Ep. 400 New Analysis of the Douglas Murray / Dave Smith Debate on Rogan
Adam Haman returns to dissect the Douglas Murray / Dave Smith debate on Joe Rogan. Adam and Bob present evidence–including an old clip of Murray talking about Iraq–that other commentary has missed.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this conversation.
- The full Murray/Smith debate on Rogan.
- The UNICEF fact sheet on the Gaza blockade.
- Murray talking to Lex Fridman on “lived experience.”
- Murray talking about his visit to Iraq.
- The HamanNature substack.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
I felt the same way you did, Bob. I was really curious to hear what Murray would have to say in response to Dave and was really disappointed and annoyed by the 30 minute merry-go-round about experts and jelly.
Murray is at his best when he’s slinging cutting remarks at people who deserve it. Not only is Rogan the totally wrong format for that, but Dave effectively disarmed him by keeping it cool and congenial. I think Murray just didn’t prepare, because he seriously underestimated Dave Smith, and thought this was going to be another Piers Morgan style debate. It’s a shame there probably won’t be another debate, because I’d still like to know how Murray would respond to Dave’s points if he brought his facts with him (assuming he has any).
The other thing – I don’t know if you caught this – but Murray kept implying that there were these unnamed experts out there who demonstrate that Dave doesn’t know what he’s talking about if only Joe would let them.
Meanwhile, over the past 5 or more years, Dave has been completely trampling prominent Neocons, and their fans have insisted that this NEXT neocon is the one who will finally show Dave, only to once again have Dave Trample them. Doug Murray was the long-awaited debate. He was the front-line journalist and expert who was finally going to prove that Dave knew nothing. But instead, we just got an appeal to more experts – this time without specifics.
It’s just experts all the way down with these people.
Totally agree, Tyler.
LOL. Experts all the way down. So right.
All nice, but winning in a debate with Douglas Murray is kind of shooting into the bucket with fish. Too easy target. How about addressing in more critical way Dave Smith’s position on imigrant mass deportation. He reiterated it clearly in his recent video “Response to D. M. ” that he supports the mass deportation, not just for people that made some real crime, like murder or theft or rape or fraud, but for the “crime” of crossing the line without the permit of the government.
If Dave wants to influence the state law, for the pragmatic reasons, there are other ways, without losing the philosophical consistency. If he called the state to process each immigrant for the real crime, that would obviously be an impossible mission, because we all know that American court system is so overwhelmed that it can not process even the domestic crimes of the “native” Americans. But by attacking the government in this way, this may open the space to create private courts that would judge immigrants based on the real instead of imaginary crimes, and deported will be only real criminals. The pragmatic outcome would be an important expansion of both the number and quality of newly formed private courts.
So, two targets with one attack. Abolition of the state “right” to control who enters and who does not, and expansion of power of the private courts.
With Dave’s approach, he mainly empowers the government and because criminals are always much better connected with domestic criminals and politicians, the mass deportation would mostly mean that poor but honest foreign workers will get expelled and the majority of the imported criminals would stay.
Bob, you said you are Dave’s friend. Isn’t friend’s duty to make a friend think better. Recently you seem more his amplifier than his correcting figure. Dave is more popular, but he is not more right.
I’ve already addressed Dave’s arguments on immigration. See for example here.