The broken clock metaphor applies to our medical regime as well. At least RFK Jr will allow discussion where the medical regime doesn’t allow anyone to question the authority they believe they should be given. They however are wrong more often than they are correct.

Alone and you’ll get a clearer picture of the electorate. All the gender/race/education segmentation clouds the picture. Go with income. Conclusive.

Content is generally good but man shorten up the questions.

I think Zach does a terrific job of giving space for guests to speak openly and freely without taking over or dominating the discussion. It's a wonderful tactic when interviewing someone. Liz is terrible and maybe should stick to writing articles instead of battling guests and making it about herself. A good host sometimes needs to pretend to own ideas you disagree with, not badger them because they don't say what you want them to say a la Chase Oliver. That was an extremely disappointing episode and put me off of Liz as a serious journalist. Otherwise, the audio could use an upgrade in both the capture side as well as in post with a little leveling/mixing and maybe at times denoising. I know you can't usually control the guest's sound quality, but you can do a lot with a few presets.

The pod is a refreshing discussion of important issues with smart and informed commentary from the hosts and the guests.

Zach and Liz try to get to the bottom of the issues without the political spin

Wow, the Hughes v Balko hit job was a pathetic piece of biased and uneducated “journalism” if that’s what it claims to be. Misunderstand and misrepresent the Hughes piece and then distract with straw man arguments. I expect more from a publication affiliated with Reason.

Nothing reveals hypocrisy as much as the criminal prosecution of a police officer. Suddenly all those who claim to believe in principles like burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty are first in line to throw those principles out the window and become the biggest cheerleaders for the state. It was abundantly clear that Coleman’s argument was not that Chauvin is innocent. His argument was simply that he did not receive a fair trial and the prosecution failed to meet its burden in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, rather that addressing Coleman’s actual claims, Balko and the moderators continually reframed the debate, responding to claims Coleman never made. The fact that Coleman didn’t consult with medical experts or detail the film producer’s husband’s background is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence presented to the jury established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zach Weissmueller is an excellent interviewer who talks to a range of interesting guests about interesting topics and shows a great deal of professionalism when dealing with people he might not completely agree with. Unfortunately, Liz Wolfe’s confrontational style really detracts from the show. This show is supposed to be about “just asking questions,” not ranting to the guests and cutting them off constantly.

After reading the 1 star reviews focusing on the Hughes/Balko debate, of course I had to listen. The negative reviews got it right. Hughes presents a clearly defined, logically rigorous argument. Wolfe and Balko are full of hot air. When Hughes defends his argument in a coherent way, Wolfe and Balko just pivot to another critique. There are a few notes that Hughes could take with some humility, but overall I totally grasp his thesis. Hughes is waaaay out of Balko and Wolfe’s intellectual league. May I recommend E.J. Lemmon’s Beginning Logic. P.S. poor production and audio quality, but I appreciate Weissmueller’s preparedness and visual aids.

After hearing liz Wolfe on many platforms I had to search for her own platform to support. Here i am. It’s so hard to find a commenter like her these days. Im surrounded by hackery , hypocrisy, and authoritarianism. Good luck liz. Keep elevating 🗽🙌🏿

Your “hosting” of Coleman Hughes is awful! Both of the hosts are obviously biased and unconcerned with listening to both sides. Appalling

The subject says it all. This was an awful three on one. Liz Wolfe was atrocious as she constantly attacked Hughes. It’s not the first time she’s done this in this podcast. Some episodes are good. I’ll take a break and come back and try it again.

Too much interrupting and talking over each other. It makes it hard to listen. Listening to the Balko episode felt like a 3 on 1 debate.. Ill try another episode and see if its any better

Naive lLibertarians shocked when the world doesn’t conform to their world view. Echo chamber without dissent. Disappointing for Reason

I enjoy reading Reason articles and find the writers to be authentic. But the podcast interview with Hughes and Balko was so disappointing. Listening to the condescending tone Liz and Balko employed when responding to Hughes was enough to make me give up on the podcast altogether. The one bright light from the conversation was Hughes’ ability to avoid stooping to their level. He kept his tone respectful throughout the 2 hour ordeal.

Overall compelling, informative podcast. However, regarding Coleman Hughes / Radley Balko interview: I’m a professional moderator. I cannot imagine being compensated to interview a respondent (who is also compensated) and using any proportion of my allotted time to argue with the respondent or launch into a personal diatribe/monologue. They should use caution moving forward; it’s unprofessional.

The episode with Coleman Hughes, where the hosts told him they were going to act as neutral moderators, and then proceeded to join their pal Radley Balko in a 3 on 1 dogpile, where they jumped on Hughes every time he started to make a point, showed this to be a podcast not worth anyone’s time. One star is one star too many.

I like almost all Reason products, and I like Zach and Liz as journalists, but it pains me to say: both don’t jibe as a team. They barely interact, they talk over eachother, there’s no sense of humor. And to be even more brutally honest: Zach simply isn’t a gifted podcast host, I‘m sorry. He is often rambling, he needs so many attempts to get his point across, as a listener, I‘m losing interest (not in the guest, but in the moderation). I want to like this podcast, but even after several attempts, I just can’t.

Normie stuff

I like Zach and Liz and have been following their previous podcasts and work with Reason and I believe both of them to be highly capable and well versed on a lot of topics. That being said, why are they not asking follow up questions? Zach seems timid in these first two and doesn’t seem to want to rock the boat at all. Liz is willing to ask a question, but then just rolls over with whatever answer is provided. Both Dave Smith and Thomas Massie were great gets, but what’s the point of having a long form interview if you’re not going to push the interviewer to actually answer your questions or ask them to elucidate when they mention a counter factual or controversial opinion? I don’t think you need to be argumentative to get someone to explain the logic of their position or provide more details of their answer. I know that might make the conversations possibly single issue focused, but I think creating conversations between libertarians is a great way to flesh out good ideas, iron out bad ideas, and bring us back to the core concepts of the libertarian movement.

This is the real deal ! Serious to the point questions and Thomas Massie is killing it !

Glad to see the pushback on this ridiculous label . Libertarians are diverse on a host of issues , as long as people are involved , there can never really be unity ; then again isn't that kind of the point behind libertarianism ; gridlock ? Great show , I love all Reason podcasts & print , even if I disagree .

Excellent. Smith was great. Liz and Mark are skilled professionals. If this is the level of quality we can expect, I'm in.

The first episode, with Dave Smith, is exactly the kind of thing the libertarian movement needs. Keep this up!