Libertarian History/Philosophy
Beyond The 1619 Project: Holding Academics and Journalists Accountable
Intellectual watchdog Phil Magness talks Nikole Hannah-Jones, Nancy MacLean, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Kevin Kruse.
HD DownloadWho watches the intellectual watchmen?
When it comes to historians, especially those purporting to tell the truth about the founding of America, the Civil War era, the Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan, and the revered Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, it's Phil Magness of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
Magness has a Ph.D. from George Mason University's school of public policy, and he's written and co-written books on what he calls "the moral mess of higher education," on Abraham Lincoln's plan for black resettlement after emancipation, and on inaccuracies in The 1619 Project.
He has emerged as that offering's most dogged critic, finding that the Pulitzer Prize–winning series, developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, was quietly revised on the New York Times website after several prominent historians pointed out major errors in its analysis. Magness has also been a leading critic of Duke University historian Nancy MacLean, whose National Book Award-nominated Democracy in Chains attempted to brand the school choice movement as motivated by racism and white supremacy.
And he's a critic of Hans-Herman Hoppe, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mises Institute, who is increasingly influential within the Libertarian Party. "Hoppe has tried to invent this kind of carved-out counter-narrative while still claiming to be a representative of Mises that says we can use this propertian concept of the nation-state to exclude…immigrants from crossing the borders," says Magness. "He gets the complete inversion of Mises' thought."
In June, Magness wrote an article for Reason that inspired an ongoing plagiarism investigation at Princeton University of Kevin Kruse, a high-profile, very online professor of history. "This is a guy that would tweet 100 or 200 times a day," says Magness. "As soon as the word got out about plagiarism, he's dropped off the face of the earth." Indeed, Kruse's Twitter feed has stayed silent since June.
Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with Magness at FreedomFest, the annual gathering in Las Vegas, to talk about intellectual accountability in academia, journalism, and the libertarian movement.
*Correction: The video introduction incorrectly states that Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains won the National Book Award. It was a finalist.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki. Camera by Door Greene.
Photo Credits: Acroterion, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Beowulf Sheehan/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Economic Policy Institute; CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Dreamstine; Fotostand / Freitag/picture alliance / Fotostand/Newscom; Gage Skidmore; James Cridland, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Richard B. Levine/Newscom; Slowking4, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons; Wittylama, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Music Credits: "Divine Attraction," (Instrumental Version) by A Seal to See, via Artlist.
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
What is it with these ridiculously long lead ins? This one even adds over a minute of countdown timer! Fuck me. Then who knows how many minutes of introduction. I kept on skipping forward and got more introduction crap. It's like watching a huge ass trailer for the main feature which is coming up next.
Reason, Nick Gillespie, if you want me to watch these things, you're gonna have to cut the crap. I'm not wading through 5, 10, who knows how many minutes of teaser when I know everything in there is repeated in the main event.
And when I know this same video is going to be reposted twice more.
"In a world..."
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got 13k us dollars only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this article... https://libertyinc0me.neocities.org/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu-05) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
It's right handy that these wokidiots self-identify. Duranty got the Pulitzer. That idiot who made up probation and other records to push the lie that early Americans did not own very many guns got some book award which was rescinded when the stink got too much even for them, although Duranty still has his award. These idiots got similar awards which have not yet been rescinded.
They're like the Nobel Peace Prize going to Candidate Obama, and not rescinded when President Obama began a new round of bombing.
Or that crazy London prize which always goes to the most outré artists imaginable who throws fruit at ceilings or hangs his coat on a peg and calls it art.
Awesome to hear someone decry voiding Von Mises' individualism by using the word immigrants or foreigner (which is both an individual and a group descriptor) and the associated group exclusion with the term 'alt-right' or 'racist', which aren't in any way objective individual identifiers.
Even further, not just brand someone as alt-right or racist but then go on to dismiss their arguments via implied guilt-by-association.
That's not to say Hoppe isn't racist, but the methods employed might as well just call Jefferson a slave-owner and be done with any arguments about libertarianism in the colonies one way or the other.
""Hoppe has tried to invent this kind of carved-out counter-narrative while still claiming to be a representative of Mises that says we can use this propertian concept of the nation-state to exclude…immigrants from crossing the borders," says Magness. "He gets the complete inversion of Mises' thought.""
Bah. If you are going to highlight a person's criticism of another person- especially when we are talking about wonky stuff like the libertarian immigration theory- I think you can do better than just leaving it to the critic to describe his target's position. It's kind of shitty.
In any case, here is a decent overview of Hoppe's argument:
https://mises.org/library/immigration-roundtable-hans-hermann-hoppe
I cannot say I'm persuaded by Hoppe's argument. 1) his argument assumes an immigrant is uninvited, when often they are invited and 2) his argument just accepts ipso facto that a private community's covenant can include a severe infringement on the freedom of association. And while I can theoretically accept that people could willingly accept #2 (giving up this freedom in return for joining a private community), it isn't at all evident to me that this is morally good- and that does seem to be an argument he is making earlier in the article. I would generally see it as morally neutral.
Whooops. Holy fuck I am as bad as them. I didn't read far enough down.
Hoppe does deal with Invited Immigration, and his entire point is that invited immigration is EXACTLY the moral piece. He is saying it is immoral for a person to go into a region without the property owner inviting them. Which is fair.
His argument is that Government perverts things and that when the government permits someone into an area without consent, they are aggressing on the property owner who is now forced to associate with them.
Now I see this as a bit crude of a construction, but if we accept it, we are still left to ask which is the greater crime- the government aggressing on restrictionists by forcing them to associate with immigrants, versus the government aggressing on those who wish to associate with immigrants.
It is an item worth discussing, and this attempt to dismiss it as icky nativist stuff is- as I said- pretty shitty.
Whooops. Holy fuck I am as bad as them. I didn't read far enough down.
You're also giving Magness too much credit. His argument against Hoppe's interpretation is an oblivious and paradoxical, "He associates with the alt-right and racists!" like Von Mises laid out somewhere "Racists can't be libertarians!" rather than taking the example he cites of Von Mises saying, "Keynes giving economic and rhetorical ammo to no-shit Nazis is a bad idea." in its accurate historical context.
And by the way- Hoppe's whole point here is that it is (once again) democratic government that is pushing this aggression on rights in either direction. If private property owners could invite, employ, and house people from the other side of the world in a manner that does not violate their neighbor's property rights (including breaking contractual agreements) then there would be no problem. And if that owner preferred not to have other people on their own property, the same would be true.
The argument for, or against, immigration then becomes similar to any Government mandate. Rather than being just about freedom of association, consider that the more appropriate discussion would be about how government deals with shipping containers near residential areas:
https://reason.com/2021/10/25/how-restrictive-zoning-laws-worsened-the-supply-chain-crisis/
All you need to know about Hoppe is that he's an anarchist but still wants the state to enforce immigration restrictions. There's definitely a screw loose in his head. How can one insist on border controls when one doesn't even believe in borders?
How can one insist on border controls when one doesn't even believe in borders?
That is without question, an excellent question. let me get the DNC on the line and see if they have an answer. I'll start with Lori Lightfoot.
Again, Magness' argument against Hoppes is that to regard an individual by a group status such as 'immigrant' or 'foreign' is a fundamental refutation of libertarianism because the person taking that stance is alt-right.
"All you need to know about Hoppe is that he's an anarchist but still wants the state to enforce immigration restrictions."
Except not at all. That is a 100% incorrect reading of his argument. So once again, all we get from Brandy is the same caricaturing of the Libertarians Brandy dislikes.
But notice Brandy's use of epistemological closure. This is ALL you need to know about Hoppe. Because Brandy is just like the author of this article. You should not read for yourself. You should not consider the details. Because Brandy is here to tell you ALL you need to know. Like an arrogant twat.
You left out the "TDS-addled" part.
No time to watch now...
Question:
Did they address the fact that the NYT News editors had a staff meeting where they told their reporters that the Russia story attempt to "get trump" had failed, but don't worry, they are working on other story lines they can push to remove Trump.
A couple of months later....
1619 project.
This was not journalism. It was never intended to be journalism. It was a component in a larger push to "make America racist again" for purely partisan political reasons.
And one other point:
"And he's a critic of Hans-Herman Hoppe...who is increasingly influential within the Libertarian Party."
This entire construction is extremely thin gruel.
1) Is he a critic of Hoppe in general, or Hoppe's immigration views specifically.
2) What proof of "increasing" influence in the LP do we have other than a Happy Birthday tweet?
3) What the fuck is with this "Connect the Dots" scare-mongering from Teh Jacket or whichever intern he has writing his summaries these days?
Let's be real here: The real message this statement is trying to send is, "The libertarian party has been taken over by bad people." That is why Magness is framed as critiquing a person, rather than a person's argument.
The libertarian movement and Party have always been full of people with differing ideas on specific policies. Look no further than a comparison of John Mcafee, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. These are different people who had discernable differences in policy. And some are accused murderers who totally killed themselves.
I increasingly see Reason falling into the trap of personality-based politics where they are more interested in attacking people than dealing with the arguments at hand. On first read, I don't agree with Hoppe's immigration argument. But I do agree with his arguments on free speech. And free trade. And other points of liberty.
I get that immigration seems to be a higher priority for certain Reason writers, and that is fine. Argue for immigration as you want, and argue against Hoppe. I will tend to agree (though I think addressing Hoppe's arguments will be much harder for Boomer-Hippsters like Gillespe and his cadre of interns). But this attempt to indict a guy based on one view, in an effort to push what is becoming a pretty creepy, and bitchy obsession with the Mises Caucus is not becoming of Reason, and it absolutely will not help the Libertarian Party, or libertarian cause.
It's a three fold problem.
Firstly, the writers her all work out of DC, NYC, or Cali. Not one of them lives in the burbs.
Second, because of one, they don't interact with or bother to seek out actual libertarians. They just conform to the socially expected attitudes they find themselves in.
Lastly, because of how much this rag and the foundation depend on Koch monies, they have no incentive to change. All the best contributions here come from people not on the dole.
> Democracy in Chains attempted to brand the school choice movement as motivated by racism and white supremacy.
Uhhh... I think you meant to type "Public Choice", not "school choice".
I don't know the book but it could be both. The review I read talks about James Buchanan a lot so ok maybe it's Public Choice.
OTOH, school choice has had racism there from the very first article about school choice by Milton Friedman that created the phrase school choice. That article the role of government in education) was written in 1955 and in a footnote Friedman points that he was unaware that many of his ideas were at that very moment being implemented in the South as a way of eliminating the Brown v Board Education decision by eliminating public education. So maybe it's school choice.
Seeing that plenty of schools are trying to teach the 1619 Project, school choice is a threat to them, because they can't teach their twisted ideology. Hence, they attack school choice as "motivated by racism and white supremacy."
No, see below. Some of them are alt-right and held notions of American Supremacy, a.k.a. White Supremacy, a.k.a. racism, a.k.a. Nazism and it's wrong to judge people based on loose misportrayals of their group status like 'immigrants' rather than their individualism, so the statues stay down.