Charles G. Koch has an opinion in the WSJ. It sounds indisputably libertarian. I know the Koch brothers are not liked at LRC.com. I do not know their history, so I will reserve judgment. Thoughts?
Well both of the Koch brothers have a little libertarian.... i think it is safe to say that they are 'mainstream' libertarian
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Koch co-founded Cato and is a huge contributor to the IHS which superceded the Volker Fund (which funded Rothbard through the 1950's and early 60's) , and I'm pretty sure his brother has run for president on the Libertarian ticket.
Everyone deserves a presumption of good intentions, and though the Koch brothers have likely done 'unpure' libertarian things due to the nature of politics and owning a large corporation, I don't get all the hate. Granted, some folks in the Rockwell crowd know and have worked with the Kochs, so they have better information than I do, but a lot of great, smart people use Koch money to produce great, smart essays, journals and books, and have done much to spread the message. There are much better targets to direct our rage at.
I do enjoy the recent narrative that the Kochs are basically the new Rockefellers or Rothschilds. The world is much simpler when you can attribute all views you dislike to the covert doings of a couple of plutocrats.
And lol at the most recent comment: "I would concede myself that spending in the US needs to be more smart, cut back in some areas and cut altogether in others. But I honestly don't think Mr. Koch has sincerely committed himself to fiduciary responsibility yet. If people like Mr. Koch spent a fraction of the energy they've spent on union busting, and channeled it toward a cause like true health care reform or ending our costly military adventures in the Middle East, the US would be on a lot faster track towards solvency."
Damn, that's a high bar. He's one man (well, two men if we consider his brother), who holds no government position and promulgates politically unpopular views - what do you expect him to accomplish? He's given millions of dollars to think-tanks calling for lower spending; what more does a guy got to do to convince you?
For all the funding the Kochs have given to libertarian evangelizing, it's downright simple-minded to unreservedly hatemonger them (as Lew Rockwell does).
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
I was under the impression that the "hatemongering" was in response to the continued attacks by the Koch brothers for a few decades, as they tried to edge out anyone with an-cap tendencies (Rothbard out of Cato, etc.). I don't remember the details as they were told to me, but that's the gist. I also remember Rothbard's letters being recommended for insight there and to the split with Volcker.
StrangeLoop:For all the funding the Kochs have given to libertarian evangelizing, it's downright simple-minded to unreservedly hatemonger them (as Lew Rockwell does).
It's not just Lew Rockwell. It is many top Austrians.
And for all of the funding they have given, they are still mercantilist crypto-libertarians at the end of the day.
---------
I suspect the "benefit of the doubt" position is based on very shallow research of the Kochs and their business. Who here has read SEK 3?
If you haven't, then why judge Rockwell based on his opinion alone? Isn't that shallow?
It's not hatemongering when it's pointing out the truth.
The people of the institute that runs this site do not want Social Security privatized, as far as I know. I, personally, think that once it's clear to everyone that they are going to be paying more into the system than they'll ever get out of it (a measly four figure amount a month), it's time to scrap it altogether.
But the Kochs? They want it privatized. If they wanted to resolve the problems of it, one would have guessed they'd eventually come to same conclusions. No, they want it privatized presumably because it is the largest pot of money in the world anyone can touch. It will be a gold mine. Wouldn't you suspect for a second that people who want SS privatized are the kind who only support market solutions when there is money in it for them?
lol wow. Wouldn't privatizing social security just be like adding another IRA or 401K?
Chile privatized its state pension scheme, and it was initially touted as a success, although now, Chileans are anticipating the same problems with it that are being anticipated with SS in US.
Social Security is not some retirement account. All you do is pay another kind of tax that goes into a common treasury, and at the end of a certain period, the government starts giving you back some taxes from its own common treasury.
To make an extremely imperfect analogy, you can't remove the problems of nuclear weapons by privatizing nuclear weapons and you can't end the wastes of the Pentagon by privatizing the Pentagon.
This.
Last night, on Freedom Watch (I've only recently begun watching it), Judge Napolitano had on Glenn Beck and brown-nosed him good and hard.
Where's Lew Rockwell on that? Instead of calling out Napolitano for making out with a neocon, Rockwell simply champions him over and over again.
With my limited knowledge of him and the Austrian School (I did read the Kochtopus on LRW), he seems far better than the usual gang of big business/political cronies. Everyone's always imperfect, and not everyones going to support Austrian anarcho capitalism. Its certainly good to teach your ideas, but sometimes you need other people to spread more general messages as well.
Take John D. Rockefeller. In many free market books (Myth of Robber Barons, How Capitalism Saved America, Capitalist Manifesto, Tycoons, even in Antittrust and Monopoly) he is usually touted more or less as a free market entrepreneur who greatly benefited the nation by selling the best quality oil in the greatest quantities at the lowest price. I'm not necessarily stating he was 100% free market philosophically, but he sure exemplified it sometimes.
Yet as Rothbard points out, the Rockefeller camp was instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve. Do we shun all of Rockefeller's great acheivements in the 19th century because of this? Or do we reconcile this fact and try and take Rockefeller for his good and discuss his bad? Motives? With the anti monopoly forces brewing in the 19th century, Rockefeller the shrewd businessmen took this opportunity to get government support/switch to more profitable "businesses" (banking) since he thought he might lose out in the refining arena. And Koch admits they do this (get government subsidies) in order to stay competitive.
Here's what David Gordon has to say: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
David Gordon:Crane and Koch could not tolerate what they deemed blatant disloyalty. Even though Rothbard was the leading theorist of libertarianism and the Cato Institute had been established to promote his views, they expected him to obey the orders sent down from on high. No one at all acquainted with Rothbard could have reasonably expected him to do so. He was always his own man and would agree with Dante: "Follow your own course, and let the people say what they will." Rothbard was removed from his position at Cato, and he was no longer invited to lecture at the summer conferences of the Institute for Humane Studies, another organization under Koch's patronage. Rothbard did not go quietly. He was, it will be recalled, a stockholder in the Cato Institute; and he intended to make clear his opposition to current policy at stockholders' meetings. In addition, his public criticisms would draw attention to a fact that Koch preferred to keep hidden, i.e., that the stockholders, principally Koch himself, and not the Board of Directors, held final control. Koch and Crane were determined to prevent Rothbard from doing so. Koch refused to return Rothbard's shares, which he had supposedly been holding in safekeeping for him. When Rothbard appeared at the Cato offices for a stockholders' meeting, Crane informed him that his shares had been voided. Though the legality of this was eminently questionable, Rothbard elected not to pursue the case further. Lawsuits against billionaires often have unhappy endings. After Rothbard departed from Cato, he joined forces with the Mises Institute, established in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. The new group was a standing reproach to Koch and Crane, since its consistent defense, encouragement, and development of a Rothbardian program were exactly the program that the Cato Institute had betrayed. The Koch forces endeavored to strangle the new group in its cradle. Rockwell received a telephone call from George Pearson, Koch's Wichita lieutenant in charge of libertarian programs. He screamed at Rockwell that he must on no account found a group named after Ludwig von Mises. Pearson informed him that Mises was an extreme and polarizing figure who should be downplayed. When Rockwell nevertheless proceeded as planned, Koch and his minions actively sought to discourage contributions to the new group.
Rothbard was removed from his position at Cato, and he was no longer invited to lecture at the summer conferences of the Institute for Humane Studies, another organization under Koch's patronage. Rothbard did not go quietly. He was, it will be recalled, a stockholder in the Cato Institute; and he intended to make clear his opposition to current policy at stockholders' meetings. In addition, his public criticisms would draw attention to a fact that Koch preferred to keep hidden, i.e., that the stockholders, principally Koch himself, and not the Board of Directors, held final control.
Koch and Crane were determined to prevent Rothbard from doing so. Koch refused to return Rothbard's shares, which he had supposedly been holding in safekeeping for him. When Rothbard appeared at the Cato offices for a stockholders' meeting, Crane informed him that his shares had been voided. Though the legality of this was eminently questionable, Rothbard elected not to pursue the case further. Lawsuits against billionaires often have unhappy endings.
After Rothbard departed from Cato, he joined forces with the Mises Institute, established in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. The new group was a standing reproach to Koch and Crane, since its consistent defense, encouragement, and development of a Rothbardian program were exactly the program that the Cato Institute had betrayed. The Koch forces endeavored to strangle the new group in its cradle. Rockwell received a telephone call from George Pearson, Koch's Wichita lieutenant in charge of libertarian programs. He screamed at Rockwell that he must on no account found a group named after Ludwig von Mises. Pearson informed him that Mises was an extreme and polarizing figure who should be downplayed. When Rockwell nevertheless proceeded as planned, Koch and his minions actively sought to discourage contributions to the new group.
The Koch's stole from Rothbard and harassed Rockwell. This is why the Kochtopus is held in such contempt, not (solely) because they're beltway oriented.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I wonder if any progressive will see that story and make the obvious predictable remark: "So a free market economist lived long enough to be duped by a billionaire and not have the power to proceed against him?"
Right. Free market economics means let the rich eat the poor and Rothbard got exactly what he preached and so on. Luckily no one outside the Austrian school really cares about Rothbard enough to follow his biography.