Phil Magness: Holding Leftists and Libertarians Accountable
The intellectual watchdog keeps tabs on everyone from The 1619 Project's Nikole Hannah-Jones to Mises Institute's Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the name of serious scholarship.

Today's guest is Phil Magness, the intellectual watchdog based at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) who is keeping tight tabs on suspect claims from journalists and academics.
His targets have included Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize–winning series The 1619 Project, which Magness documented was being stealth-edited after several prominent historians pointed out major errors in its analysis. He's also gone after Hans-Herman Hoppe, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mises Institute. Hoppe is an arch critic of democracy and increasingly influential within the Libertarian Party. But despite his affiliation with a group named for the eminent Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Magness says that Hoppe presents "the complete inversion of Mises' thought," especially when it comes to immigration.
Magness has a Ph.D. from George Mason University's school of public policy, and he's written and co-written books on what he calls "the moral mess of higher education" and on Abraham Lincoln's plan for black resettlement after emancipation.
This interview was recorded at FreedomFest, the annual July gathering in Las Vegas, and we also talk about specious attacks on the school choice movement and Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan as racist, as well as Magness' excellent Reason article from earlier this year that has led to the ongoing plagiarism investigation of Princeton historian Kevin Kruse. We also discuss Magness' new project of figuring out how Karl Marx became such a powerful influence on 20th- and 21st-century thinking despite being relatively obscure during his lifetime.
Today's sponsor:
- Better Help online therapy. Are you having trouble solving problems in your life? Start talking to a licensed therapist who won't judge you but will listen and help you with your problems, whatever they are. Better Help is cheaper than most traditional forms of therapy and lets you talk with your therapist via chat, phone, or video—all within 48 hours of signing up and without the hassles of in-person appointments. Go here and get 10 percent off your first month as a listener to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Unless Phil Magness is willing to BOW LOW and kiss the Imperial Final Ring of POWER of Der TrumpfenFuhrer? His ass is grass, and "Team R" will be the lawnmower! Move OVER, lawnmowers!!!
Sqrlsy accuses others of being tribalists, while campaigning to be Team Blue's chief.
If you're willing to shitpost a comment section to death for child castration, censorship, imprisoning dissent and late term abortion, you're no centrist.
ALL serious scholars hail from Inner Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, ***AND*** they seriously LUST after having their pussies grabbed, good and hard, by Der TrumpfenFuhrer!!!! NONE of this wussy-pansies shit about getting your hair sniffed by Der BidenFuherer!!!!
(You GO, Perfect Pussy-Be-Grabbed Girl!!!!)
See?
Even sarcasmic makes more sense. Even the Rev is more consistent. Even the spambots are easier to read. Even Queenie is more responsive.
Hey, at least it doesn’t lie as much as Lying Jeffy!
You can tell?!?!
Seems spastic asshole truly is spastic.
Well, his user name is Squirrely One, so you kind of expect bizarre rants
Before I listen to this who wants to take some bets I'm going 5-1 odd that he mis characterizes what the misus caucus has said about immigration
What's the "misus caucus"? Is that a lobby of Henpecking wives? 😉
Otherwise known simply as "wives".
Well played. Gotta get rid these superfluous, unnecessary redundancies in my speech. 😉
Reason wouldn't be Reason without some Reasonisming on immigration.
"Hoppe is an arch critic of democracy and increasingly influential within the Libertarian Party. But despite his affiliation with a group named for the eminent Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Magness says that Hoppe presents "the complete inversion of Mises' thought," especially when it comes to immigration."
Hope is wrong as long as you ignore reality. An ongoing part of the gaslighting against the MC and mises by liberaltarians.
1) It is true that Hoppe is an arch critic of Democracy.
2) The evidence that he is "Increasingly Influential" in the LP is that the LP wished him a Happy Birthday on Twitter. That's it.
3) You can take or leave Hoppe's argument, but the idea that it is a "complete inversion" of Mises' thought is simplistic. Hoppe has made one distinction that should be debated.
He is arguing that moving yourself to another's property isn't "freedom of travel" it is trespassing. You cannot be a moral immigrant unless you are invited. In a free society, property owners could invite, employ, visit with, and house anyone they want so long as they are upholding any contractual obligations to their neighbors. I don't think that there is anything controversial about this point.
The controversial point is that the government cannot just take one side of this issue. If supporting Restrictionists means aggression against people's freedom of association, then supporting Open-Borders types means aggression against people's freedom of association (the choice not to associate and integrate with immigrants).
Again, I think it is a debatable point. But I think the point has some merit when you look at the busing controversy right now. The Mayor of DC, Bowser has been clear in her support of open borders. However she is equally clear that it is inappropriate for AZ and TX to send immigrants to her city. Note: TX is not forcing anyone to get on a bus to DC. They are just offering it to people of their own free will. Yet it seems to me that Bowser recognizes that a government (TX's) is forcing her city's residents to associate with people against their will. This seems to make Hobbe's point.
Again, I think it is possible to debate this point. But Reason, et al, are not interested in doing so. They think it is enough to call someone "an inversion" of thought, or (As Brandy was trying to do yesterday) accuse him of being a hypocrite by disingenuously caricaturing his argument.
“2) The evidence that he is "Increasingly Influential" in the LP is that the LP wished him a Happy Birthday on Twitter. That's it.”
He’s also been on Dave Smith’s podcast.
So have a lot of people, and that wasn't evidence that was provided in the article.
Which is a stretch because Smith doesn’t hold any official position in the caucus. It’s an interesting listen though.
> He is arguing that moving yourself to another's property isn't "freedom of travel" it is trespassing. You cannot be a moral immigrant unless you are invited. In a free society, property owners could invite, employ, visit with, and house anyone they want so long as they are upholding any contractual obligations to their neighbors. I don't think that there is anything controversial about this point.
Except there is this thing called "right of way". It is NOT trespass to walk down a right of way. Not trespass to be in the town square engaging in trade with the merchants there. And also, temporary trespass is not a felonious activity. Hiking in the woods and inadvertently crossing a property line should not land you in jail, regardless of you status as a Citizen of the Government.
And why does Hoppe want this invisible line to be at the edge of a government jursidiction that he himself does not agree with? By his argument I can't travel between California and Oregon without permission of everyone in Oregon. Or between Fresno and Tulare Counties without permission of everyone in Tulare County. This is an extremist view of property rights that discounts right of way and the ability to travel.
But go actually read Hoppe's writings. He's talking about ethnicism here. He's talking about restricting your neighbor's right to invite guests onto his property. He assumes racists and ethnists get to control who can or cannot enter their aggregate properties. Not just their own individual property, but that of their neighbors. It's deed covenants write yuuge. He's imagining a perverse anarcho-feudalism where property ownership confers all rights, including rights over others.
"Except there is this thing called "right of way". It is NOT trespass to walk down a right of way. "
There is no moral right to a "Right of Way". A right of way is a piece of property with certain permissions attached to that. Those permissions are revokable. And if the Right of Way is established by a government, again, it is an act of force- aggression.
"And also, temporary trespass is not a felonious activity."
You are handwaving. No one has said what is felonious or otherwise. We are talking about what is morally wrong. You are wrong to knowingly trespass on someone's property without their permission. Whether we think that is felonious or just a small wevil doesn't matter.
"And why does Hoppe want this invisible line to be at the edge of a government jursidiction that he himself does not agree with? By his argument I can't travel between California and Oregon without permission of everyone in Oregon. "
No his argument is that you cannot go to someone's property without their invitation. If that person, as a part of purchasing that property and cohabitating with neighbors, has rules around who (and under which conditions) a person might be invited, they are contractually bound by that.
A government that assumes these rights of free association is taking them. That is his point. And they may be aggressing by preventing people from associating, or FORCING them to associate. Either is aggression.
"He assumes racists and ethnists get to control who can or cannot enter their aggregate properties. Not just their own individual property, but that of their neighbors. It's deed covenants write yuuge. He's imagining a perverse anarcho-feudalism where property ownership confers all rights, including rights over others."
Let's see now that Brandy has shifted to "It's all the racists". Yes. People will tend to setup covenants. And as long as they are entered into (and exited from) in an acceptable manner, there is no aggression.
This is really what is telling here- Brandy suggests that if 100 owners create a region where they voluntarily agree to only allow others under mutual consent, that is somehow wrong. And even more wrong if their motivation is *gasp* because they want to be around people like themselves.
The moral confusion here is mind boggling.
Overt went through it in a thread yesterday. Their second attack on Hoppe in 2 days.
Rich Uncle Charles must be really, really mad about the Mises guys.
Marx is popular because he is a retard that says that utopia will be achieved when all the retards get together and become constantly violent.
Thus the retards today (many more are being created thanks to public schools) believe this crap because they are too stupid to see where it ends
Correction: Was a retard. Marx is dead now, though his spleen goes on and on...(Sorry, Celene.)
Marx is currently suffering in hell for his evil works.
A neighbor's kid is smart as a whip ... but lazier than a dead horse. He is a bum and a convicted thief, but too damned lazy to b dangerous. The closest this 35-year old "kid" has gotten to work is selling firewood he has cut up from trees on vacation home properties.
The other day he was whining about how come he doesn't get paid as much as me or his parents, said he works just as hard (ha!) and ought to get paid the same hourly rate. I asked him if I should get paid as much per hour for cutting firewood, considering it would take me so much longer, and that really baffled him, he was arguing both ways, yes I should, but only once I was as good as him, but no, because this that and the other thing.
I laughed and told him to read up on Marx, he'd find a grand cause invented two centuries before. He did at least know who Marx was, but re-invented his theory on his own.
It's about as common sensical as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and sounds great to a 5-year old. Any adult should know better on his own. Any school kid should understand once you tell him to lower his grade to boost the class idiot's grade.
It's about as common sensical as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and sounds great to a 5-year old. Any adult should know better on his own. Any school kid should understand once you tell him to lower his grade to boost the class idiot's grade.
For me, it was "Stone Soup". The story is supposed to be a fantastic lesson about sharing and how, when a community comes together and everyone chips in, they can feed everyone. To this day, I can't get past the fact that they, the villagers and the travelers didn't actually gain any food and, in fact, the travelers tricked (a.k.a. defrauded) the villagers out of a free meal. Apparently, in Russian and E. European versions of the tale, the traveler even goes so far as to sell the rock to the village or take food along with him, making it, to me, clearer that the story is actually a cautionary tale about getting ripped off by con men. This story was in my mind later, when I read Rand's take on the re-telling of the tale of Robin Hood.
At least Jesus had the good morals to wind up with more loaves and fishes than when he started.
It is no more possible to feed 5000 with five loaves and two fishes than it is to feed a village with a stone and a pot of water. The Stone Soup Man and The Rock of Ages Man both never existed, M'Lady.
*Tips Little Red Hen's Chef's Hat.*
A more realistic read is the recipe for Rabbit Stew which begins: "First, catch a rabbit..."
Not so. Scholars, both Christian and non-Christian agree that Jesus existed:
https://kurtz.institute/the-human-prospect/six-reasons-why-the-myth-theory-of-jesus-is-bunkum
By the Kurtz Institute itself, an organization that is highly anti-Christian.
“For with God nothing shall be impossible.” - Luke 1:37
They've never cinematically honored Marx. If they ever do he should be played by Yosemite Sam.
Indeed. But wouldn't it be amusing to hear Christopher Walken reading extracts from the Communist Manifesto?
"A spectre. Is haunting Europe"
Great casting suggestion :
" Thunderation, Engels !
How y'all gonna per-swade that Republican varmint Lincoln that materialism's too important to leave to the Whigs?
It should be done with creepy puppets, Supercar style.
If they ever do he should be played by Yosemite Sam.
They should really get a black actor to play Marx.
It sounds like this Magness criticizes everyone other than his fellow disaffected wingnuts.
"except his fellow disaffected wingnuts."
I'm sure he'll criticize you too if you ask him politely.
Guys like me don't care about criticism, consent, approval, or respect from guys like Magness.
What we care about is obedience and compliance from the culture war's losers, and we will continue to have that.
Right-wing assholes get to whine about it as much as they like, of course, but their whimpering does not influence their betters.
Guys like me don’t care about criticism, consent, approval, or respect from guys like Magness.
Oh you better care, even if it's for polemical purposes. Your refusal to even consider hearing from our side keeps you ignorant.
What we care about is obedience and compliance from the culture war’s losers, and we will continue to have that.
So you want totalitarianism and suppression of your enemies? We won't go down without a fight.
Right-wing assholes get to whine about it as much as they like, of course, but their whimpering does not influence their betters.
You'd be mistaken, just go ask Terry McAuliffe for one. See you on November 8.
His main attacks on Hoppe are Hoppe being racist and the MC is pretty much reveling in Hoppe's racism rather than denying it.
Cite?
Yeah, pretty much. I find his actual philosophy to be ... anti-Mises, but whatever. The fact is that the dude is racist. Fact is the first thing the Mises Caucus did was remove the anti-racism plank in the platform. There is no crime in being racist, but that doesn't mean racists get the high moral ground.
The LvMI was known as the "Fever Swamp" for years, primarily due to Hoppe. Even the Neo-Confederalists pale next to him.
"The fact is that the dude is racist."
Not true.
"Fact is the first thing the Mises Caucus did was remove the anti-racism plank in the platform."
Also not true.
Also note that Brandy just automatically assumes the horrible lie that if you don't endorse "Anti-Racism" it is because you yourself are racist. Because Brandy isn't thinking rationally.
I'd be interested in how someone who argues the primacy of the individual and the abject rejection of collective identification and subjective labeling defines someone as a racist.
Actually, I guess I'm not really interested as much as it would be entertaining to watch them effectively delineate what constitutes a race and then define someone else as racist.