TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie

    Want to know what comes next in politics, culture, and libertarian ideas? Reason’s Nick Gillespie hosts relentlessly interesting interviews with the activists, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, newsmakers, and politicians who are defining the 21st century.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Psychedelics Are Not Just for Hippies and Tech Bros Sep 17, 2025
    Show notes

    Today's guest is Joe Dolce, whose new book is Modern Psychedelics: The Handbook for Mindful Exploration.

    Dolce argues that psychedelics aren't just the province of hippies or tech bros anymore. They are powerful and increasingly popular—and legal—tools for therapy, self-discovery, and play.

    He talks with Gillespie about everything from the misunderstood role of ketamine in Friends star Matthew Perry's death to why ibogaine may be the only substance on Earth that can stop addiction cold, to how we went from "Just Say No!" campaigns to mail-order magic mushrooms in just a few short decades.

    How can we make The Reason Interview better? Take our listener survey for a chance to win a $300 gift card: http://reason.com/podsurvey

    0:00—Intro

    1:25—What do psychedelics teach?

    7:02—Psychedelic safety and ketamine myths

    13:01—How psychedelics work and ibogaine effects

    19:12—Microdosing

    23:00—Psychedelics and altered states

    28:10—Generational perceptions of psychedelics

    30:59—Cultural acceptance of psychedelics

    42:22—The future of psychedelics

    48:34—Drug legalization and access

    Previous Appearance:

    "Brave New World of Weed: The Astonishing Potential of a Complex Plant," April 6, 2017

    Upcoming Reason Events

    Reason Versus—Mass Immigration Is Good for America, October 2

    The post Psychedelics Are Not Just for Hippies and Tech Bros appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    Why Banning Drugs and Guns Never Works Sep 16, 2025
    Show notes

    In this episode of The Reason Interview, Nick Gillespie is joined by Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, author of the new book Beyond Control, to discuss the evolution of gun and drug laws in America. They examine how decades of prohibitionist policies have backfired, undermining liberty and justice without delivering safety.

    This was originally recorded live on September 4, 2025.

    Is mass immigration good for America? Join us for a Reason Versus live debate on October 2 in Washington, D.C.

    The post Why Banning Drugs and Guns Never Works appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    Charlie Kirk and America's History With Political Violence Sep 11, 2025
    Show notes

    In this episode of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie, editors at large Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch reflect on the shocking murder of Charlie Kirk and the broader implications it carries for American politics. They discuss how his killing fits into rising concerns about political violence and what it signals about the nation's increasingly volatile climate.

    This was originally recorded live on September 11, 2025.

    The post Charlie Kirk and America's History With Political Violence appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    How We Criminalized Childhood Sep 10, 2025
    Show notes

    Today's guest is Lenore Skenazy, a journalist and activist dubbed "the world's worst mom" for letting her nine-year-old son ride the New York subway alone back in 2008. Since then, she's become a regular contributor to Reason and the co-founder, with psychologists Peter Gray and Jonathan Haidt, of Let Grow, which pushes for laws and school programs to restore independence to kids.

    She talks with Nick Gillespie about why kids today are more anxious and less free than they used to be, how fear and over-parenting took over American childhood, and why the free-range parenting movement is finally on the rise.

    The Reason Interview goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, politicians, and visionaries who are making the 21st century more libertarian—or at least more interesting—by challenging old, worn-out ideas and orthodoxies.

    How can we make The Reason Interview better? Take our listener survey for a chance to win a $300 gift card: http://reason.com/podsurvey

    0:00–Intro

    1:14–Spend less time with your kids

    4:57–Childhood safety myths

    10:50–Parental fears of failure

    17:05–Generational divides on parenting

    20:18–Criminalizing childhood

    26:16–Politics and parenting

    29:09–Let Grow and local legislation

    41:14–What do children actually want?

    45:17–How Skenazy became the "World's Worst Mom"

    48:12–Childhood autonomy in pop culture

    Previous Appearances:

    Are Your Kids Too Fragile? How to Make the Next Generation More Resilient, October 26, 2017
    Stop Criminalizing Parenting: Free Range Kids' Lenore Skenazy on Our Irrational Fears over Child Safety, September 10, 2014
    Helicopter Parents vs. Free Range Kids: Q&A with "America's Worst Mom," October 5, 2012

    Upcoming Reason Events

    The Soho Forum Debate: Melanie Thompson vs. Kaytlin Bailey, September 15

    Reason Versus—Mass Immigration Is Good for America, October 2

    The post How We Criminalized Childhood appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    If You Don't Like Socialism or the Establishment, Curtis Sliwa Wants Your Vote Sep 05, 2025
    Show notes

    Curtis Sliwa became famous by stepping in where the government was falling short. As the New York mayoral candidate told Reason's Jesse Walker, the Guardian Angels—the anti-crime patrols that Sliwa launched in New York City in 1979—were born because "the government completely failed us….We filled the gap." In the years since then, Sliwa has expanded the Guardian Angels to cities around the world, launched a multidecade career in talk radio, confessed that some of his organization's early crime-fighting exploits were hoaxes, and survived a very real assassination attempt allegedly ordered by the Gotti family. Now he's aiming to be mayor, running both as a Republican and on an independent Protect Animals ballot line against the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and the scandal-plagued incumbent, Eric Adams. Sliwa's thoughts don't always follow predictable lines. On immigration, he cheers crackdowns on "the bad hombres, the drug dealers, [and] the gangbangers" but warns that "everybody should be afforded due process….You don't just pick them up, put them on Air Con, and take them to that gulag in El Salvador. That's not the American way." He shrugs at market solutions for housing—"I don't trust the developers, I don't trust the realtors"—while blasting the city for mothballing thousands of public apartments. He thinks marijuana should be legal and fast food should be more tightly regulated. He's fine with President Donald Trump sending the National Guard to police D.C., but "if he would've tried to do it in New York City, I'd say, 'Whoa.'" Walker interviewed Sliwa twice in August for a Reason profile—once while Sliwa was campaigning on the subway and in East Harlem, and once in the Manhattan building that houses the candidate's campaign HQ. This is the second of those conversations. Transcript This interview is edited for style and clarity. Jesse Walker: You're listening to Reason. My name is Jesse Walker. Our guest today is the founder of one of the best-known organizations of crime-watching citizen patrols, the Guardian Angels. He's also a long-time veteran of AM talk radio, and now he's the Republican nominee to be mayor of New York City. So Curtis Sliwa, thank you for joining us. Curtis Sliwa: My pleasure. And let's not forget the first ever independent line Protect Animals, no-kill shelters. That's coming up later in the interview. But yes, you're also running as the Protect Animals candidate. One reason it's been especially interesting to watch you run a political campaign is because for a lot of your career, and especially at the very beginning, you felt like an almost anti-political figure. In 1981, you told High Times magazine, "I can have more of an effect on a person's day-to-day life, through the patrols, than I could as governor." You said, "I'm into getting people to do things for themselves, purely and simply." So tell me what's changed, in the world or in you or in both, that's led you to think, in fact, now you can have an effect in office—maybe not as governor, but as mayor. Having been a student and watching the body politic from the outside first. When I started the Guardian Angels, government completely failed us. We were at the point in New York City, we were imploding from a fiscal mess, which was based on the corruption in New York City. We wanted to be bailed out by the federal government because of our own greed. And Gerald Ford, who was the president who had taken over after [Richard] Nixon fled after Watergate, was on the cusp of actually granting New York City a Chapter 11, which would've had a dramatically negative impact on all the municipal bond markets, on the economy, and would've given others an opportunity to basically say, because we were corrupt and we had our beak in the trough, we too can just slash budgets. At that point, especially at night, there were no visible transit police patrolling from five at night to five in the morning, which are the off-peak hours. We filled the gap. Now, since, obviously, government got back to doing what they were supposed to do with the tax dollars. And I observed it from the Democrats, I observed it from the Republicans, because I've been involved with both, and I saw that, yeah, you could make a change because the political process now is stagnating the city. I view myself as the mayor of all the people because I've earned that right by the fact that I've been out in the subways and the streets for so many years, constantly talking to people, which is something these candidates just won't do. A lot of the press coverage so far has presented this race as you, [Mayor Eric] Adams, and [former Gov. Andrew] Cuomo sort of competing to be the anti-socialist candidate, and I think there's a lot of truth to that. But I think it's also true that we're watching you and [Democratic candidate Zohran] Mamdani sort of competing for the anti-establishment vote. How are you reaching out to the undecided voter who may be sick of people like Adams and Cuomo, but they're not sure if they want to go with Mamdani or with Sliwa? I view the three of them almost the same. To me, Mamdani is Coca-Cola, the real thing. He says, "I'm a socialist." I understand socialism and communism. Most other people don't. But when it comes to Eric Adams, and especially Andrew Cuomo, now the way he…free bus fare, free subway fare, free college free, free, free, free, free. He's trying to become the uber Zohran Mamdani in his rebirth as the zombie politician. I look at them like Diet Coke. They have more in common with Zohran Mamdani than they do with me. I am the outlier. I don't have friends who are funding me who are billionaires or millionaires. I have raised now $2 million in matching funds, the average donation being $119. I will match that again at the end of the month. I am truly the candidate of the people. I don't think you can say that any longer of Zohran Mamdani because he has gone through a metamorphosis. He was out in the streets; now he's protected by armed [New York Police Department] officers driven around in an SUV. How is he different from Adams or Cuomo or any of the other traditional politicians other than his politics? I think I'm more of a people's candidate than anybody else. Although I disagree with all three of them on policy issues. Obviously, I don't fear Zohran Mamdani like the rest of society. As a student of history, which none of these candidates are, we've had socialists in elective office in New York, we've had communists in elective office. Somehow, our society has survived. In fact, when we look at Fiorello La Guardia, he was a liberal Republican who ran in the American Labor Party as a socialist. He ran as a Socialist for Congress. Exactly. So the point is, oh, the fear, fright. We've had communists in the city council. In fact, I remember a guy named Michael Quill, head of the [Transport Workers Union] Local 100, who spoke with a brogue from Ireland, he represented all of the Bronx when the electoral process was you could have city council people representing a district and also boroughwide. He was a registered member of the American Labor Party, which was the party of Henry Wallace, who was thrown out of the Democratic Party to make way for Harry Truman to become the vice presidential and true candidate for [Franklin D. Roosevelt]. So we've had a history of this and people are fear, fright, hysteria, hype. It's enough already. We have [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I–Vt.], we've had AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)], we have now Zohran Mamdani, we're going to have other socialists. That's a problem for the Democratic Party. If they don't want socialists in the Democratic Party, why did they let Bernie Sanders run for the presidential nomination when he's never been a Democrat in his entire life, never had the D in front of his name? That was to benefit Hillary [Clinton], who didn't want to be seen as having a coronation. A lot of people have called you a NIMBY ["not in my back yard"] candidate. Do you think that's a fair description of you? I wouldn't say that. Because I do represent the interests of the outer boroughs, the blue-collar working class, people who have homes who've invested everything into that house, the American dream. Now we're being told by developers and realtors who were wined, dined, and pocket-lined [by] Eric Adams, and obviously Andrew Cuomo, that they don't have to live up to any restrictions any longer. When I was a kid, I learned in public school that there was something called the community board that Robert Wagner created because he realized city hall had too much power. You had a community board you had to deal with. You had a local City Council person you had to deal with. And more importantly, you had zoning restrictions. Under Eric Adams and Cuomo, and to a degree Zohran Mamdani on a different level, they don't believe in zoning anymore. You shouldn't have to go to the elected person that you put in charge. You shouldn't have to deal with a community board. You shouldn't be able to bring in the bulldozers, put up a 40-story apartment building in the middle of a residential area. And guess what? No parking, even though the infrastructure can't support it. To me, that's insanity and it will force the blue-collar working class to finally leave the city. Without them, we cannot survive. We can survive without the billionaires because they're hedge fund guys. They're always half out, half in. They go to Florida, they have a pied-à-terre apartment here in New York. They have a shingle in New York. They have a shingle in Florida. They know how to work the system. Blue-collar working class people don't. If they lose their house, if they don't have their house or they don't want their house any longer, they're out of here. And we must keep them here. That's why my whole campaign is based on: improve, don't move. I'm trying to convince people not to flee. Do you think they need to build more housing somehow in the city? I mean, if you're going to bring the costs down, you're going to want to build more buildings. Whoa. Whoa. Really? Yeah. When has it ever brought costs down? One of these greedy developers and realtors who have been given tax abatements for 40 years promises that they're going to have affordable housing, and then all of a sudden….Look at the Barclays Center, a perfect example. Who developed the Barclays Center? [Bruce] Ratner. He said, "I'm going to make sure that people have affordable housing here." [Letitia] James, to her credit, when she was a city councilwoman, member of the Working Families Party, stood up to him and said, "We will never have affordable housing." To this day, they are in court because they promised that they would create affordable housing. They never did. I don't trust the developers, I don't trust the realtors. I do trust homeowners and those who own properties in the outer borough, small properties, who have decided not to sell and leave. And, in fact, abide by the rules. The big developers and realtors, they're always trying to influence their ability to make money by backing up candidates, and it's never to the benefit of the people in the outer boroughs, who really are the backbone of the city. What about being able to convert commercial properties to residential and increase supply that way? Do you think that can be done? Can you change zoning in that way? It has to be done. I walk through the canyons of Manhattan every day, and about half the actual commercial property above the street level is empty. They're never going to be able to get tenants any longer. They don't need the square footage. They can operate without it. It's a virtual world. It's an economy that can operate globally out of Waterloo, Iowa. They don't need to be in New York City. They don't need to have a shingle. We haven't recognized the fact that we have a lot of this empty space, and now finally there's a move to convert it to residential housing, which is important, but I don't think that's the end-all and be-all. We have 100,000 apartments that are already mothballed in warehouses. The city is sitting on 6,000 in NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority] public housing. How could this city mothball 6,000 available apartments for people? Only 30 percent pay rent. The others can't afford to pay rent. How do they keep 6,000 apartments off the marketplace and then tell everybody else they can't mothball their properties? It's, again, a process of "Do as I say, not as I do." The big battle now is [between] Cuomo and Zohran. The rich kids on the block [are] battling. Wait, you have a subsidized rental apartment, Zohran, that you don't qualify for? And it turns out Cuomo, as governor, created that caveat in the law that would allow Zohran and others at their income level to have this property, that is a subsidized rental property. And you say to yourself, this is not what the people want to be talking about. We want to find out why 35,000 of these units are mothballed and why in the surrounding boroughs that I'm more interested in—Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx—you have people who own two-family, three-, four-, five-family homes. Now, when somebody dies or leaves, or they finally get rid of a squatter, [they] will not rent the apartment. And they need to be talked to. What can we do to get those units back on the market, because those could be readily available? All these other gargantuan ideas. In five years, we'll have 5,000 apartments. In 10 years, a million apartments. Get out of here. What drug-induced psychosis is Eric Adams in, or Andrew Cuomo, to just constantly be the propaganda vehicle for developers who want to be able to develop and don't care what the results leave in the outer boroughs of the city of New York. There's something else that gets called a NIMBY issue, though I don't think it really fits in this case, which was the community gardens. You told The Village Sun last year you'd be willing to be arrested to protect the Elizabeth Street community garden. As far as I'm concerned, those people took a patch of land that nobody was using and they built something there, and it should be their property—it shouldn't even be the city's property. What can you do to establish people's right to urban land that they've transformed like that? There are other magnificent examples. I would say Elizabeth Street Gardens stunned me. Because I was used to walking over to [Sarah D.] Roosevelt Park along Chrystie Street of the Bowery. It's a mess, a disaster now, because it's a haven for drug users, drug dealers, homeless, those who are destitute, those who are emotionally disturbed, and the city's done nothing for them. A block over, my wife said, "Why don't we go over to Elizabeth Street Gardens?" I had never heard of it. I walk halfway down the block, I think I'm in, oh my God, this is like Europe, the way it's structured. I've been to Europe. I've seen some of their parks, which are magnificent. And it's a haven. It's a refuge for people in the area, especially the elderly, the young, the millennials, the Gen Zers; they all come together. It makes you feel better. Just sitting there, I felt so much better. And I said, What? You…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    We're Moving Too Slow on AI Sep 03, 2025
    Show notes

    Today's guest is Pablos Holman, a legendary hacker and cypherpunk who holds over 100 patents and has worked with Bill Gates to cure malaria and with Jeff Bezos to get Blue Origin off the ground.

    Pablos also runs a venture fund called Deep Future, which is committed to "creating technology that matters." In his new book—also called Deep Future—he exhorts the reader to "boycott dystopia" and describes companies that are saving bee colonies by using mushroom spores to inoculate bees against pests; recovering ancient Roman secrets to make concrete that lasts for thousands of years; and launching solar panels into space to deliver a constant, uninterruptible supply of clean energy.

    He and Nick Gillespie talk about the need to move faster with AI, why hardware ultimately matters more than software, and why decentralization will eventually triumph over the Facebooks, Apples, and Googles of the world.

    The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and oddballs who are making the 21st century more libertarian—or at least more interesting—by challenging old, worn-out ideas and orthodoxies.

    How can we make The Reason Interview better? Take our listener survey for a chance to win a $300 gift card: http://reason.com/podsurvey

    0:00–Intro

    1:53–Evaluating our technology

    3:55–Deep tech and Holman's innovation investments

    7:36–Energy demand, consumption, and production

    15:09–Nuclear energy adoption

    20:05–AI and creating better hardware

    27:31–Holman's introduction to computers and hacking

    33:06–Who were the cypherpunks?

    37:30–BitTorrent, Bitcoin, and decentralization

    43:41–Can RSS feeds solve tech pessimism?

    49:28–The origin of Holman's eyewear

    The post We're Moving Too Slow on AI appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    Glenn Jacobs Body-Slams Big Government Aug 27, 2025
    Show notes

    Today's guest is best known by his pro wrestling name: Kane.

    But Glenn Jacobs isn't just a member of the WWE Hall of Fame. Since 2018, he's served as the mayor of Knox County, Tennessee, where he has beat down tax increases and mask and vaccine mandates while pushing school choice and private sector solutions to social problems such as addiction.

    Jacobs tells Nick Gillespie how Ron Paul inspired him, why he believes President Donald Trump is disrupting the administrative state, and why live-and-let-live is the best life philosophy.

    The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and politicians who are making the 21st century more libertarian—or at least more interesting—by challenging old, worn-out ideas and orthodoxies.

    How can we make The Reason Interview better? Take our listener survey for a chance to win a $300 gift card: http://reason.com/podsurvey

    0:00—Intro

    0:50—Paul's influence on Jacobs

    3:52—The appeal of Ronald Reagan

    6:26—Trump and the administrative state

    9:45—Responsibilities as mayor of Knox County

    11:45—Taxes and public services

    18:32—Pushing back on COVID-19 mandates

    25:35—LGBTQ issues

    29:26—Vocational training

    32:57—Libertarianism inside the GOP

    34:38—Which pro wrestlers embody these politicians?

    36:00—What's next for Jacobs?

    The post Glenn Jacobs Body-Slams Big Government appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    Chip Roy on Why He Backed Trump's Spending Bill Aug 20, 2025
    Show notes

    Today's guest is Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas), a fiscal hawk whose commitment to balancing the budget has led President Donald Trump to call for primary challenges against him. Nick Gillespie sits down with Roy to talk about why he ultimately voted for the president's budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), whether the controversial redistricting plan going on in Texas is legit, the expansion of the federal government under both major parties, and where libertarians and conservatives can work together to reduce the size, scope, and spending of the state. 0:00—Intro 0:41—Why we must control government spending 4:20—The OBBBA and the national debt 6:30—Facing off with Trump 9:25—The Federal Reserve's existence and independence 11:00—Reforming the health care system 14:21—Victories from the OBBBA 19:16—The influence of Ron Paul 24:51—Immigration, labor, and assimilation 35:17—Is there a new GOP consensus on foreign policy? 41:50—Texas redistricting 44:28—Cultural identity of Texas Upcoming events: The Soho Forum Debate: Melanie Thompson vs. Kaytlin Bailey, September 15 Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: Chip Roy, thanks for talking to Reason. Chip Roy: Happy to do it, Nick. Appreciate you guys. You are a rare voice of fiscal shrinking in Hollywood. Hollywood for ugly people. In Hollywood, yeah. In Washington, D.C. That has put you in the crosshairs with [President] Donald Trump in particular. You don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there's a reduction in spending. You pushed back against the Big Beautiful Bill, although you did cave and supported it. We'll come back to the word cave, but OK. Well, you voted for it. Sure. Talk a little bit about your general philosophy. Why is it so important that government spending be either held constant or reduced? First of all, my view is that the power of the purse is the central power of Congress, and we've abdicated it for as long as I can remember. If you don't constrain that power of the purse, then you're funding the very bureaucracy that was predicted by the founders and has proven to be true to be at odds with our liberty. You fund the bureaucrats that are then turned on us. Why has Congress…to say they're asleep at the switch is an understatement. What's going on? You came into office in 2019, but this has been going on for at least 20 years before. Or more, yeah. My observation over time is that we're actually at a moment where more members of Congress get it than I've ever seen in the past, that's the good news. But the bad news is, it's still a woefully inadequate group of people to change it. I think, really, at the end of the day, members of Congress believe that they get more popularity in votes by spending money. I actually just disagree with that. I'm a cancer survivor. I have cancer groups who come in and they ask me for money. I say, "God bless you. I know what you're trying to do. Research is great. But do you have a pay for that?" No. Well, then I can't support it. Farm Bureau comes in. I love the farmers. I want to protect small farmers against corporate [agriculture] and all those things, and we try to do that. But they come in and they want their money on the Farm Bill. I'm like, "Well, are we fixing the food stamps?" Well, no. Well, then I can't support it. They get that. And you know what, at the end of the day, they end up appreciating it. They appreciate that you're coming in and doing that. Look, I think to answer your question, the reason it's important is to not fund the tyranny that's turned on us. I think more people are seeing that now in ways that they didn't in the past. Whether you're the bureaucrats that have been unloaded on the people, through education and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and all these things, or whether it's just the weaponization of the Department of Justice [DOJ] against people. Targeting of parents back when parents were trying to do things in the DOJ under [President Joe] Biden and those guys were targeting people, etc., etc. WOTUS [Waters of the United States] has turned on people and farms. Our mutual friend [Rep.] Thomas Massie [R–Ky.] talks about that a lot. I think people are just understanding, "Well, crap, you're building up and funding all this stuff." Now, we just got to get a Congress that will understand that and peel it back. Going to the heart of the Big Beautiful Bill debate. Setting up last year, I was trying to work with the OMB [Office of Management and Budget], with [OMB Director] Russell Vought, and others inside the administration and the incoming administration, a framework to hold everything back. We were told in January, "You're not going to touch anything in Medicaid or any kind of healthcare." Well, we got a trillion dollars of Medicaid. We were told we weren't going to be able to do much on the green new scam subsidies, and all this stuff going out. We were able to get three, or four, or $500 billion worth of cutbacks to those. Did we get everything we need? No. We can debate. There's no question that the Big Beautiful Bill is going to increase the debt. There's no realistic scenario where it doesn't, if spending doesn't ramp up, we're digging a deeper hole for ourselves. I think that is likely the case based on the following facts. Medicare was not touched. Social Security was not touched. Interest payments are going up. But understand that part of the agreement, and we got to deliver the agreement, was holding discretionary flat or lower. That was a part of the deal, which by the way, will pay dividends if we do it—yet to be determined. That's a part of the "deal," which I'm going to hold to fight for. And also, remember that tax cuts, look, we can debate them. But I had libertarian friends who were like, "Hey, I love the no tax on tips." Well, OK, but what about no tax on the guys in the back of the restaurant? These are debatable policies that we all want lower taxes. You, I, every person who wants a limited government. I want lower spending. But you want lower spending to go along with that. What I would argue is we fought to get lower spending at levels on things that people never thought we could get. Medicaid being huge among those. Parity on Medicaid and Medicare rates, a lot of pieces in this that people don't even understand that we were able to achieve. Is it enough? No. No. Is it likely going to create front-loaded deficits? Yes. I showed those curves and worked with people, and I put those charts out. The problem is it's always going to cause short-term deficits, but then in a year… Long-term savings. 5,000…it comes pretty close to balanced. I put all those charts out there in good faith. Why? Nick, to push the narrative over. Then figure out what we could get. First, I want to ask you a little bit about total spending levels, since they're bonkers. Yeah, they're bonkers. I'm not saying you're responsible, but since you showed up, spending has gone up a lot. I agree. On the debt ceiling bill, you took a lot of heat from Trump. He was calling you out by name. And then in the Big Beautiful Bill, also you got leaned on. What is it like when you have Donald Trump, the President of the United States, a guy who, whatever else you can say about him, has the power to destroy the political careers of politicians who are very popular in their districts when he says, "What the hell are you doing? You better get on the line?" I view it this way: I view it slightly differently because I don't actually worry about whether I'm in office or not, so I don't actually care. Come after me, it's fine. What I do care about is what can we do in this window of time when we have some people in the administration willing, clunkily, not always what you and I and others who are fiscal stewards, Thomas Massie, what we would do. What are you going to do when you've got that opportunity? I view it that way. "All right, Mr. President, you're saying you're going to do X, Y, Z." Well, actually he's doing X. Whatever he's doing, he's taking on this, or scaling back some of the spending at the Pentagon, or taking on some cuts and getting the $9 billion of the rescissions package. There are things that are in process. Are they peanuts and crumbs? Kind of. But are they trending in the right direction? So far. Did we get material changes on the spending? Yes. The political influence, it is what it is. Look, you sit at the table in the White House, let's say you have some rather robust conversations. The night of the Big Beautiful Bill, I was with Thomas, I was with other mutual friends. The president's calling and we're talking. The political pressures don't matter much to me. What matters to me is how can you assemble people to build a coalition to deliver. I'm proud of what we delivered on Medicaid reforms. I'm proud of what we delivered on the subsidies, which are horrid. I'm proud of what we delivered on a bunch of other spending levels that we won't go through the details in. But is it enough? No. We're just nibbling around the edges, it's crumbs. Yeah. In 2019, the Fed spent about $4.8 trillion. Now we're at $7.5 or whatever. $7.2 in 2024. Right. What's amazing is it went from $4.8 trillion in 2019 to $6.8 trillion in 2020, to $7.5 trillion in 2021. It's now settling in around $7.2. To give you an example, I don't think, and correct me, you'll have to go look at my voting record, I don't think I voted for any of that. I'm pretty sure I voted against every one of those appropriations packages when they were passed. But where does that get you? We have to figure out how to turn the Titanic. Or we have to figure out how to sink the Titanic faster and build a new boat. I am open to those ways of thinking. I think the issue here is what do we do right now with what we have to give us a fighting chance? Do we need to end the Fed? Yes. Do we need to totally reform our entire healthcare system, Medicaid, Medicare, all of it? Yes. Do we need to be serious about cutting back half or more of the bureaucracy? Yes. Start with how would ending the Fed reduce the federal budget? In terms of the budget itself, I think two things would happen. One, I think it would have a direct impact on what happens with our overspend and interest. Because I think the backstop of the Fed…that Congress feels unfettered, they feel like they can do whatever they want. Secondly, I think that what's happening with respect to the Fed's action, which is driving up inflation and has been, that you now have to have all of the forces at play that we see unfolding right now where Trump's rattling about the Federal Reserve Chairman. Is that troubling though? Because we can talk about whether the Fed should exist, but the Fed should be independent, right? I don't think the Fed should exist, so independence I think is a question constitutionally with respect to executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. The founders didn't create, "Oh, there's this stuff over here"—NASA or whatever. Independent agencies are a whole other thing. I just personally think we need to get back to, whether it's gold standard, or whatever we want to do. Now, we've obviously got a crypto variable to figure out and how we want to manage it. Those things are all important. But what we need is something that is tangible, that we know we can rely upon, and that you can't politicize and then just print money or borrow money recklessly. Trump is not leaning on the Fed in order to de-politicize it. He wants to… He just wants interest rates lowered. Yeah, he wants more money. He wants an inflationary Fed policy, so we're kind of in trouble there. Let me ask you about…you mentioned Medicare and Social Security. Medicaid, yeah. Medicare and Social Security are things that Trump has taken off the table for as long as he's president, which could be another two-and-a-half years or it could be another 10 years. You have interest on the debt, you have Medicare and Social Security. That's the biggest chunk of the federal budget. Is there a way to cut spending? How do you get to a smaller budget without addressing those? Number one, there's a technical matter: reconciliation. We're legally prohibited from touching Social Security. You got to come up with some sort of bipartisan way to address Social Security, or you can't really get to it. Secondly, with respect to Medicare, I fundamentally believe for Medicare and Medicaid, and frankly [Veterans Health Administration] and other pieces of the puzzle, [Children's Health Insurance Program] and these other health programs, you have to have fundamental healthcare reforms from top to bottom that starts with the individuals, doctors, and liberty. I'm not saying liberty because I'm talking to you, I'm saying that's what I mean. Literally, my ability to go to the doctor of my choice with the money that I have, the only way to get prices down for that entire system if we don't do that. One of the first bills I introduced was the Healthcare Freedom Act, which would do that. By the way, we did force into the Big Beautiful Bill DPC, direct primary care, being able to be used within your health savings accounts. Look, fighting the swamp, fighting the healthcare swamp, is brutal because the insurance companies, pharma, big hospitals, they're all colluding to make it to where you and I can't go to the doctors of our choice. I'm a member of Congress and I'm on Obamacare. If my cancer comes back, which I had 13 years ago, I can't go to MD Anderson [Cancer Center], which is an hour up the road right here in Texas, where we are, because Obamacare won't let me go to MD Anderson. That's asinine. And yet, millions of Americans are on that system. We've got to blow that up to get people control. Why didn't the Republicans, and this is before your time, when you were working with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the whole first Trump administration was like, "When we take over, we're going to repeal and replace Obamacare." Then they were like, "Yeah, we didn't really mean that." Republicans in Congress in particular suck on this and are running afraid to touch and deal with healthcare. I will say this: To the credit of the administration, we were told that we weren't going to touch healthcare at all and we did touch Medicaid in a very big way. Those reforms and people that I trust on this issue, Brian Blase at Paragon [Health Institute] and other good, solid conservatives on healthcare, are looking at this going, "Man, we got a lot of reforms that will impact Obamacare in what we fought for in that bill." I think that's a baseline to now give us some offense to go onto. By the way, I got a lot of assurances in the administration, I got a couple I can't talk about yet regarding Obamacare expansion and continuation of the Biden credits under COVID-19 that we'll say that we would oppose, so we can minimize the footprint. Then importantly, in the second two-year stint of the term, provided that we have the House and Senate, that we'd be able to address healthcare. Because I said, "Guys, if you don't address healthcare, then there is no legacy." Because you can't stop the bleeding on the spending if you don't deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans now is a huge chunk of it. You…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Did MAGA Kill the Tea Party? Aug 13, 2025
    Show notes

    In 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R–Texas) ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did surprisingly well with a campaign focused on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending the Federal Reserve, and reducing the size and spending of the federal government. Two years later, the Tea Party movement burst onto the scene, bringing people like Paul's son Rand to the Senate and one of today's guests, Justin Amash, to the House of Representatives. In 2012, Ron Paul again ran for the GOP nod, finishing behind the eventual nominee Mitt Romney, and helping to usher in what The New York Times called "the libertarian moment."

    What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution and Tea Party's promise to shrink government, especially once Donald Trump and the MAGA movement emerged in 2015? Did the broad-based alliance that rose to cut spending and limit power transmogrify into one that prizes wielding the state instead of restraining it?

    Today's episode was recorded live on Saturday, August 9, at Ron Paul's 90th birthday BBQ in Lake Jackson, Texas. The guests are Amash and Fox News personality Kennedy. They talk with Nick Gillespie about how the MAGA movement grew out of the Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party and redirected the right's anti-establishment energy toward expanding government power rather than limiting it. They also discuss why Congress refuses to legislate, whether social media has expanded freedom or increased anxiety, and if Gen Z is libertarian or conformist.

    0:00—Ron Paul's impact on the libertarian movement

    6:33—The Tea Party wave

    12:45—Did Trump end the libertarian moment?

    18:41—Social media and bigger government

    25:26—Optimism for young libertarians

    33:42—Why has everything become political?

    36:33—Will Amash run for office again?

    44:38—Concerns for the next generation

    Upcoming events:

    The Soho Forum Debate: Melanie Thompson vs. Kaytlin Bailey, September 15

    The post Did MAGA Kill the Tea Party? appeared first on Reason Magazine.


    The Libertarian Case for Postmodernism Aug 06, 2025
    Show notes

    What if one of the sharpest critics of centralized power, bureaucratic surveillance, and top-down social control wasn't a libertarian economist but a French postmodernist? And what if one of the economists most vilified by the left wasn't a cold-hearted market fundamentalist but a thinker obsessed with the limits of knowledge and the dangers of planning? Today's guest is King's College London political economist Mark Pennington, author of the new book Foucault and Liberal Political Economy: Power, Knowledge and Freedom. A self-declared postmodernist libertarian, Pennington explores the common ground between Michel Foucault and Friedrich Hayek. He talks with Nick Gillespie about how Foucault's critiques of expert rule, scientism, and the construction of subjectivity can bolster the classical liberal fight for freedom—and how Hayek's warnings about the pretense of knowledge might offer the left a way to resist domination without defaulting to centralized authority. If you're a libertarian who thinks Foucault is just woke nonsense—or a progressive who sees Hayek as a neoliberal villain—this conversation will blow your mind in the best way possible. 0:00 – Intro1:20 – What is a postmodern Austrian political economist?5:07 – Scientism and Hayek10:45 – The limits of postmodernism17:46 – The intersection of Foucault and Hayek30:12 – Systems of control and surveillance37:39 – Foucault's warnings on government authority49:57 – Creating a postmodern liberal political economy1:01:29 – Foucault and the Iranian Revolution1:08:21 – Have we learned anything from Foucault and Hayek? Upcoming Events: The Soho Forum Debate: Glenn Greenwald vs. Anna Gorisch, August 12 ________________________________________________________________ Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: Mark Pennington, thank you for talking to Reason. Mark Pennington: Thank you. It's great to be here Nick. So let's start, you know, before we get into a discussion of your book Foucault and Liberal Political Economy—the new book, which is absolutely fascinating, and I think anybody interested in libertarian politics or in Foucault—and I think there's you, me, and about five other people that are in that intersection, but everybody should be. But I want to read your Twitter bio and have you explain it a little bit to me. You are a "Professor of Political Economy at King's College London." OK, I understand. Everybody gets that. And then you say: "Post-modern Austrian political economist, Foucault Fan, Hayek Fan, classical liberal individualist." And, you know, as somebody who's—I've been working at Reason since 1993. I went to grad school for literary and cultural studies from 1988 to 1993. And when I see "Post-modern Austrian political economist, Foucault Fan, Hayek Fan, classical liberal individualist," I just see all of the people that I went to school with—my professors and students and colleagues, classmates—their heads kind of exploding. This is an interesting mix. Let's start first with the idea of: What does it mean to be a postmodern Austrian political economist? Well, I think it refers to the idea that people who call themselves postmodernists are skeptical of universal truth claims. They're very skeptical about the access claims, as they would say, of scientific reason. And as Lyotard, Jean Lyotard, says, "To be postmodern is to be incredulous toward metanarratives." Absolutely, absolutely. And I see an important thread in— not in all of Austrian economics—but especially the thread that's been influenced by Hayek, but you can also see it in people like Ludwig Lachmann, George Shackle, and Don Lavoie, as being very compatible with this kind of a view. There's a kind of radical skepticism of scientific claims. That doesn't mean that you throw out all claims to scientific reason, but it means you have a very particular understanding of what scientific rationality might imply. And so, I mean, in a way—or the way that I think about this, because I see myself in that postmodern Austrian school of economics—it's really kind of emphasizing the limits of our knowledge rather than the extent, especially as that applies to public policy and the way that people are overtly or covertly governed. I think that's right. And I think what underlies that, but which often doesn't come out—even as much as I would like it to—in some of the writers that I just mentioned, is that human beings are fundamentally, if you like—if we can use the word fundamental in this context—they're creative agents. And it's that creativity that generates instabilities in the world. And it's the fact that there are these instabilities that means that our potential to discern lawlike relationships in human societies is very limited. So I see that as ultimately being about human creativity. And this is an area where I think there should be—although there isn't—there should be much more overlap between Austrian economic analysis and a lot of the kind of work that takes place in the arts and humanities. So the critique of scientism. Yeah. And this term, "scientism"—when I think of how I started to develop an interest in libertarian thought, and I'm a mere journalist and an English major, so I don't think about it as rigorously as political economists and philosophers—but I had stumbled across Hayek's 1952 book The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason, where he talks a lot about scientism. Which he sees as the kind of mechanical application of laws and axioms in one field to others. But that whole book is a critique of Enlightenment modernity that thinks, "Well, we've kind of figured out biology and chemistry and physics, and now we can just port all of that knowledge"—where the rules are clear and we can understand action and reaction—"and just port that over to human society." And he goes through a bunch of particularly French and other continental thinkers who literally say things like, "Now that we know how physics works, we can direct human social advancement and speed it up or slow it down." And for him, that's the beginning—it's the French Revolution and rationalizing society—that leads to the gulag. You know, both of the kind of Nazi version, but also of the Soviet—and this mania for planning. Where does that kind of arrogance—or where does that—maybe that's too strong a term, because most of the people involved in this are not bad people. Francis Bacon didn't want to control the world when he was articulating an Enlightenment view that we're going to map every part of the known universe and understand it, and then we can control it, right? Knowledge is power and we'll get to that in terms of Foucault. Where does that hubris come from? That's a difficult question. I think there'd be different elements to my answer. One part would be, actually there are bad actors who can be empowered by scientism. So people whose actual real motive is to gain power over other people will use scientific reasoning as a kind of ruse for doing that. But I think there is also a more unintended consequence from certain forms of scientific rationality. So the way I think about it is, if you have a narrative which sets up some kind of notion of expertise, you create a set of actors who have an interest in sustaining those claims to expertise. So people's income, their status, can be dependent on that expertise. And that can mean that you have—unintentionally, perhaps, it's not something that was intended by the people who created these narratives—but you can create a kind of logic which counts against pluralism of thought. Because if you're an expert, the last thing you want is there to be too many other sources of expertise. Because the more sources of expertise there are, the less likely it is that people will take note or feel that they should be governed by any one expert or set of experts. So the tendency is in many scientific fields—this is true certainly in social science, but also even in natural science—is once a certain view of what the expertise says gets established, there tend to be disciplinary dynamics that start moving out other sorts of opinions. So we have that kind of gradual crushing of pluralism, which nobody's actually intended, but has sort of arisen from internal logics within these kinds of scientific narratives and the positions they create. Gee, if only we had a recent global phenomenon that helps illustrate what that's like. But I mean, in the public health field, and the way that COVID was discussed, right? Where dissent was not, certainly not, patriotic or scientific. It was a sign of derangement or a moral failing. Right? Because this is part of the problem too, is that the people who have the expertise are like, "I'm not doing this because I believe in this theory particularly. I'm a scientist. These are the facts. And if you disagree with me, you're not just in error, but you are actually putting other people at risk." And what I found actually fascinating about the COVID pandemic was it wasn't only members of the public or lay opinion who were subject to this kind of condemnation. It was scientists themselves who fell outside of the mainstream view. People who'd been considered to be mainstream scientists suddenly found themselves demonized because they were expressing a view that, actually, just months before this thing happened, was considered to be the conventional wisdom about how you respond to a pandemic. Well, and I guess you guys at King's College have a lot to answer for, right? You know, how do you feel—this is that aside—how do you feel as a classical liberal individualist working at a place called King's College? I mean, I guess it's better than Imperial College, but come on, you know. Yeah, these are matters of degree. Matters of degree. But to go back to your earlier statement about postmodernism—you're not saying that all knowledge is fake, or you know, it's often instrumental. And one of the reasons why we got to an age of expertise—first in the sciences maybe, and then in industrial sciences—that clearly benefited people. I mean, being able to rationalize the production and distribution of goods on the planet, but especially starting in Europe and North America, we went from being poor to being a surplus economy, where people lived longer, got richer. I mean, medicine—scientific medicine—worked. Scientific food production worked. Certain forms of social organization that were based on kind of Enlightenment thinking really delivered the goods, literally and figuratively. So what are the limits then? Because when you say—you invoke the term "narrative" to talk about knowledge and information or expertise—it's both kind of true, right? Because oftentimes it will do what it says it's going to do. "I have studied how these crops will respond to this type of fertilizer and this type of watering and this kind of cultivation, and boom, I've solved world hunger." I mean, like, that happened. How do you deal with, from a postmodern point of view, the idea that sometimes this expertise—or oftentimes this expertise—is actually doing something that is observably beneficial or in line with the thinking process? Well, I think the important thing here to recognize—and this is true not only of the postmodernists but also of people like Hayek, whom you've already mentioned—is that they are not opposed to Enlightenment thinking as such. What they're concerned about is a kind of overreach of that thinking. And by overreach, they're concerned about notions that people can access a kind of pure notion of truth that isn't always, in some sense, entangled with attempts by people to gain influence over others, to exercise power. So you recognize that power is always involved but still believe that there are certain scientific theories that we've got reasons to actually take seriously and to believe. But what you're going to emphasize is that because—and this is especially true, I think, in the human and social sciences, as opposed to natural science, though it's even true in some areas of natural science—because the knowledge concerned is often really quite opaque, it's often hard to detach the truth claims from the attempt by actors to gain influence over others. So separating out those elements is often very hard in what are often complex phenomena. I think it's easier in the natural sciences, because there is a case to be made that for certain kinds of natural phenomena, they are the kind of phenomena that can be looked at almost through a laboratory-like process, where you've got a sort of stimulus-response model operating on what are elements that have no agency as such of their own. But it's very different when you're looking at human phenomena. And this is something Hayek obviously stresses throughout. I guess it maybe is distilled in the most popular form in something like The Road to Serfdom, but his entire work—and again, you know, I think it's partly just an accident of me reading The Counter-Revolution of Science first—but like, that to me is the key to everything about him. You've got to take it easy when you start saying, "Human society follows these rules, so we need to get rid of the people who aren't following the rules." Right? It's very clear. This is the place where Hayek, in a way that maybe more of my audience is comfortable with, intersects with Karl Popper too. The idea that we know with each increase in knowledge, we gain some knowledge, but we also understand that we understood—on some level we understand less and less of the world. So you've got to be careful when you start talking about social engineering, which itself is a fantastic concept, right? Coming out of the 19th century, really. Like, we know how to engineer locomotives, so let's engineer whole towns and whole civilizations. Well, the Hayek–Popper conversation, I think, is an interesting one in terms of these debates. Popper considers himself to be a critical rationalist. You can understand that critical rationalism to be a form of, kind of, radical skepticism, which in many ways sounds quite similar to a lot of postmodern themes. So postmodernists, I would consider, are radical skeptics. They want everything to be on the table. They want a sort of permanent spirit of criticism. I think there's a debate between Hayek and Popper about what that critical rationalism means in different settings. Popper is very much of the view that the critical rationalist spirit is reflected in a kind of hypothesis-testing mode, where you are looking for laws but you're never quite sure whether you have access to them. You're looking about specifying scientific tests for particular sorts of theories. Now Hayek is sympathetic to that, but he comes back by saying, "There are certain kinds of phenomena that cannot be subject to this kind of testing, even in the natural world." And the example he gives is evolution by natural selection. So evolution by natural selection is a kind of natural science theory, but it isn't one that can be tested in a kind of positivist, hypothesis-testing way. What it is is a narrative that explains certain things about the world. And the reason we might accept that narrative is that, given other things that we believe about the world, we might find it more convincing than, say, an intelligent design theory. But it is not one that we can test— Which itself is a n…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights