16 replies to this topic

[suspire]

I haven't posted in ages in this forum and I know ImmInst is a hot-bed for pro-libertarian sentiments, but here is an interesting article on the money behind a lot of the efforts: http://www.newyorker...r?currentPage=1

It is NOT a short article, but it is very much worth the read.

[Rational Madman]

I haven't posted in ages in this forum and I know ImmInst is a hot-bed for pro-libertarian sentiments, but here is an interesting article on the money behind a lot of the efforts: http://www.newyorker...r?currentPage=1

It is NOT a short article, but it is very much worth the read.

I'm not really sure what to take away from the role of the Kochs, because even if they and other wealthy contributors were removed from the equation, I think the libertarian ideas behind the movements that they sponsored would still have succeeded in mobilizing millions, and meaningfully affecting political change. The grassroots component was the most critical variable to the success of libertarian inspired movements like the Tea Partiers, and I think pieces like this are driven largely by a desire to diminish the weight of this force, and transform the narrative into one that conforms with the more familiar theme of the disproportionate and destructive influence of the conservative minded ultra rich. Because after the historic triumph of the Democrats in 2008, I think journalists like Jane Mayer found it difficult to rationalize the very steep decline of the Democrats' political fortunes. They don't seem entirely convinced by the grassroots phenomenon, and how transforming the effects of the Great Recession were. The origins and behavior of this amorphous movement that arose largely outside of the control of established parties still bears a striking resemblance to its populist predecessors, though, whose rise was largely spontaneous, and possessed temperaments that were difficult for outsiders to manipulate. But a convincing plot needs an antagonist (which is not to say that it was contrived by Mayer), and the Koch brothers satisfied this requirement. To be clear, though, I agree that the ideas sustaining the movement are loathsome, but I don't accept that top-down direction and sponsorship from wealthy individuals and corporations played a decisive role in the movement's success. Rather, we have entered an age where advances in technology have empowered the individual contributor, and diluted the strength of competing blocs. And in the story of the Democrats' humbling, they collectively acted as the story's antagonist.

Edited by Rol82, 16 November 2010 - 04:11 PM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

In Defense of the Kochtopus

And that article is full of liberal stupidity. David is against cancer but opposed to the EPA regulating formaldihyde. Not a contradiction at all if Proggies weren't fucking incapable of wrapping their minds around private law and market process.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 17 November 2010 - 04:04 PM.

[Rational Madman]

In Defense of the Kochtopus

And that article is full of liberal stupidity. David is against cancer but opposed to the EPA regulating formaldihyde. Not a contradiction at all if Proggies weren't fucking incapable of wrapping their minds around private law and market process.

Thanks Stanford. What year again?

[Alex Libman]

The Koch Brothers haven't donated all that much, all things considered.

They pay a much, MUCH higher amount of money to socialists as "taxes"!

[Rational Madman]

The Koch Brothers haven't donated all that much, all things considered.

They pay a much, MUCH higher amount of money to socialists as "taxes"!

Why bother with philosophical distinctions when you can apply the "socialist" label to all governments? It's like the new "fascist," and other attempts to trivialize definitions in political philosophy.

[Alex Libman]

The Koch Brothers haven't donated all that much, all things considered.

They pay a much, MUCH higher amount of money to socialists as "taxes"!

Why bother with philosophical distinctions when you can apply the "socialist" label to all governments? It's like the new "fascist," and other attempts to trivialize definitions in political philosophy.

I do bother with philosophical distinctions, even distinctions in the writing of Karl Marx as he evolved his positions over time, whenever those distinctions are relevant. That said, the label of socialism is nonetheless appropriate for a broad range of human beliefs, encompassing most religious, political, and economic systems past and present, including the German / Italian / etc nationalist flavor of socialism popularly called "fascism".

I stand by my original point that the Koch Brothers' payment of taxes funds socialist institutions - which do spend some money on infrastructure (ex. public schools) but ineptly and for the primary purpose of buying political power for themselves. Koch Industries has annual revenues of ~$110 billion, on which they pay significant taxes, year after year, while their total lifetime philanthropic activities are well under one billion, much of which isn't related to libertarianism one bit.

Edited by Alex Libman, 09 June 2011 - 06:21 AM.

[Rational Madman]

The Koch Brothers haven't donated all that much, all things considered.

They pay a much, MUCH higher amount of money to socialists as "taxes"!

Why bother with philosophical distinctions when you can apply the "socialist" label to all governments? It's like the new "fascist," and other attempts to trivialize definitions in political philosophy.

I do bother with philosophical distinctions, even distinctions in the writing of Karl Marx as he evolved his positions over time, whenever those distinctions are relevant. That said, the label of socialism is nonetheless appropriate for a broad range of human beliefs, encompassing most religious, political, and economic systems past and present, including the German / Italian / etc nationalist flavor of socialism popularly called "fascism".

I stand by my original point that the Koch Brothers' payment of taxes funds socialist institutions - which do spend some money on infrastructure (ex. public schools) but ineptly and for the primary purpose of buying political power for themselves. Koch Industries has annual revenues of ~$110 billion, on which they pay significant taxes, year after year, while their total lifetime philanthropic activities are well under one billion, much of which isn't related to libertarianism one bit.

Okay, but there's a reason that political movements went to great pains to distinguish their goals from strictly socialist goals. So I think it would be fairer to say that social democratic thought has had a clear impact on the policies of most nation-states, or that some of the institutions that the taxes of the Koch brothers support have objectives that are influenced by the examples of other social democracies and the modern understanding of political liberalism. As for the campaign contributions of the Koch Brothers, I couldn't agree with you more, and besides this thread, some of my additional thoughts on the subject can be found in this thread:My link.

[Alex Libman]

Every religion "goes to great pains" to distinguish itself from those of the past. Apologists for Islam will tell you how barbaric the older polytheistic Arabian religions have been, making Islam sound like science and reason in comparison. But it is a religion nevertheless.

Pay attention to what people actually do and what effect they actually have, not what they tell you or what they claim their intentions were. Reality isn't moved by PR spin, it is moved by big-picture results.

[Alex Libman]

[...] Koch Industries has annual revenues of ~$110 billion, on which they pay significant taxes, year after year, while their total lifetime philanthropic activities are well under one billion, much of which isn't related to libertarianism one bit.

... compared to the ~$7 billion given to various causes by George Soros, more than 1/7th of which have coincided with libertarian interests, making him a greater financier of libertarianism than the Koch family. Though all billionaires have it in their interest to at least pretend to be left-wingers, some fraction of their philanthropy always benefits the cause of economic freedom, very likely trumping the contributions made by the Koch family.

[valkyrie_ice]

[http://www.huffingto...g_n_930595.html

Here you go Alex. Have fun. I'll be rolling on the floor laughing when ole Peter announces he's declaring himself King Peter the First and hearing your cries of outrage as he makes you a serf.

[maxwatt]

The Koch brothers are the anti-Christ. Two for one. They are much more effective furthering their causes than other philanthropists, as they target through institutions such as the Heritage Foundation to influence courts and congress. Their goal is a return to 17th century social norms, and the continued amassing of their fortune by burning every last bit of fossil fuel and buried carbon on the planet. This will make the planet more habitable for their fellow aliens from Hades.

Edited by maxwatt, 22 August 2011 - 02:43 AM.

[nowayout]

Thanks for injecting some perspective into this discussion, Maxwatt. Certainly, the Mad Max post-apocalyptic future that would be world remade into the image of the Koch brothers wouldn't be a hospitable place for living a longer life, at least not if you want it to be pleasant.

[nowayout]

The grassroots component was the most critical variable to the success of libertarian inspired movements like the Tea Partiers, and I think pieces like this are driven largely by a desire to diminish the weight of this force, and transform the narrative into one that conforms with the more familiar theme of the disproportionate and destructive influence of the conservative minded ultra rich.

Yet the Tea Partiers only defend the interests of conservative minded ultra rich, while destroying the interests of the middle and working classes they supposedly come from, who will then be even angrier fodder for the right wing disinformation machine run by their oppressors, like battered wives who keep defending their violators. IThe irony would be hilarious if they weren't so intent on, and capable of, taking the rest of us down with them.

Edited by viveutvivas, 22 August 2011 - 02:29 AM.

[Alex Libman]

[http://www.huffingto...g_n_930595.html

Here you go Alex. Have fun. I'll be rolling on the floor laughing when ole Peter announces he's declaring himself King Peter the First and hearing your cries of outrage as he makes you a serf.

(1) Sea-steading is a concept, as is under-sea-steading (a terrible idea, BTW), blimp-steading, space-steading, asteroid-steading, etc. (According to Google, some of those, without dashes, were first coined by yours truly.) The Seasteading Institute does great things, and I'm very glad that it's getting a bit more funding (compared to the trillions of dollars that governments steal every year). But the concept is much bigger than any institute. Seasteading is not a racket controlled by Patri Friedman, Peter Thiel, or anybody else. You can't hold power over an idea.


(2) I don't see where Peter Thiel has called himself "king", but other libertarians (ex. Michael Badnarik) have used this term as a celebration of individual (negative) Rights, which logically must apply equally to everyone. ([I'm not inserting any more links, because this forum's retarded use of JS instead of syntax is pissing me off.]) If Peter Thiel is a "king", then so are you and I. In a free society people can call themselves whatever the hell they want. But in the system that you defend, government is god, its priests are kings, and everyone else is a serf.

(3) If Peter Thiel had even an ounce of influence on me, don't you think he would have discouraged me from bashing Facebook and promoting Bitcoin and other alternatives to PayPal? (OK, so I've joined Facebook once to vote for Ron Paul in some 2007 polls before deleting my account - "Alex Libman" accounts on Facebook now aren't me. And I do use PayPal once in a while - I donate small amounts of money to lots of people, and Bitcoin isn't stable enough yet to insist on its use. But that's a tiny contribution in comparison to lots and lots of vocal opposition, especially to use of Facebook.)

(4) What is it about science that so hate so much? I don't just mean the science of engineering seasteads, which is what the aforementioned donation would mainly be used for, but the very application of the scientific process to your religion of government?

The Koch brothers are the anti-Christ. Two for one. They are much more effective furthering their causes than other philanthropists, as they target through institutions such as the Heritage Foundation to influence courts and congress. Their goal is a return to 17th century social norms, and the continued amassing of their fortune by burning every last bit of fossil fuel and buried carbon on the planet. This will make the planet more habitable for their fellow aliens from Hades.

Is ignoring reality and chanting mindless insults over and over again an Olympic sport these days?

Thanks for injecting some perspective into this discussion, Maxwatt. Certainly, the Mad Max post-apocalyptic future that would be world remade into the image of the Koch brothers wouldn't be a hospitable place for living a longer life, at least not if you want it to be pleasant.

Looks like maxwatt will have some competition for that Gold Medal...

Yet the Tea Partiers only defend the interests of conservative minded ultra rich, while destroying the interests of the middle and working classes they supposedly come from, who will then be even angrier fodder for the right wing disinformation machine run by their oppressors, like battered wives who keep defending their violators. IThe irony would be hilarious if they weren't so intent on, and capable of, taking the rest of us down with them.

(1) The Tea Parties might have started in association with Ron Paul (someone I only partially support), but they've since devolved into a vaguely-bound incoherent blob. For example, they've drifted much further into the populist territory, including being anti-immigration and anti-trade - that's about as unlibertarian as you can get! If any libertarians support them, it's only out of the "an enemy of my enemy is my ally" mentality, which I disagree with. If you want to criticize libertarianism, then criticize libertarianism - not organizations that some libertarians have considered a lesser evil, because then you'll end up criticizing almost everybody.

(2) Negative Rights apply equally to everyone (that is all adults, with a different formulation of Rights for children, criminals, and the mentally handicapped). You create a penny worth of wealth, you get to keep it. You create a billion worth of wealth, you get to keep it. The "ultra rich" of today are actually mostly socialists, because it's a lot more difficult to get that rich in a free market, without universal patents, limited liabilities, government contracts, regulations that limit competition, etc. They can afford to exchange a little bit of their wealth (or, more likely, other people's wealth) in exchange for the political and social power that they get by appeasing the socialist thugs. And in a free society the rich would not be immune from social pressure to engage in philanthropy - those that do will be celebrated as true heroes, and those that don't will be boycotted and ostracized.

(3) What exactly do you mean by "destroying the interests"? You argue that slaves are happy and freeing them is against their interest, because they're employed and get free food. I am pointing out that your claims cannot be logically verified - give them freedom and they will decide if they want to stay slaves or not. No one can decide what's in someone's interest other than the individual him/herself. You cannot even logically claim that people who receive money from government and pay nothing are benefiting from it, because they are maintained in an artificial child-like state and miss the opportunities to grow out of it. They are rightfully resented by the people who create the wealth that is stolen for them, and they miss all the opportunities and diffusionary benefits that would come about in a freer-market economy, including voluntary charity. It's better to be poor in Kong Kong than in North Korea, and the differences between USA and a genuine free market would be just as stark.

[maxwatt]

Hobbes.

[Alex Libman]

This isn't a holy-book-thumping contest. You cannot win an argument by simply stating your allegiances and ignoring all of the specific points.

Thomas Hobbes once made some important contributions to rational philosophy, but he is by no means its best representative in the present.