reason.com Open in urlscan Pro
75.2.24.81  Public Scan

URL: https://reason.com/podcast/2024/03/20/david-boaz-libertarianism-is-the-intellectual-core-of-liberalism/
Submission: On May 19 via manual from US — Scanned from US

Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM

GET https://reason.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://reason.com/">
  <label>
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
    <input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  </label>
  <input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>

POST

<form method="post" id="gform_0" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized"><input type="hidden" name="login_redirect" value="/podcast/2024/03/20/david-boaz-libertarianism-is-the-intellectual-core-of-liberalism/">
  <div class="gform_heading">
    <h3 class="gform_title">Login Form</h3>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_login" class="gform_fields top_label">
      <div id="field_0_1" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_1"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_1">Username<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_1" type="text" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_2" class="gfield gfield--type-password gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_2"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label gfield_label_before_complex" for="input_2">Password<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_password">
          <span id="input_2_1_container" class="ginput_password ">
            <span class="password_input_container">
              <input type="password" name="input_2" id="input_2" value="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
              <button type="button" class="gform_show_password gform-theme-button gform-theme-button--simple" onclick="javascript:gformToggleShowPassword(&quot;input_2&quot;);" aria-live="polite" aria-label="Show Password"
                data-label-show="Show Password" data-label-hide="Hide Password"><span class="dashicons dashicons-hidden" aria-hidden="true"></span></button>
            </span>
          </span>
          <div class="gf_clear gf_clear_complex"></div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_3" class="gfield gfield--type-remember_me field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_3"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label screen-reader-text gfield_label_before_complex"></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_checkbox">
          <div class="gfield_checkbox" id="input_3">
            <div class="gchoice gchoice_3">
              <input class="gfield-choice-input" name="input_3.1" type="checkbox" value="1" id="choice_3">
              <label for="choice_3" id="label_3">Remember Me</label>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_0" class="gform_button button"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">Login</button>
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_0" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_0" id="gform_target_page_number_0" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_0" id="gform_source_page_number_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

 * Latest
 * Magazine
   * Current Issue
   * Archives
   * Subscribe
   * Crossword
 * Video
 * Podcasts
   * All Shows
   * The Reason Roundtable
   * The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
   * The Soho Forum Debates
   * Just Asking Questions
   * The Best of Reason Magazine
   * Why We Can't Have Nice Things
 * Volokh
 * Newsletters
 * Donate
   * Donate Online
   * Donate Crypto
   * Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
   * Torchbearer Society
   * Planned Giving
 * Subscribe
   * Reason Plus Subscription
   * Print Subscription

Search for:


LOGIN FORM

Username(Required)

Password(Required)

Remember Me
Login
Create new account
Forgot password


Libertarianism


DAVID BOAZ: LIBERTARIANISM IS THE INTELLECTUAL CORE OF LIBERALISM


HOW VIETNAM, WATERGATE, AND STAGFLATION SUPERCHARGED THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

Nick Gillespie | 3.20.2024 10:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Audio Player
https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/35917C/d2h6a3ly6ooodw.cloudfront.net/reasontv_audio_8264346.mp3

00:00
00:00
00:00

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x
:15 :15
Download

DAVID BOAZ: LIBERTARIANISM IS THE INTELLECTUAL CORE OF LIBERALISM

HD Video Download

Few individuals have had a bigger impact on the libertarian movement than David
Boaz, the longtime executive vice president of the Cato Institute. Boaz recently
turned 70 and gave a keynote address at LibertyCon, the annual gathering
of Students for Liberty, in Washington, D.C. Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up
with Boaz to discuss the disarray in the libertarian movement, why he thinks the
nonaggression principle and cosmopolitanism form the core of the movement, why
libertarians can never seem to take wins when they get them, and whether there's
anything to look forward to in a rematch of Presidents Donald Trump and Joe
Biden.

Today's sponsors:

 * ZBiotics. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first
   genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to
   tackle rough mornings after drinking. Make ZBiotics your first drink of the
   night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Get 15 percent
   off by going to ZBiotics/TRI and using the code TRI at checkout.
 * CSN Mint has been providing certified U.S. Mint collectible coins and
   precious metals for over 20 years, and we are one of the most trusted names
   in numismatics. Explore CSN Mint's extensive catalog of bullion bars, coins,
   and numismatic collectibles. Whether you're a seasoned investor or a
   passionate collector, you'll find a diverse range of products to suit your
   needs and preferences. At CSN Mint, every product you purchase includes the
   original certificate of authenticity or is certified and graded by a
   third-party grader to ensure origin and purity. And you'll get world-class
   customer service and support with CSN Mint. Go to CSNMint.com/interview  and
   use the promo code INTERVIEW at checkout to get a free Silver American
   Eagle—over $30 in value—with your purchase of $75 or more.
 * The Reason Speakeasy. The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted
   conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and
   heterodoxy. Go here for an online archive and go here to sign up for
   information about upcoming events.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

Reason: Having been in the libertarian movement for nearly half a century, how
do you assess the current state of libertarian ideas and the broader libertarian
movement?

Boaz: I think there are a lot more libertarian ideas. When I was in college and
thought of myself as a libertarian—but also thought of libertarians as part of
the conservative movement—who did we have as intellectuals? [Friedrich] Hayek
and [Milton] Friedman and [Ludwig von] Mises.

Powered By

00:00/00:45
10 Sec


Hot weather poses new risk as thousands remain without power after deadly
Houston storm




Next
Stay





It was kind of a good set of years there, because Hayek won the Nobel Prize in
'74—which was stunning to us, because even as naive college students we knew
nobody like that had won a Nobel Prize before. Then in 1975, [Robert] Nozick won
the National Book Award, which really helped to put libertarianism on the map of
political philosophers. Then in 1976, Friedman won the Nobel Prize. I was out of
college then, but that period really boosted libertarian academic credentials.

These days, just like everybody says, we have nobody like [Ronald] Reagan and
[Margaret] Thatcher. But in the time of Reagan and Thatcher, they said, "Where
are the people like [Winston] Churchill and [Franklin] Roosevelt?" I look back
and say, "Wow, weren't those great? And who is that today?" But at least one
answer is there's a lot more libertarian intellectuals today. Maybe nobody is a
Hayek these days, but there's definitely a lot more libertarianism in the
academy, more libertarian intellectuals, more people reading those people. Some
of them even get published by major publishers. There's more of that, and I
think that means there's more people who think of themselves as libertarians.

What's the essence of libertarianism for you?

To me, the essence of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle. You have no
right to initiate force against people who have not initiated force against you.
From that comes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of property and
markets, ideally within an ethos of cosmopolitanism and pluralism and tolerance.
At that point, we're kind of talking about liberalism, and these days I'm
worried not just about libertarianism, but about liberalism.

Cosmopolitanism, tolerance, pluralism—where do those come from and why should
those be interconnected? If we compare the nonaggression principle to the core
of a nuclear reactor, why should the surrounding framework be akin to
cosmopolitanism?



I think libertarianism is set within classical liberalism, and I think of
libertarianism as the intellectual core of liberalism, the intellectual
vanguard. I often say I'd like to be part of a libertarian intellectual vanguard
leading a broader liberal movement. And for my whole career, we haven't had
that. We've had liberals divided into people who emphasize free markets and
people who emphasize civil liberties and tolerance and equality under the law
for all. Libertarians have not had a great record on equality under the law for
all, although I think it's clearly inherent in what we believe. But you didn't
see many libertarians involved in the Civil Rights Movement, critical of Jim
Crow, and they should have been, and they should have been out there.

The Cato Institute, where you've spent most of your career, was founded in 1977
in San Francisco. How did it come into being?

Ed Crane was in Washington running the MacBride for President campaign in 1976,
and he observed that [the American Enterprise Institute] and Brookings had a
significant influence on limited budgets. And he said, "There ought to be a
libertarian think tank, one representing the values of the American Revolution."
So he talked to Charles Koch, who had money to help. And Charles said, "OK, I'll
put some money up if you'll run it." And he said, "Well, you don't want me to
run it because it needs to be in Washington, and I'm going back to San
Francisco." And, as he used to tell it, "Charles was smarter than I was, and he
knew if I started this, I would in a few years realize it should be in
Washington."

The idea was to set up a think tank that was neither liberal nor conservative,
and that would put libertarian ideas on the policy map, as well as just the pure
theory map.



What were the big issues in the 1970s that you guys were obsessed with?

The big influences in the early '70s were Vietnam, Watergate, and stagflation. I
used that trio often to explain why there was an efflorescence of libertarians
in the 1970s. The government had just accomplished Vietnam, Watergate, and
stagflation, which gave people a very different view of a government that they
perceived as having solved the Depression and won World War II. It was a
different generation that was coming up.

What were the main issues? The answer is they're kind of the same issues over
and over. History is not a bunch of new things. It's one damn thing, over and
over. For Cato, the original agenda was, "Well, we're going to take on Social
Security, the linchpin of the welfare state. We're going to take on school
choice, which underlies so many problems. And we're going to take on the foreign
interventionist state." Early on, we were writing about all of those things. Our
first real book was about an alternative to Social Security, how to get out of
it. At least one of our first papers was on Social Security, but we had a very
early pro-immigration paper. We had a very early paper on conscription, which
was a live issue at that time.

Is Social Security unstoppable at this point? 

That seems to be the observation all over the world. We've made a lot of
progress on free trade. We've made a lot of progress on human rights, civil
rights, women's rights, gay rights. We've made some progress on some
microregulation issues. We're making some now on housing. We repealed a lot of
the New Deal regulations in the 1978 to '81 era. When people say we're on the
road to serfdom, I tell them about all these things. We ended conscription, we
ended the [Civil Aeronautics Board], we ended the [Interstate Commerce
Commission]. We created a structure that continuously brought tariffs down. All
those things were progress. There was significant progress, and people still
say, "Yes, but what about all this government spending and everything?" I think
the answer there is once you create a program that people think they're getting
benefits from, it's very hard to take those benefits away.



We can argue that Social Security is not, on net, benefiting people, but there's
a huge constituency of people who paid money in and they don't want it taken
away from them. That's true for every program. It's true for the farm program.
That's one of the reasons that we always say it is so important to stop a new
entitlement in the beginning. Because Medicare was expected to cost a billion
dollars a year, 10 years after it was founded. That was crazy. It was much more
than that. You've got to stop it.

In the '80s, what was your attitude towards Ronald Reagan? A lot of
libertarians, or people leaning libertarian, would say he was really good. Is
that right or is that wrong? 

My own trajectory with Reagan was in the '70s. I was in [Young Americans for
Freedom] and I went to the 1976 convention on behalf of Reagan, not as a
delegate, but just there to cheer him on and everything. I liked Reagan, and I
was actually a delegate to the state convention or maybe the county convention
for Reagan.

Then in 1978, I got hired to work on the Clark for Governor campaign, and that
shifted my allegiance. Ed Clark for governor, California 1978—the first big
Libertarian Party campaign that actually had some money and a professional staff
of me and one other guy [laughs].

While Reagan was president, I was a libertarian, and we were pretty much
critical of everything he did. Well, not everything, but many things he did. As
time went on, and we saw other presidents, I think we got nostalgic for the
Reagan-Thatcher era—two people who, even if they didn't always live up to it,
did enunciate a lot of libertarian rhetoric. I think Thatcher in England revived
British entrepreneurship and appreciation for enterprise. Reagan did some of
that too. I think to a great extent, Reagan's speeches about freedom revived the
American spirit, maybe as much as his tax cuts did.



How disastrous was the George W. Bush administration for America and for
libertarian advances?

That was pretty bad. And we were sort of optimistic when he came in! We didn't
like Republicans. They did a lot of bad things. But Bush had told Ed Crane that
Cato's Social Security plan was on the right track, and he wanted to do
something like that. Early in his administration, he appointed a commission,
which we were sort of opposed to because a commission is usually the way to put
an idea to bed. But it turned out he appointed a commission of Republicans and
Democrats that was stacked in favor of some kind of privatization. So that was
good.

But then 9/11 happened, and Bush got distracted from everything else. Then he
gets reelected, and he says, "I'm going to use my political capital on reforming
Social Security." It turns out, somehow he got reelected but everybody hated
him. We did a poll at the time, and we said, "Would you support an idea that
would allow you to put your own money into retirement and then not take Social
Security at the end?" And 60 percent said, "Yeah, that sounds good." When we
said, "President Bush has a plan," it got 40 percent approval. So that kind of
killed it.

How bad was the war on terror and the USA PATRIOT Act, for libertarian ideas?

It was definitely bad that we got the PATRIOT Act, but also, just the general
[feeling that] we have to respond with war. We even have to invade Iraq, which
had nothing to do with 9/11. And the PATRIOT Act and the surveillance state that
was created—very bad for the country, bad for libertarians too, although it gave
us a lot of targets to complain about. But we didn't get very far in aiming at
those targets.



Was Barack Obama particularly bad? While there were overblown accusations, such
as him attempting "to destroy America as we know it," is there validity to the
idea that he was putting us on a particularly terrible path?
Yes. For one thing, like I said, every time you create a new entitlement, you'll
never get rid of it. He was trying to create those, and he had some success. We
had stopped HillaryCare. We were not able to stop Obamacare. That's what we said
at the time: You'll never get rid of it. We kept trying, but we didn't. So yes,
he did put us on that bad trajectory, a bigger government than we'd had before.
Although every president was giving us a bigger government than we had had
before.

How did Donald Trump scramble the libertarian movement? There are people who
claim that "Trump is the most libertarian president ever." What do you think
people mean when they say something like that?

Yes, there were. I had lots of fights. I blocked more people that year on
Facebook than ever before. I had a lot of fights with old friends who said,
"He's the most libertarian president." I mean, when he was running…he said he
would cut taxes. Any Republican that year would've been campaigning on tax cuts.
He said he would cut regulation. He did campaign against immigration and against
trade. I never did understand. I guess he said, "Drill, baby, drill." So
libertarians who thought of American energy independence, or at least
production, liked it.

I think a lot of libertarians, certainly a lot of conservatives, liked the fact
that he fights, he stands up, he calls the left a bunch of dickheads. I think in
the subsequent five years, it occurred to me that the people conservatives and
some libertarians are gravitating to are not necessarily the ones who are most
conservative, certainly not the ones who are making the most compelling cases;
they're the ones who are the most anti-left.



Sean Hannity on Fox: He's just partisan, anti-left all the time. Tucker Carlson.
Charlie Kirk with Turning Point USA. Charlie Kirk had been kind of "Free market!
Socialism sucks"—that was his organization. And then he just went all in for
Trump. Then I saw other people going all in for Trump. The defense of Trump now,
as the most libertarian president, I think would be tax cuts, and conservative
Supreme Court justices who many libertarians think are better than liberal
Supreme Court justices. And they'll say deregulation. There wasn't that much
deregulation, but there was less regulation than in a Democratic administration.

What's the case against President Joe Biden?

The case against Biden is he is a bankrupt spender. I think Trump may have spent
more in four years than Obama did. Biden then comes in and says, "I'll see you
and raise you." So there's certainly that.

The best case I heard for Trump is from one of my colleagues. He was saying,
"Hillary will bring 4,000 dedicated regulators to Washington. I don't know who
Trump's going to appoint—Republican hacks, [former president of the Heritage
Foundation] Ed Feulner's list, his cronies—but they won't be dedicated
regulators." I think that's definitely happened with Biden. He campaigned as a
moderate, and compared to either [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren or Trump he seemed
centrist. But he has empowered an administration that wants to regulate
everything.

Some of it is woke regulation: sexual harassment on campus, hate speech, all
that kind of stuff. Some of it is just pure economic regulation, and you see it
every day. "The Biden administration is going to require…" "The Biden
administration is going to ban…" One of the problems there, of course, is abuse
of presidential power. Every time I see one of those, I'm like, "Where in the
Constitution does it say the president can do that?" Of course, it doesn't
anywhere.



Going back to what I said in the beginning about cosmopolitanism and tolerance:
Obama comes in, campaigns. He's black; he's the first president to welcome gay
people into his administration, even though he's not for gay marriage until
right before the 2012 election. But he looks like somebody who believes that
everybody is part of America. Trump is obviously the exact opposite of that. And
with Biden, it's gone way beyond that.

Now we are looking at another Trump vs. Biden. Neither of these people, neither
of these parties, are in any way committed to libertarian principles. What are
libertarians to do? How do we maneuver a political landscape such as this?

That's a good question these days. Some people tried in 2016 to run a
presidential ticket composed of two governors, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both
well-respected, against the two worst candidates in history, and they got three
and a half percent of the vote. That didn't seem to work out very well.

Now the Libertarian Party has fallen apart, so they're not going to do that. I
guess you have to pick the party you believe in. I would love to see a fiscally
conservative, socially liberal centrist party. I do believe there are millions
of voters who think that way, maybe a plurality of voters who think that way.
But the two parties are controlled by, more or less, their extremes, and how do
you break into that? My [former] colleague Andy Craig has thought a lot about
election reforms. I never thought much about them. I always figured if there's
enough libertarians, they'll make themselves felt within whatever political
system. But maybe something like ranked choice voting, not so much that it would
help libertarians, but that it might hurt extremists and get more of a consensus
candidate.



And hey, when I was a young guy, I didn't ever think I'd be looking for a
consensus centrist country.

Although we are more free as individuals, certainly to express ourselves and to
live the way we want to, many don't really feel that way. Can you talk about a
culture of libertarian freedom and cosmopolitanism, and how it aligns to our
contemporary experiences?

I think that's partly because people always have this nostalgia. On Twitter,
there's all these things: "Remember when a man with one income could afford this
house?" Then economists come along and say, "Adjust for inflation and adjust for
house size and things, this is not true." Plus you have all the knowledge in the
history of the world in your pocket right now. Nobody had that. David
Rockefeller didn't have it in 1990.

Part of it is just that we always look back and think, "Oh, things were better
and now they're worse." But I do think a lot of people know they're freer
because they're black people who are allowed to aspire to things. I'll tell you,
when Karine Jean-Pierre was appointed press secretary, I wrote a blog post and
said, "This is a sign of progress. A black lesbian could not have been the
president's press secretary even maybe five or 10 years ago. This is a sign that
we're a more open and accepting society." And I got a lot of blowback from
alleged libertarians saying, "She's an affirmative action appointee. You're
endorsing diversity, affirmative action." I said, "Look, I don't know if she'll
be any good, but I'll tell you this: There are positions in your administration
you would put diversity hires in, I don't believe you make the most visible face
in your administration an affirmative action hire. It's important how she speaks
on behalf of your administration. Whether she's good or not, I don't know, but I
think they think she is."



We see more black people, more women being able to rise in corporations and
politics. And of course, as a gay person in high school in the '60s, now living
in a world where I can live with a longtime partner and my friends can get
married, all of this is pretty much taken for granted, even among conservatives.

There's a huge surge in illiberalism both on the left and on the right. Where is
that coming from, and where does that leave libertarianism?

That's a good question. I've been writing about this, not so much about
libertarianism, but about liberalism. We live in a liberal world. Brian Doherty
wrote in his history of the libertarian movement [Radicals for Capitalism], "a
world that…runs on approximately libertarian principles." You look at that first
and say, "What?" And then you think, "Well, yes, the United States, Europe, and
more parts of the world are generally based on free markets and private
property, and on free speech and freedom of religion, and expanding human rights
to people to whom they were denied." All of that is basic libertarian
principles.

OK, we're arguing about gay marriage, and OK, we spend too much money. There's
all those things, but we do live in a liberal world. And yet we have these big
sets of illiberals on both left and right, in the United States, and in other
countries, in countries like Hungary and Turkey and India. We're moving away.
It's not just Russia, China, Mexico.

My question is: Liberalism works so well! Have you looked around? Do you realize
what your grandparents, your great-grandparents had, even your parents? My
parents had a black and white TV for a long time. I have four televisions in my
house of two people.

A critique of liberalism is that while it gives material resources, it lacks
deeper meaning. Critics say it does not reward true believers with a unifying
faith, goal, God, or mission. Is this a legitimate critique of liberalism?



To some extent, yes, it's a legitimate critique. Liberalism is a philosophy of
individual autonomy. No established church, no established ideas. [Chinese
Communist Party leader] Mao [Zedong] said, "Let a thousand ideas bloom," but
liberalism actually did that. It's a significant critique, but it's a good
thing. We should defend the liberalism that allows people to find meaning in
their own lives. Preachers and teachers and authors may want to help guide
people to find meaning in their own lives, but we're not all going to find the
same meaning. What we want is people being able to choose their own churches, or
no church, choose their own ideas and so on. We don't want the church, the king,
the Vatican, the government imposing a meaning on everybody. That's what the
liberal revolution was about. It was in great part a revolution against the
established churches.

There's all these illiberals on the left, there's all these illiberals on the
right, and yet liberalism endures. We do mostly live in a liberal country, in a
liberal world. Something is attractive enough about liberalism to resist most of
these assaults. I think it is that most people, at least in the United States,
do want a world of private property and free markets and free speech and human
rights and freedom of abortion and women's rights and to choose jobs. They
resist the real impositions.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

 * Video Editor: Adam Czarnecki
 * Audio Production: Ian Keyser

NEXT: The Best of Reason: After a Century, the Federal Tea Board Is Finally Dead

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview
With Nick Gillespie.

LibertarianismRichard NixonRonald ReaganJoe BidenFree
MarketsLibertyEconomicsInflationFreedomPoliticsThe Reason Interview With Nick
GillespieReason Podcast
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (38)


LISTEN & SUBSCRIBE

Podcast:
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie

 * Apple Podcasts
 * Spotify
 * YouTube
 * RSS



 * About
 * Browse Topics
 * Events
 * Staff
 * Jobs
 * Donate
 * Advertise
 * Subscribe
 * Contact
 * Media
 * Shop
 * Amazon

Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple
PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service apply.



Notifications