Can you stack bullshit higher than a Kochtopus is tall?
UPDATE: The post below is misplaced criticism, wrongly directed at David Gordon due to my own misinterpetation of what he was saying at the end of the piece discussed. After the second of Gordon’s comments below, I’m satisfied that my reading of the piece was in error. I am sorry, Mr. Gordon.
David Gordon’s “The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard, Part II” would be a great piece on the rivalry between Mises and Cato (in which all earnest libertarians should side with the Mises Institutue, as I see it, if they take a side in it at all) if Gordon hadn’t abused the opportunity to enlighten by pulling a bait-and-switch at the very end with regard to the Ron Paul newsletter fiasco.
“As mentioned in Part I, the Kochtopus strongly opposes the Mises Institute, which aims to continue the Rothbardian policy of Austrian economics, laissez-faire, and peace that Cato was established to promote. The opposition continues to the present day. Reason, now under Koch patronage, did not react to Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto with the praise one would expect for this best-selling libertarian book. David Weigel, in a post of April 30, 2008 on the Reason website, took the occasion to attack Lew Rockwell and other so-called “paleos.” The Kochtopus cannot forgive those who continue to champion Murray Rothbard.”
Weigel’s motives for writing whatever (or rather, the motives it is speculated he has) shouldn’t have anything to do with the matter of whether or not the ideas expressed in that writing stand or fall on their own merits. Gordon has very carefully spent time and effort detailing a true story of real libertarian struggle in the Mises-Cato rivalry, the corrupting influence of state-capitalist Koch money and the resulting institutionalized establishmentarianism in what started out as a radical organization, Cato. How sad that Gordon chooses to metaphorically spit on his own work by attempting to use it deceitfully in support of the contemptible.
Those who don’t want libertarianism falsely equated with racism, and have resulting concerns about the Ron Paul newsletter thing, are just Koch lackeys with a grudge against Rothbard? Is that what you’re saying, Mr. Gordon? I’m not buying that.
Share ThisTags: Add new tag
I don’t see why Brad Spangler suggests that I am insinuating that anyone who raises the issue of the Ron Paul newsletters is a Koch lackey. What I do think is this: When there are substantial Koch contributions to a group, there is reason to think that the policies and statements of the group have Koch’s approval.
re: “I don’t see…”
Fair enough. I’m willing to accept I may have misread you. I’m not yet convinced of that, but I’ll grant the possibility and state that if it’s true then I owe you a sincere apology.
re: “What I do think…”
You would get no disagreement from me on that point.
The point remains that Weigel’s motives (and Koch approval or disapproval) are no excuse for failing to address what Weigel wrote about here and elsewhere.
Saying it’s irrelevant is not addressing it.
Saying it was a long time ago is not addressing it.
Calling Dave Weigel a poopy-head is not addressing it, even if Weigel really IS a poopy-head.
You are quite right that whatever Weigel’s motives, this does not settle the issue of the newsletters. But what I am writing about is Koch versus Rothbard and the Mises Institute. I’m not looking for an excuse to avoid addressing the contents of the newsletters: that isn’t my subject at all. The subject is evidently much on your mind, but it is not on mine.
Please allow me to say, if it was not evident from my previous post, that I do not believe that anyone concerned with these newsletters is a Koch lackey. My suspicions are entirely confined to those who receive money from that source.