullah? The imam of the Young Turks?
Rubin: I'll let you [crosstalk 00:06:24].
Reason: Okay, yes. The patriarch.
Rubin: Sultan, I think.
Reason: The sultan of … That's the word I'm looking for. Talk a little bit about that, because that is a … It's an interesting case where he has Sam Harris on, who is a critic of Islam, and Sam Harris says that there are certain types of that Islamic jihad, you know the Islamic part matters, and they had a big, long conversation about that. What about the tenor and tone of that conversation turned you off and had you go it on your own?
Rubin: There's so many people that I think had their political awakening right around where I did, and mine sparked the night that Sam Harris was on Real Time with Bill Maher and he got into that big fight with Ben Affleck.
Reason: With Batman.
Rubin: Yeah, with Ben Affleck.
Reason: I like to think of him as Daredevil, but I realize I'm in the minority.
Rubin: I know he's not that happy being Batman right now, so he'd probably prefer that too, but basically Bill Maher, who had been the standard-bearer for the left, the most outspoken liberal there is, who has fought against wars, who has fought for every minority, and [inaudible 00:07:26], and welfare, and all of these things. He's been a standard-bearer of the left, and suddenly this guy Sam Harris, I didn't even know who this guy was, I asked the guys on the streets, I wasn't even following him on Twitter, didn't know who he was. Here's this calm guy, lays out a couple of PEW statistics, talks about the difference between the nominal Muslim, the Islamist who wants to change things using political power versus the jihadist who wants to use violence, et cetera, et cetera. The response from Ben Affleck is, "You're gross and racist."
Then suddenly the next day the onus was on Bill Maher and Sam Harris to prove that they weren't racist, now forgetting that Islam isn't a race, but that's a whole other thing that gets lost in the conversation. My point being it exposed so many things. It exposed lazy thinking of progressives, in this case, Ben Affleck, where we're trying to have a complex discussion, you immediately go to these buzzwords, it shuts down the conversation, but it also showed me some other things.
For example, the next day, all the newspapers, all the online outlets, now saying, "Is Bill Maher a racist?" I mean, Bill Maher. No one can point to evidence of him ever being racist. Then Sam got dragged into that. Then Sam sat down for a three hour conversation with Cenk. I was still working at the Young Turks at the time. It was just … I would welcome any of your viewers to watch it because for three hours Sam sits there calmly with his leg crossed and one glass of water and just absolutely decimates Cenk, who's freaking out the whole time, and can't get a cogent point across.
Speaker 3: If you're being incredibly specific on suicide bombers, we had Buddhist suicide bombers, kamikaze fighters. We've had them all.
Speaker 4: Let's not be so scatter shot here. I've written and spoken about the link between Zen Buddhism and the kamikaze pilots, right? You can get a death cult out of some quasi-Buddhist ideas …
Rubin: I realized in the midst of that that I thought this … I don't really want to work here. Then a couple months later Charlie Hebdo happened, there was a lot of pushback from various hosts on the network about we shouldn't do this. Yes, you can do it, but you shouldn't upset people with cartoons. Then it was just enough.
Reason: You now tend to define yourself as classical liberal. Is that different to you than libertarian? I mean these sort of terms that are often used interchangeably, what goes into your definition of a classical liberal?
Rubin: This has been one of the biggest issues that I've talked about for the last couple of months. First of all, a liberal … People don't understand this, but a true liberal really is a live and let live attitude, which people usually prescribe to libertarianism. The only way that I can say there's, at least in my view, a difference between the classical liberal and the libertarian is that a classical liberal sees a little more utility for the state, and Deidre McCloskey, for example, had on … We discussed this. There's an … I do see some use for the state, in terms of that I don't think tax is theft automatically, and that we do need roads, and that I'm a product from SUNY Binghamton upstate …
Reason: Cut this. This interview is over.
Rubin: I'm a product of state schools, SUNY Binghamton, and I do believe that the state has some use. Now I don't want a huge state. I firmly believe in individual liberty more than anything else, and that you have to live the life you want for yourself. That's the best way for humans to prosper.
Reason: You're talking about a basic social safety net, that national defense is a legitimate function of government, some roads, courts, things like that.
Rubin: Absolutely. There are plenty of libertarians that believe in all that stuff. That's the interesting thing about libertarians, which I'm sure some libertarian out there could probably sit me down long enough and get me to say I'm a libertarian. The whole point of libertarian, because it's about liberty, it's a pretty wide net. That also is the weakness of libertarianism because it's hard to get these people to coalesce around anything and actually make something happen, which if you look at the libertarian party today, I think it's a good example of that.
Reason: Why do you think the left, broadly speaking, or the contemporary liberal or progressive, why are they becoming more authoritarian? Why are they becoming more collectivist? You're right. Say, in the 19th century, and still in Europe, when people say they're liberal, they mean more or less libertarian. Minimal state, maximum freedom. What's going on in the left that they're becoming more authoritarian and saying, "It's our way or the highway?"
Rubin: It is my way or the highway with them. I mean, that really is what it is. This is why we see violence at colleges when people speak. People who you don't like. Interestingly you mention Milo Yiannopoulos before. I spoke at UCLA with him. We did a little talk about a year ago, and there were about 500 kids that were there for it. About 200 protesters. The kids that were there were great. Great all over the political map. There were liberals, and leftists, and Trump people, and conservatives, and they were having a great time. The people that were protesting, they literally created a wall. They created a physical wall, so they're not against walls, they're just against Trump's wall, and they were spitting in people's faces, dumping garbage cans, getting up in cops faces and putting cell phones, just waiting for a reaction so they can Snapchat it and all that stuff.
Why are they becoming less tolerant? I think it's a function of the words that they use. It started with words. If everyone that is your intellectual opponent is a racist, or a bigot, or now it's a Nazi, right? Their new thing is now everybody is a Nazi. There are these white supremacists coming to get all of us. Now, by the way, what's the new thing after Nazi? Now you're allowed to punch Nazis, because you probably saw that guy Richard Spencer get punched, and suddenly all these people on the left were saying, "We should be out there punching Nazis." They think we're in Indiana Jones, and this is 1941, and we're fighting Hitler. It's just not real. When you've pinned yourself into an intellectual corner where everyone against you truly is evil, then of course de-platforming is fine, and burning things down is fine, and punching people and the rest of it. It's just an obvious extension of the ideology that they've laid out.
Reason: In the election of 2016, you flirted with Gary Johnson, you were a big Gary Johnson fan, and then you lost …
Rubin: Oh, Gary …
Reason: You ended up voting for him, right?
Rubin: I did vote for Gary.
Reason: Talk … If we go off the campus, say, where students always tend to be a little bit more extreme, do you see the same problems that you see on campuses with the regressive left? Is that also infecting national politics?
Rubin: Oh yeah.
Reason: Are Democrats part of the regressive left, but then is the Republican party also to blame? I mean, they're very extreme. There are no Republicans in Congress who will say, "I support a woman's right to an abortion."
Rubin: Yeah.
Reason: That's just not allowed.
Rubin: No.
Reason: Talk a little bit how this plays out in your national partisan politics.
Rubin: To the second part of that … First, it's funny. People say to me, "You're always attacking the left. You must be a conservative. You must be a Republican." No. I'm not even proud to say this, but I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life. I think the last time Giuliani ran for that third term, I'm not even sure if he was an independent at the time, or a Republican, but I did vote for him, so maybe once, but I've never … I voted for Obama twice, I voted for Bill Clinton, so I've never even voted for a Republican. I don't defend the Republicans. They've created a huge set of problems. If they would have been willing to negotiate with Obama over the course of eight years we wouldn't have seen this now reaction to them, which by the way, now the Democrats are being as intolerant as the Republicans were. I thought liberals were supposed to be liberal, meaning you were supposed to be a little better than the worst of the people that you're constantly railing against.
The open liberal in the Democratic party basically doesn't exist. Imagine John F. Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Reason: Which, by the way, as a libertarian, I find a repulsive thought.
Rubin: Fair enough. You might find it a repulsive thought, but imagine a democrat saying … Imagine Bernie Sanders saying that right now. He would be booed off the stage. As a Democrat, you're supposed to say, "No, we will give you this. You will get free education. We will artificially force the minimum wage to be higher."
Reason: Even somebody like Bill Clinton, who you said you voted for, was a free-trade Democrat. They don't exist anymore.
Rubin: Sure. They've consistently gone to the left now. There is no home for an actual liberal. This is why recently on my show I've found it much easier to build bridges with guys that five years ago I thought I would never talk to. Just in the last couple of weeks I've had Glenn Beck on, I've had Dennis Prager on, Ben Shapiro. These guys are staunch conservatives, and yet because we care about liberty, individual liberty, even if I disagree with them on some tax stuff, some of them on gay marriage, and things that I hold very dear, and abortion, and death penalty, where I disagree with all of them on all of those things I think, I can see some bridge-building there because we're trying to create the most opportunity for human liberty versus where are the bridges to build with the progressives if their only resolution is more state power, but not only that, if they're just going to say that if you don't agree with them then you're a bigot and a racist. I know that sounds a little collective, right, if I say "them," but sometimes you get caught in we have to use labels to describe people.
Reason: Who were your show … I mentioned it in the intro. There is a civil tone to it. You talk to all sorts of different people. Who are your idols as talk show hosts? I mean, it is always struck me as particularly strange that now we have an infinite amount of time where we can talk, we have different media, different platform, everything is still super polarized and super partizan. Where is this coming from?
Rubin: I think for me personally I just truly truly don't feel the need to be right all the time, or to know everything all the time. I actually genuinely like listening to people, and I like seeing the gears working. How do they think. Maybe you can … I learn something from everybody that I have one. Sometimes I learn just that they're bullshit artists.
Reason: What did you learn from Milo?
Rubin: What did I learn from Milo? What I learned from Milo is that sometimes there is use in laying out bombs that are going to upset people because sometimes in the chaos of that you can actually build some bridges. You can actually find some people waking up. The best way I can lay that out is when I was at UCLA with Milo there were kids coming up to me after who were saying, "Dave, I don't even really like Milo, but I found you because of him, and I like sort of the more measured, decent conversation." There's value in what he does. That doesn't mean I agree with everything. Of course I don't. You know people say this all the time. "I don't agree with everything that person says." Since when was that even a thing that you had to agree with someone all the time. I genuinely like talking with him.
To answer your question, Johnny Carson, I remember when I was in high school and I just stay up for a little bit of the interviews, that he just seemed decent. He just seemed decent. I always liked that. My friend and mentor is Larry King. He's truly the king of this, and I think the best piece of advice he ever gave me and I think I had already incorporated it without even knowing it, is that he said to me, he said, "Dave, when I had the show on CNN it was called Larry King Tonight. My name was in it already, so my ego had already been stroked, so how much more did I need?" I try to view it the same way. The show is called the Rubin Report. They're not replacing me. You can try, Nick, but it's going to be tough.
Reason: I'll change my name.
Rubin: It is possible, I suppose, but because of that it's like what would be the point of every week me bringing on somebody so that I can berate them or battle with them or whatever? Let me … If you let someone talk, usually you'll watch them put the noose around their neck and hang themselves, which I may have done here today.
Reason: What do you think has to happen to make classical liberalism, libertarianism, more popular? You mentioned Gary, and I like Gary Johnson, I think he did very well. Not as well as a lot of us would have hoped. What has to happen for the idea of freedom for me and for you, and of people being able to disagree but get along at the same time? What has to happen for this to become the next big political or cultural identity?
Rubin: I think it's happening right now. I think it's obvious that it's happening right now because people are seeing that the sides, the extremes make no sense. Look at the far right. Look at the far left. Most people, most thinking people, don't agree with either of that. We've been caught in it. We live in a world of Twitter where we're just caught between everyone aiming at each other all the time and firing at each other all the time. Most people, if we can get the ideas across, we can just use media to get the ideas across, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. I simply don't. You could do whatever you want, and as long as it's legal, whatever you're doing, and I don't … Actually if you were doing something illegal, if you were smoking some illegal drugs in your house, I personally wouldn't care about that either, but I think most people really do feel that, that it is your life to live, it is your responsibility to get something good out of it, it's your responsibility to take what's yours and not be owed anything. None of us are owed anything.
I think this idea that the left has given us, this idea of the oppression Olympics where victimhood is the highest virtue, and that you have to be more of a victim than the next person because that means that you're higher up on there scale, and by the way, what do they hold on the top of that pyramid is Islam, which is the most regressive ideology there is. Islam, wherever it is, this is simply the truth. I know this sounds upsetting, but it is true, wherever it is, it's bad for everybody, including Muslims. Wherever Islam has taken root, it is bad for gays, for women, certainly for any religious minority, and it's bad for any free-thinking Muslims at the same time.
Reason: I will question that. It is certainly the case in many places, particularly in the middle east, places like Malaysia and Indonesia it's more temperate.
Rubin: It is.
Reason: There's more than one type of Islam.
Rubin: No, but that's … The people that you're talking about, that are more temperate, they've done the work of not paying attention so much to the ideology. The ideology remains. The simple fact is if we were, right now, if we were in any Islamic-controlled country, we would have much different feelings about having this conversation.
Reason: We would not be having this conversation in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, most of Iraq.
Rubin: That's why I'm making the distinction between a doctrine, a set of ideas … This can't be overstated, but I know …
Reason: You have to repeat it all the time.
Rubin: Right, because I am not talking about the average Muslim person. I judge everyone on what they say and think and do. I don't judge everybody on the doctrine of anything. There's plenty of stuff in the Old Testament that's completely bananas. Fortunately there aren't a lot of Jews walking around that believe in that. There's actually …
Reason: Not even that many Christians.
Rubin: There's not even that many Christians that believe in it. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of Jews that I would disagree with on some Biblical stuff, obviously, and Christians that I would disagree with. As I said before, there's a lot of the anti-gay marriage stuff in this country was religiously-based. The simple fact is that where Islam has taken root, it is bad for everybody. It's an ideology I don't know that we need to defeat it, but we should be pushing out better ideas and if liberals were acting liberally they would realize that this isn't the ideology that you should be holding hands with.
Reason: As a final question, how do you feel about Trump? You've talked a lot about him recently on your show, obviously. Surprisingly wins the election, he gets inaugurated. What are your fears, what are your hopes for the Trump era?
Rubin: First off, I wasn't surprised that he won. I was on Joe Rogan's show the day before and I said I truly believe this is 50/50. Now I guess that's not the greatest betting man thing ever to say, but everyone was saying this thing is over. If you look at what Nate Silver was saying that day it was 90% and all that stuff.
Reason: Then one of your guests, Scott Adams called it for Trump months before.
Rubin: Exactly. The reason that I felt that it wasn't in the bag was because I listened to people. I listened to Scott Adams. I listened to Mike [inaudible 00:23:37]. These people that I disagree with on plenty of stuff, I listened to Milo, and I thought, there's something happening here. There's something that the media is missing. There's an outrage that a certain amount of people are feeling that is not being addressed. I think Clinton was a terrible candidate for a series of reasons.
Reason: Have you seen the recent … A bunch of economics redid the debates …
Rubin: Someone sent it to me this morning. I haven't seen it yet.
Reason:: It's kind of fascinating in that a lot of Hilary supporters when they saw Trump's message being addressed to them from a female, from a woman, they were like, "I understand why Trump won, because he had a very direct, insistent, and repeatable message that spoke to a lot of people's anger or sense of alienation."
Speaker 5: I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that help to create more jobs.
Speaker 6: You haven't done it in 30 years, in 26 years.
Speaker 5: [crosstalk 00:24:30]
Speaker 6: You haven't done it. Excuse me.
Rubin: The simple fact is most people think politics is absolute bullshit, and it basically is. We have created a system where people who are all in bed with each other, who now we know through Wikileaks, are all in bed with the media, and look how many administration officials are married to people that are executives at the news networks. The whole thing is absurd. Even now, Trump said he's not going to do the White House Correspondents Dinner. The White House Correspondents Dinner, watch them for the last eight years. I'm sure you've watched them. This is … They call it nerd prom because they love thinking that they're so nerdy too. This is the worst kind of collusion there is. The people who are supposed to be guarding the power, the fourth estate, what are they doing? They're going to dinner, they're having drinks. Guess what? If the president walked in here and took a picture with us and we could have dinner with him, we might treat him a little bit differently as media members, but this is what we've allowed them all to do.
My fears with Trump are he absolutely has an authoritarian side. There's no doubt about it. I was against executive actions when George W. Bush was doing them. I didn't like them under Obama. I don't like them now. We're seeing why they're so weak, right? All it takes is a new guy to come in and sign something and that's that. If you legislate via executive action, get ready for it to be reversed via executive action. By the way, where's Congress right now? Why aren't these people … The Republicans have the House. Why don't you maybe write a law? Let the guy sign a law instead.
They're all to blame and I think until we realize that these people are just doing nothing … That's why the answer … What's the answer? Stop giving them so much power? The answer is take away the power for these career politicians and all this money to control us. You know who you should control? Who should control you? Is you. Who should control me? It's me.
Reason: Also me.
Rubin: Also you. I almost butchered that. In which case, that would have been very …
Reason: Well, we will leave it there. Thank you so much.
Rubin: My pleasure.
Reason: We have been talking with Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report. Check out his YouTube channel and check him out online. Dave, thanks so much for talking with us.
Rubin: Absolutely.
Reason: For ReasonTV, I'm Nick Gillespie.
The post Dave Rubin's Political Awakening appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"People think the world is in chaos. People think that the world is on fire right now for all the wrong reasons," says author and Cato Institute senior fellow Johan Norberg. "There is a segment of politicians who try to scare us to death, because then we clamber for safety we need the strong man in a way."
But despite the political situation in Europe and America, Norberg remains optimistic. His new book, Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future, shows what humans are capable of when given freedom and the ability to exchange new ideas. "In the 25 years that have been considered neo-liberalism and capitalism run amok what has happened? Well, we've reduced chronic undernourishment around the world by 40 percent, child mortality and illiteracy by half, and extreme poverty from 37 to 10 percent," explains Norberg
Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Norberg during the International Students for Liberty Conference to talk about his book, the current political climate in the West, and how technology is creating a younger generation that will look past politics for answers to societal problems.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Mark McDaniel and Todd Krainin.
The post Capitalism and Neoliberalism Have Made the World Better appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"People think the world is in chaos. People think that the world is on fire right now for all the wrong reasons," says author and Cato Institute senior fellow Johan Norberg. "There is a segment of politicians who try to scare us to death, because then we clamber for safety we need the strong man in a way."
But despite the political situation in Europe and America, Norberg remains optimistic. His new book, Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future, shows what humans are capable of when given freedom and the ability to exchange new ideas. "In the 25 years that have been considered neo-liberalism and capitalism run amok what has happened? Well, we've reduced chronic undernourishment around the world by 40 percent, child mortality and illiteracy by half, and extreme poverty from 37 to 10 percent," explains Norberg
Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Norberg during the International Students for Liberty Conference to talk about his book, the current political climate in the West, and how technology is creating a younger generation that will look past politics for answers to societal problems.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
Edited by Alex Manning. Cameras by Mark McDaniel and Todd Krainin.
The post Capitalism and Neoliberalism Have Made the World Better appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"It's funny because out of all the rhetoric coming out of this year's campaign this is the one issue thats going to have the most effect," states Erica Grieder, former senior editor at Texas Monthly. "We're going to have a lot of economic growth in Texas in the coming years because of trade. So if there's a hostility in Texas to trade that's not going to work out too well for us."
Free trade came under attack this election cycle with all major party candidates making statements that blamed bad trade policies for the loss of manufacturing jobs and and the decline of the middle class. The top target of scrutiny has been the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a bipartisan deal that removed all trading barriers between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
While President-elect Donald Trump has referred to NAFTA as the "worst trade deal" ever signed, economists have come to the general consensus that NAFTA has had an overall positive effect on the economy since its passage in 1993.
Regional trade has increased from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. And while foreign direct investment stock in Mexico has increased from $15 billion to over a $100 billion in that same period, U.S. exports with partnering NAFTA countries have tripled since the legislation took effect and Canada and Mexico now account for one-third of U.S. exports according to the Congressional Research Service.
"There's this kind of demagogue-ish concept that life is a zero-sum game. That the economy is primitive. That you take jobs from one country and move them to another country and there's only a finite number of jobs to go around," states Grieder. "Texas is proof that's not the case."
Since the passage of NAFTA, Texas has led the country in exports for over a decade and the state's gross domestic product (GDP) has gone from $444 billion in 1993 to nearly $1.6 trillion today. The state's employment rate has fared better than the national average—a 2016 Business Roundtable study showed that international trade was responsible for over 3.1 million jobs in the Lone Star state.
But even though the state is benefiting, the constant attack on free trade during the 2016 election cycle has turned even traditional supporters against international trade deals like NAFTA. The University of Texas at Austin's Texas Politics Project found that 51 percent of Texas Republicans think international trade deals have harmed the United States in a June 2016 poll.
The findings out of Texas are similar to overall national numbers—just 48 percent of Americans think international trade deals have been good for the country according to the most recent Pew Research polls.
"You have areas that do feel dislocated by globalization," says Grieder. "It's not really NAFTA, it's more the growth of China as a role player in the world economy, automation, technological change. But it's kind of easy to point to NAFTA."
Grieder explains that it is important that community industries that may be threatened by trade deals have the ability to apply for trade adjustment assistance. But she cites examples where cities have adapted. "Look at Pittsburgh—how much it has evolved and changed and now it's more stronger than it used to be. Indiana has done very well. It is possible for things to get better even if things change and that's the thing people need to look for."
Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Zach Weissmueller and Alex Manning. Graphics by Joshua Swain. Music by Chris Zabriskie and Puddle of Infinity.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post Free Trade Has Worked. Just Look at Texas. appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Daniel Hannan is one of Brexit's biggest champions. A Member of the European Parliament and a leading Euroskeptic, Hannan's advocacy of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union has earned him international attention. While critics regarded the "Vote Leave" campaign as a dangerous retreat from globalization, Hannan has made consistent, libertarian arguments for withdrawal as a path towards greater democracy and free markets.
Noting the E.U.'s sluggish economic growth rates and its failure to establish free trade agreements with China and India, Hannan believes the U.K. should take charge of its own economic destiny. "I want people to be making the ethical argument for free trade as the supreme instrument of poverty alleviation, of conflict resolution and of social justice," Hannan says. He adds, "It's the multinationals that thrive on the distortions and the tariffs and the quotas, he says. "And it's the poor who will benefit most from their removal."
Hannan pushes back against the charge of Brexit as a symptom of xenophobia. Following the Brexit win, he says, poll numbers demonstrate that voters were most concerned with sovereignty. "All of the polls were very clear that the biggest issue was democracy. Immigration was a very distant second," he says. "People wanted a sense of control and I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing."
With Brexit not taking effect until 2019 and the terms of withdrawal not yet negotiated, the United Kingdom's future has rarely seemed so uncertain. In two year's time, the U.K. will have the opportunity to decide on its own policies of trade and immigration. Hannan is confident his country will do the right thing.
—-
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
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.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Alex Manning. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein.
The post The Ethical Argument for Free Trade—Daniel Hannan on Brexit appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Daniel Hannan is one of Brexit's biggest champions. A Member of the European Parliament and a leading Euroskeptic, Hannan's advocacy of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union has earned him international attention. While critics regarded the "Vote Leave" campaign as a dangerous retreat from globalization, Hannan has made consistent, libertarian arguments for withdrawal as a path towards greater democracy and free markets.
Noting the E.U.'s sluggish economic growth rates and its failure to establish free trade agreements with China and India, Hannan believes the U.K. should take charge of its own economic destiny. "I want people to be making the ethical argument for free trade as the supreme instrument of poverty alleviation, of conflict resolution and of social justice," Hannan says. He adds, "It's the multinationals that thrive on the distortions and the tariffs and the quotas, he says. "And it's the poor who will benefit most from their removal."
Hannan pushes back against the charge of Brexit as a symptom of xenophobia. Following the Brexit win, he says, poll numbers demonstrate that voters were most concerned with sovereignty. "All of the polls were very clear that the biggest issue was democracy. Immigration was a very distant second," he says. "People wanted a sense of control and I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing."
With Brexit not taking effect until 2019 and the terms of withdrawal not yet negotiated, the United Kingdom's future has rarely seemed so uncertain. In two year's time, the U.K. will have the opportunity to decide on its own policies of trade and immigration. Hannan is confident his country will do the right thing.
—-
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
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.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Alex Manning. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein.
The post The Ethical Argument for Free Trade—Daniel Hannan on Brexit appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Supporters of Gary Johnson gathered in Albuquerque, New Mexico on Tuesday to celebrate the end of the 2016 presidential campaign and a record-breaking vote total for the Libertarian Party. The former New Mexico governor and his running mate, former Massachussetts governor William Weld, earned nearly 4 million votes as of Tuesday night, more than tripling the Libertarians' 2012 vote total.
But Tuesday night also saw the election of Donald J. Trump to the highest office in the land, upending the collective political wisdom and nearly all pre-election forecasts. The Libertarian ticket drew more votes than the difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton, leading to an outpouring of criticism from Democrats who claimed that Johnson voters handed Trump the presidency. So what do Libertarian voters think of this charge?
Reason TV traveled to Albuquerque to get Johnson supporters' take on this election and their role in it, and to find out what's next for the Libertarian Party after an historic showing in the popular vote.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller, Justin Monticello, and Alex Manning.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a
The post Gary Johnson Voters Explain Why They're Not To Blame for President Trump appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Watch above or click on the link below for video, full interview transcript, supporting links, downloadable versions, and more Reason TV clips.
The post Cliff Maloney Jr. and the Fight for Free Speech on College Campuses appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"It used to be college was a place for open dialogue and open debate," says Says Cliff Maloney Jr., Executive Director at Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). "But now we find free speech zones, we find unconstitutional policies. And thats our goal with…our national fight for free speech campaign. How do we tackle them? How do we change them and reform them?"
YAL, the non-profit pro-liberty organization that emerged from the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, encourages college students to understand and exercise their constitutional rights. "We try to reach kids with these ideas. We do that through activism. Real events–which college campuses are supposed to be all about–taking ideas to students and having these discussions." Since its founding, YAL has increased chapters from 100 to over 700 nationwide.
Maloney sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to talk about YAL, the state of free speech on campus, and his goal of making politics "sexy."
Camera by Joshua Swain and Todd Krainin. Edited by Alex Manning
Approximately 10 minutes.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post The Fight for Free Speech on College Campuses appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"It used to be college was a place for open dialogue and open debate," says Says Cliff Maloney Jr., Executive Director at Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). "But now we find free speech zones, we find unconstitutional policies. And thats our goal with…our national fight for free speech campaign. How do we tackle them? How do we change them and reform them?"
YAL, the non-profit pro-liberty organization that emerged from the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, encourages college students to understand and exercise their constitutional rights. "We try to reach kids with these ideas. We do that through activism. Real events–which college campuses are supposed to be all about–taking ideas to students and having these discussions." Since its founding, YAL has increased chapters from 100 to over 700 nationwide.
Maloney sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to talk about YAL, the state of free speech on campus, and his goal of making politics "sexy."
Camera by Joshua Swain and Todd Krainin. Edited by Alex Manning
Approximately 10 minutes.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post The Fight for Free Speech on College Campuses appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Reason TV caught up with Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson soon after his Jimmy Kimmel Live appearance to get his reaction to the final presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump. Johnson responded to Trump's assertion that the election is rigged and would hold out accepting the result of the election, saying "I will look at it at the time."
"That's just not right," said Johnson. "First of all elections are a state-by-state issue so to think that some sort of conspiracy exists that elections can be rigged, that's not good for the system when in fact that's not happening."
Watch for more on topics Johnson thought should have been covered more thoroughly in the debates, what he thought of the WikiLeaks revelations for the Clinton campaign, and why he's still optimistic about winning the election.
Produced by Paul Detrick and Alex Manning.
Approximately 3 minutes.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post 'Trump is Toast & Clinton is a Hypocrite': Gary Johnson Reacts to Last Night's Debate appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>A new poll out of Utah shows Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump tied with Democrat Hillary Clinton at 26 percent each, with independent candidate Evan McMullin a close third at 22 percent and Libertarian Gary Johnson pulling 14 percent of the vote.
Why does Utah, often one of the the most reliably Republican states in the union, dislike Donald Trump so much? And are there possible inroads for libertarians in the heavily religious, socially conservative state? Reason TV asked these questions of several former Republican voters in Utah, many of whom drew surprising connections between the teachings of the Latter Day Saints church and the libertarian philosophy.
Watch the video above to find out what they had to say.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning and Zach Weissmueller. Music by Nick Jaina.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The post Why Do Utah Voters Hate Trump (And Kind of Like Gary Johnson)? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"Libertarians, who I'm afraid will be disappointed in [the] November [presidential election], will look at the Free State Project as a way that they can actually make a difference on a smaller level with more impact," Matt Philips told Reason's Nick Gillespie.
A 15-year-old initiative to get libertarians to move to New Hampshire, the Free State Project reached a milestone in February by collecting its 20,000th pledge to relocate to the Granite State within five years.
Gillespie sat down with Philips, who's president of the Free State Project, at FreedomFest 2016 to discuss how the initiative is progressing.
About 7 minutes and 30 seconds.
Produced by Alex Manning. Camera by Austin Bragg and Jim Epstein. Music by Podington Bear.
Click below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
The post Is the Libertarian Migration to New Hampshire Having an Impact? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"Libertarians, who I'm afraid will be disappointed in [the] November [presidential election], will look at the Free State Project as a way that they can actually make a difference on a smaller level with more impact," Matt Philips told Reason's Nick Gillespie.
A 15-year-old initiative to get libertarians to move to New Hampshire, the Free State Project reached a milestone in February by collecting its 20,000th pledge to relocate to the Granite State within five years.
Gillespie sat down with Philips, who's president of the Free State Project, at FreedomFest 2016 to discuss how the initiative is progressing.
About 7 minutes and 30 seconds.
Produced by Alex Manning. Camera by Austin Bragg and Jim Epstein. Music by Podington Bear.
Click below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
The post Is the Libertarian Migration to New Hampshire Having an Impact? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>As Donald Trump takes the stage to accept the nomination for president at the Republican National Convention, the #NeverTrump crowd may be switching off their television sets. Reason got in touch with Rory Cooper, a senior adviser to the #NeverTrump Super PAC, to talk about what's next for #NeverTrumpers and whether they would support Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson in November.
Music by Riot.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
The post Time Is Up For the #NeverTrumpers. Will They Swing Libertarian? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The Republican Party's 2016 platform states that pornography "has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions" and "we encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children's safety and well-being."
Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown talked to some of the attendees at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland to find out what they think.
Produced by Alex Manning. Hosted by Elizabeth Brown
About 2 minutes.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new stories go live.
The post "Is Porn Really a 'Public Health Crisis'? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>If you walk around outside the 2016 Republican National Convention you may think you'd find thousands of protesters ready to vent their anger at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his xenophobic ideas. But, what you'd really find is a lot of reporters hunting for stories and sparsely attended protests.
Approximately 2:48.
Music by Kevin MacLeod.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
The post Donald Trump is Terrifying. Why Have the RNC Protests Been So Lame? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The 2016 Republican National Convention may feel like a sureal acid trip with its abundance of American flag clothing and Donald Trump memorabilia. But, if you look past the theatrics of delagates and supporters, you may witness a political party convention that acts like a wake for the GOP.
Approximately 3:12.
Music by The Underscore Orkestra.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
The post Is Trump the End of the GOP? Hopefully. appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"The vocal minority of students who actually want censorship—who want to be protected from ideas they don't like—they've always existed," says Reason associate editor Robby Soave. "But in the last five years they have gained institutional power on these campuses."
From microaggressions and trigger warnings, to the shouting down and assault of controversial speakers, the climate on American college campuses have shifted sharply away from the classical understanding of free speech and inquiry that were once the bedrock of higher education.
Soave, who reports on political correctness and on college campuses for Reason, sat down with Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch at Reason Weekend, the annual event hosted by the Reason Foundation, to talk about the state of free speech on American colleges and universities.
Edited by Alex Manning. Camera by Paul Detrick and Todd Krainin
Scroll down for downloadable versions of the video and be sure to subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
The post How the Federal Government Is Killing Free Speech on Campus appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"The vocal minority of students who actually want censorship—who want to be protected from ideas they don't like—they've always existed," says Reason associate editor Robby Soave. "But in the last five years they have gained institutional power on these campuses."
From microaggressions and trigger warnings, to the shouting down and assault of controversial speakers, the climate on American college campuses have shifted sharply away from the classical understanding of free speech and inquiry that were once the bedrock of higher education.
Soave, who reports on political correctness and on college campuses for Reason, sat down with Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch at Reason Weekend, the annual event hosted by the Reason Foundation, to talk about the state of free speech on American colleges and universities.
Edited by Alex Manning. Camera by Paul Detrick and Todd Krainin
Scroll down for downloadable versions of the video and be sure to subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
The post How the Federal Government Is Killing Free Speech on Campus appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>California officials lifted the most extreme drought restrictions this week thanks to above average rainfall in the Northern part of the state. Yet 70 percent of the Golden State is still experiencing severe drought conditions.
In a recent interview with Reason TV, Reed Watson of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) offered a policy solution to the drought problem: better defined property rights and a robust market in water.
Click below to watch the interview and here for the original writeup.
The post Heavy Rainfall Is Easing California's Drought Crisis. A Free Market in Water Would Actually Solve the Problem. appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Chef Roy Choi, famous for bringing Korean tacos to the streets of Los Angeles, has a new venture: LocoL, which offers a fresh take on fast food, will open its second location in Oakland next week. It's a collaboration with Michelin Star Chef Daniel Patterson.
As SF Eater reports,
LocoL's mission is ambitious, aiming to bring healthy and sustainable fast food to its communities, while offering jobs and training to underserved individuals. The menu is comprised of items like $5 burgers and fried chicken sandwiches, $7 noodle bowls, and $2 sides like corn chips, messy greens and rice.
Recently Choi recently sat down with Reason TV's Alexis Garcia to talk about the street food revolution.
Click below to watch the video, or here for the original writeup.
The post Chef Roy Choi Is Trying to Reinvent Fast Food appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>According to a Rasmussen poll released this week, Donald Trump is gaining support, with 42 percent of likely voters in his camp compared to Hillary Clinton's 37 percent.
But, as Hot Air's Ed Morrissey told Reason's Nick Gillespie in a recent interview, ultimately a handful of counties will determine who takes the White House in November.
Morrissey's new book is titled, Going Red: The Two Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President—and How Conservatives Can Win Them. (This interview originally ran on April 28, 2016.)
Click below to watch:
The post The Seven Counties That Will Determine the Next President appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"If you're going to be serious about using markets to allocate water, the first thing you have to do is let the market determine the price," says Reed Watson, the executive director at the Property and Environment Research Center, or PERC, a nonprofit think tank based in Bozeman, Montana.
If California wants to ease the effects of its drought, Watson says, government should get out of the way and leave resource allocation to the market. "You have to have markets that actually work, that allow competing users to resolve their competition amicably and efficiently."
About six minutes.
Written and produced by Alex Manning. Camera by Paul Detrick.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
The post The Solution to California's Drought: A Free Market in Water appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"If you're going to be serious about using markets to allocate water, the first thing you have to do is let the market determine the price," says Reed Watson, the executive director at the Property and Environment Research Center, or PERC, a nonprofit think tank based in Bozeman, Montana.
If California wants to ease the effects of its drought, Watson says, government should get out of the way and leave resource allocation to the market. "You have to have markets that actually work, that allow competing users to resolve their competition amicably and efficiently."
About six minutes.
Written and produced by Alex Manning. Camera by Paul Detrick.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
The post The Solution to California's Drought: A Free Market in Water appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Fourteen-year-old Dedric Colvin was shot on Wednesday when Baltimore Police mistook his BB gun for a semi-automatic pistol. As Ed Krayewski noted on Hit & Run,
According to police, cops saw the boy with what looked like a gun and "gave chase," as the Baltimore Sun described it. The police commissioner insists there's "no reason to believe that these officers acted inappropriately in any way," because they didn't know if the gun was real or not. Police also brought in the boy's mother for questioning, and the police commissioner said she said she knew her son had left the home with the "replica."
If the officer involved had been wearing a body camera, might it have prevented this incident? In 2015, Reason's Paul Detrick sat down with former Seattle Police officer Steve Ward to discuss how cameras lead to better policing.
"Everyone behaves better when they're on video," said Ward, who started a body-camera company called Vievu. "I wanted to catch 100 percent of what a cop does."
Click below to watch the video:
The post How Body Cameras Help Prevent Tragic Police Shootings #DedricColvin appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Antoinette Frink sold a dozen cars to drug dealers. Luis Rivera smuggled drugs from Colombia in his twenties. Barbra Scrivner was a young mother whose husband sold crystal meth.
All three are nonviolent offenders sentenced to federal prison.
In "Life + 185 Years," Reason's Todd Krainin takes a look at three people who got swept up in the drug war.
Click below to watch the video, or here for the original writeup.
The post Non-Violent Drug Offenders Get Life +185 Years appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"Politics should be peer-to-peer, it shouldn't be a top-down lecture," says Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, whose new book is titled Going Red: The Two Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President—and How Conservatives Can Win Them.
Morrissey recent sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie for an extended interview.
Click below to watch the video, or here for the original writeup.
The post The 2 Million People Who Will Elect the Next President appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>"Politics should be peer-to-peer, it shouldn't be a top-down lecture," says Ed Morrissey, who blogs at Hot Air and is the author of the provocative new book, Going Red: The Two Million Voters Who Will Elect the Next President—and How Conservatives Can Win Them.
Though Morrissey is openly rooting for a Republican victory (unlike many conservatives, he hasn't even joined the #NeverTrump movement), Going Red is a deeply reported attempt to understand how different groups of voters in different parts of the country have very different issues and concerns. He traveled extensively to seven swing counties in seven different states (Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, and more) to analyze and understand exactly how Democrats and Republicans have connected—or failed to connect—with residents. In Wake County, North Carolina, for instance, Morrissey talks to young libertarian Republicans who tell him that although "all the energy is with the young, the more libertarian movment," the party generally seems "openly hostile" to a message that stresses "we're not going to tell you how to live your life."
The result is a ground-level tour of how actual voters think about actual issues. True to his roots in decentralized online media (not so long ago, Morrissey was a call center operator who blogged on the side), he stresses that political operations have to take cues from business and cultural enterprises that flatten hierarchies and empower two-way conversations.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the results are fascinating for anyone interested in how retail politics must be remade in an age of ubiquitous media, ground-up messaging, and the not-so-slow death of establishment parties.
In a wide-ranging conversation with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Morrissey also offers up an answer to the question many libertarians have: Why should libertarians care if conservatives or Republicans win the 2016 election? His answer will surprise you.
About 15 minutes. Produced by Alex Manning.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new videos go live. You can also watch, like, and share Reason TV videos on Facebook. Go here for our video library.
The post 2 Million Voters in 7 Counties Will Decide 2016. Who Will Win Them? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Earlier this week, ISIS claimed responsibility for the deadly bombings in Brussels, which took the lives of 34 people.
Anthony Fisher sat down with Michael Weiss, co-author of the New York Times bestseller ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror in October to discuss ISIS and how it was created.
Originally published on Oct 15, 2015
"I'm out of solutions here," says Michael Weiss, a senior editor at The Daily Beast and co-author of the New York Times bestseller, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, widely viewed as the most comprehensive study of the brutal Islamist entity that controls a wide swath of land between Iraq and Syria.
Speaking with Reason TV about U.S. involvement in the disastrous Syrian civil war, Weiss laments, "I can speak glibly about no-fly zones, but at this point I just understand this administration is never going to do anything to rescue the Syrian people or prevent Assad, Iran, and Russia from killing everybody they want to."
Weiss, a foreign affairs reporter with extensive experience covering the Middle East and Russia, believes that the U.S. had options besides war that could have prevented the refugee crisis becoming the global fiasco it is today. But, charges Weiss, President Obama's determination to achieve a nuclear deal with Iran meant he refused to pursue policies that might disrupt Assad's Syria.
With Russian jets bombing non-ISIS rebel groups in Syria and Obama leaving office in early 2017, Weiss "guarantees the following: Assad will still be in Damascus. ISIS will still be in Syria [and] eventually Russia will bomb ISIS, but they haven't really been doing it yet."
Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein with help from Dan Rogenstein.
The post Who To Blame For the Rise of ISIS? appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>On March 20th, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in Cuba since 1928. He held a press conference with Raul Castro, where he spoke about, among other things, lifting the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
The process of normalization between the two Cold War foes opens Cuba up to some much needed capital and goods from America, like new cars. And while they might provide some of that old world charm, the cars in Cuba are falling apart and have been since the 1950's.
As Michael Moynihan points out in this 2012 Reason TV interview with Kennedy, being more "authentic" might make tourist feel like they're getting the true experience. But for the people living in those countries being more "authentic" typically means being more oppressed.
Original release date was September 7, 2012 and original writeup is below.
"Travel guide writers are obsessed with authenticity," says Reason Contibuting Editor Michael C. Moynihan. "You'll find people who say 'isn't it adorable when you go to Havana that they have all these Packards from the 1950s?' Well, no it's not. This is a pretty grim assessment of the economics of Cuba."
In a recent piece in Foreign Policy, Moynihan dissects several popular travel guides and finds "the guidebooks are clotted with historical revisionism, factual errors, and a toxic combination of Orientalism and pathological self-loathing."
Moynihan sat down with Reason TV's Kennedy to discuss his article, the political and cultural biases in travel guides, and why the burqa should not be considered "a tool for social mobility" as Lonely Planet's guide to Afghanistan suggests.
About 3.30 minutes.
Produced by Anthony L. Fisher, Camera by Jim Epstein and Fisher.
The post Cuba is One Step Closer to Being Less 'Authentic' appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Many Americans trace the modern conservation movement back to President Theodore Roosevelt, known for his love of the outdoors and for creating the U.S. Forest Service and the national parks system.
But what if government isn't the only, or the best, entity to protect America's natural wonders?
The American Prairie Reserve is a nonprofit group that wants to establish the largest nature reserve in the lower 48 states and it aims to do so with private funding. So far, American Prairie Reserve owns or leases more than 300,000 acres with a goal of stitching together 3.5 million acres of private and federal land across to create a reserve 1.5 times the size of Yellowstone National Park. And they believe that their unique approach will reduce the tension with local ranchers and farmers that national parks often experience.
"Currently, wildlife has no economic value to ranchers and, as such, the ranchers don't want them around," says Pete Geddes, managing director of American Prairie Reserve.
But American Prairie Reserve aims to fix that problem with its Wild Sky Beef program. Wild Sky is a brand associated with a for-profit company, and the proceeds from its profits go towards funding incentives for ranchers to engage in wildlife-friendly practices such as creating gaps in their fences for herd animals to pass through, planting native grasses, and allowing prairie dogs to establish colonies on their property. The more benchmarks the ranchers meet, the bigger the payout.
"As we're successful and we gain more attention over time, you'll see other groups trying to put this together at a much larger scale," says Geddes.
Watch the video above to learn more about American Prairie Reserve and Wild Sky Beef. Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Approximately 5 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Field produced by Alex Manning and Paul Detrick. Camera by Manning. Prairie and wildlife footage by Gib Myers. Music by Adam Selzer, Michael Howard, Waylon Thornton, and Kitaygorod.
The post The Plan to Create a Giant, Privately Funded Nature Reserve by Selling Beef appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Donald Trump and the three other Republican candidates hoping to stop him from capturing the nomination took the stage in Miami last night in a final attempt to sway voters before next week's primary elections in Florida and Ohio.
Instead of getting a repeat of the verbal cage match from previous debates, viewers were treated to a discussion on substantive issues like trade, education, social security, and foreign policy. Even Trump found the evening "elegant."
If you didn't get to watch the debate, we've got you covered. Here's everything you need to know in 90 seconds.
Produced by Alexis Garcia and Alex Manning. Music by Podington Bear.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new videos go live.
The post The Miami GOP Debate in 90 Seconds appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Next week, the Goldwater Institute will release a new study on the failure of the FDA's Expanded Access program, which is designed to provide a way for patients to try medications that haven't yet cleared the FDA's stringent regulatory process.
The program isn't far reaching enough, and frequently denies terminally-ill patients potentially life-saving medicines, according to the study.
As Reason TV reported recently, Goldwater crafted its own wildly successful model legislation known "Right to Try," which does give dying patients access to experimental treatments. Versions of the bill have passed in 24 states.
Click below to watch the story:
The post The FDA Is Still Denying Terminally-Ill Patients Access to Experimental Drugs appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>When the US District Court of Central California ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking a phone that beloged to one of the San Bernadino shooters, CEO Tim Cook announced that the company would oppose the order. "For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers' personal data because we believe it's the only way to keep their information safe," Cook wrote in a statement. "We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business."
The Department of Justice filed a motion on Friday to compel Apple to comply.
There's another way that customers can protect their private communications from the government—and Apple: Use proper encryption tools.
Reason TV recently put together a handy guide for how to chat anonymously online:
The post How to Protect Your Data from the Government (And Apple) appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The U.S. and Cuba have finally reached an agreement to lift the ban on direct commercial flights.
Since 2014, when the two countries first began the process of normalizing their relationship, the only way to travel has been on a chartered flight. By next fall, Americans will be able to purchase direct commercial flights to the island, which is just 90 miles from Key West.
So what's life been like in Cuba for the past half century? In 2009, Michael Moynihan sat down with Gorki Águila, leader to the Cuban-punk-band Porno Para Ricardo, to talk about free speech under communism.
The post The U.S. Will Finally Lift the Ban on Direct Flights to Cuba appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>CBD, or cannabidiol, is a chemical found in the marijuana plant, and many people believe it has medicinal benefits. CBD has recently become readily available in states with medical marijuana laws—and now some companies are putting it in dog treats.
CBD has no psychoactive effects, so dogs that take CBD don't get high. But pet owners say that it eases anxiety and helps with the symptoms of cancer and epilepsy.
"Dogs take it for things like hip dysplasia, mobility pain, and aging," says Julianna Carella, founder of the company Treatibles.
"I've been surprised how many people around here know about it," says Heidi Hill, who is the owner of the Holistic Hound pet store in Berkeley, California, which sells CBD dog treats.
Since the federal government still considers marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, these companies operate with some legal uncertainty.
For more, click above to watch the video.
The post Meet the Marijuana Industry's Newest Customers: Dogs appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>CBD, or cannabidiol, is a chemical found in the marijuana plant, and many people believe it has medicinal benefits. CBD has recently become readily available in states with medical marijuana laws—and now some companies are putting it in dog treats.
CBD has no psychoactive effects, so dogs that take CBD don't get high. But pet owners say that it eases anxiety and helps with the symptoms of cancer and epilepsy.
"Dogs take it for things like hip dysplasia, mobility pain, and aging," says Julianna Carella, founder of the company Treatibles.
"I've been surprised how many people around here know about it," says Heidi Hill, who is the owner of the Holistic Hound pet store in Berkeley, California, which sells CBD dog treats.
Since the federal government still considers marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, these companies operate with some legal uncertainty.
For more, click above to watch the video.
The post Meet the Marijuana Industry's Newest Customers: Dogs appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Meet the Marijuana Industry's Newest Customers: Dogs, is the latest video from ReasonTV. Watch above or click on the link below for video, full text, supporting links, downloadable versions, and more Reason TV clips.
The post Meet the Marijuana Industry's Newest Customers, Dogs: New Video at Reason.com appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>