I watched this, and see where the attraction is coming from.
(And for full disclosure, I do subscript to Reason, and donate to the Reason Foundation…)
Tossing off random names rapid-fire is not an argument.
Someone who sounds somewhat knowledgeable, find the nugget that supports your priors, and stick with it.
But I really disagree on the foreign policy ideas.
His standard is that if whatever action is not in America’s interest, America should not be involved.
No.
If America can do something to help, it should.
Was the US wrong for helping the UN distribute food in Somalia?
No.
There’s also sections of the interview that speak to my inclinations about laws and regulations — they should expire. All of them. Everything gets deleted eventually.
Reactive force is often justified, and there’s many times where it’s not in pursuit of some other goal.
So, while I understand the attraction a bit better, I still think he’s coming in from the lollypop guild.
Show Me Where I’m Wrong!!1!
People will, and do, but you interrupt them so readily that it’s impossible to see if you’ve even really considered the contradicting evidence presented.
But the NeoHips getting behind him might well further the fewer-than-Marrou tack the Mises people have taken with the LP.
And the NeoHips can continue telling the world that they’ve been right about everything all the time.