Reason: Evil masquerading as freedom [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

susano

12-07-2013, 09:11 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/reason-and-the-the-ultimate-tyranny/

Daniel Mcadams shows how Reason is using the rationale of tyrants.

My guess about where the 50K donation came from is the Gates Foundation.

The only time I ever read Reason is when I come here and someone links it in a post. The first time I read there, I clicked through to more articles and I remember thinking the site was a mixture of libertarian and communist. Whatever I came across was definitely communist (may have been about no borders) but in the political continuum met up with far "right" philosophy as well. Pimping forced vaccines is just straight up leftist/statist tyranny.

Christian Liberty

12-07-2013, 09:14 PM

Agree.

I am personally a believer in NAP, but if I was running a magazine and my writer came to me and said, "You know I believe in NAP, but I personally believe this is a major exception... " That would be an interesting story and I'd probably run it to. Controversy sells.

So one bad article = the entire magazine is shit?

I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but I've seen more than one thing that was seriously bad like this. Daniel McAdams summed up why it was such a problem. This isn't a minor issue. The logic is chilling.

If somebody said they believed in the NAP except that preemptively arresting people who are suspected of being terrorists and holding them indefinitely without trial, would you take them seriously as a libertarian defender with just a few flaws? I wouldn't.

There are some hills I will die on, and others I won't. This is one I will die on. If you don't agree, that's OK I guess.

Ronin Truth

12-08-2013, 11:55 AM

So one bad article = the entire magazine is shit?

It's an unfortunate pattern over an extended period.

ThePenguinLibertarian

12-08-2013, 06:23 PM

Even Though i think vaccines are great, forcing them to be vaccinated on kids should be left to the states. Then biology would sort it out. NYC will not have rubella, and Austin Will.

Matt Collins

12-08-2013, 10:08 PM

So one bad article = the entire magazine is shit?Pretty much. The LRC guy is just a small-minded liberty guy.

I didn't read the Reason article, but a magazine is not always monolithic and in complete agreement with itself. Hell, the Cato Institute, nor even the Mises Institute are monolithic. Sometimes they all put out crap, the Reason foundation too.

Attacking the Reason article itself on its merits is perfectly acceptable. But the LRC guy has created this type of logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

Christian Liberty

12-08-2013, 10:26 PM

Even Though i think vaccines are great, forcing them to be vaccinated on kids should be left to the states. Then biology would sort it out. NYC will not have rubella, and Austin Will.

Vaccines may or may not be good. That's something I don't know enough about. From what I've heard about the flu vaccine, I don't think that its worth it, but I don't know anything about the others.

Even if they are a good idea though, they still shouldn't be enforced.

Henry Rogue

12-08-2013, 10:38 PM

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

DamianTV

12-08-2013, 10:43 PM

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

Works about as well as a Used Car Warranty.

Henry Rogue

12-08-2013, 10:50 PM

I just read the Reason article, yeah it has some real logic fallacies in it, IMO.

Henry Rogue

12-08-2013, 10:53 PM

Works about as well as a Used Car Warranty.Meaning, there is no guaranty?

HOLLYWOOD

12-08-2013, 10:53 PM

Typical of so many.

See the George Washington quote in my signature...Damn Right... highest bidder wins, especially inside the DC beltway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1IQYD4Uew

jonhowe

12-08-2013, 10:58 PM

Heh. I've been enjoying Reason more than ever lately. I consider myself a humanist libertarian, which is pretty much their target audience.

DamianTV

12-09-2013, 02:41 AM

Meaning, there is no guaranty?

Its a False Sense of Security. There is an effect, and there may be some benefits to be had, but at what price? There's no vaccine against death, evil, or corruption.

Matt Collins

12-09-2013, 07:18 AM

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

mosquitobite

12-09-2013, 08:16 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Peace&Freedom

12-09-2013, 08:48 AM

Pretty obviously, the mystery grant came with the strong suggestion that the magazine find a liberty writer who might make the case for mandatory vaccination. Money is a mood changer, they say, and when the bills were waved in Reason's face, somebody caved. What I want to know is, how often has this happened?

NewRightLibertarian

12-09-2013, 09:09 AM

Reason magazine is at best a very flawed messenger for liberty. More likely, they are establishment gatekeepers who care about liberty as little as the two major political parties.

green73

12-09-2013, 09:17 AM

Pretty much. The LRC guy is just a small-minded liberty guy.

I didn't read the Reason article, but a magazine is not always monolithic and in complete agreement with itself. Hell, the Cato Institute, nor even the Mises Institute are monolithic. Sometimes they all put out crap, the Reason foundation too.

Attacking the Reason article itself on its merits is perfectly acceptable. But the LRC guy has created this type of logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?

Henry Rogue

12-09-2013, 10:00 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Thanks for the link Matt, but I read the Reason article already and it discussed herd immunity. The term defines it's self, the concept is easy to understand. That however, doesn't answer my question at all. I did find the answer in the reason article. It read >
Vaccines do not produce immunity in some people, so a percentage of those who took the responsibility to be vaccinated remain vulnerable. Which is exactly what I deduced in my earlier post. The article goes on to say these people are protected via "herd immunity", that it acts as a firewall. I don't argue this, it seems logical. At this point the article deviates from medicine and plows into politics and this is where it goes all wrong.
People who refuse vaccination for themselves and their children are free-riding off herd immunity. Anti-vaccination folks are taking advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen the minimal risk of vaccination, The term "Free Rider" sets alarm bells off in my head every time I read it, as progressive socialist always invoke it when ever they want to use force against others, typically when they want to force you to pay taxes. However progressive socialist never use it when they are promoting the welfare state, oh no, you never here a peep about it then. Does the article discuss the state handing out free vaccines to the poor who can't afford it? If it does, I doubt it invokes "free rider" in that instance.

The other political garbage found in this article deals with those who chose to be vaccinated, but didn't develop immunity. The article goes on to blame those who chose to not be vaccinated for any infections developed in the vaccinated. Now there was a mutual exchange between the vaccinator and the vaccinated, the doctor provided a service in exchange for the patients money, You could broaden that and say the vaccine producer provided it's product in exchange for the insurance company's money, which of course comes from the insured's premium or in some cases the taxpayers money. In any case, If the vaccine fails to perform it's expected purpose and that person becomes infected, the exchange is no longer mutually beneficial, the fault falls on the provider, not someone who chose to forgo vaccination.

By the way I didn't read much of the Rockwell article did it us my arguments?

NewRightLibertarian

12-09-2013, 10:02 AM

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams, [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?

Matt doesn't care who Daniel McAdams is. All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.

belian78

12-09-2013, 10:06 AM

That "LRC guy" is Daniel McAdams, [mod edit]. Do you even know who he is?
If you are staunch in your beliefs and support for liberty, then you are just a small minded person who can't appreciate the nuances of working the freedom message into the machine. See one of his co-horts quote in my sig.

osan

12-09-2013, 10:18 AM

Is Reason really that bad? They produce a pretty good product, and I don't have to agree with every article to say that.

Depends on the nature of the disagreement. There are fundamental issues and superficial. Disagreement on the latter may be no big deal - Reason says "chocolate" and you say "vanilla". Fair enough and no harm done. But when some entity, be it a man or some institution like "Reason Magazine", departs from provably correct fundamentals, then has there arisen a firm basis to alter one's opinion and to cry "foul".

If the entity says, "we should change the flag to the old Gadsden version" and you disagree, so what? The basic fabric of the entity remains intact, good or otherwise.

But if the entity declares we must violate the fundamental rights of some subset of the population, or the even the entire mob, for the sake of "security", then assuming the fabric was once sound, we now see it has become unsound and the call must go up for repair or for everyone to find a new entity.

One needs to be able to distinguish between that which can and cannot be tolerated and respond correctly to the latter.

Ender

12-09-2013, 10:43 AM

Maybe I should read Reason's article, but I fail to see how not being vaccinated puts someone who is vaccinated at risk. If that is the case, is the vaccine working?

Exactly.

If vaccinations really worked- then if you are vaccinated and I am not, shouldn't you be safe?

green73

12-09-2013, 10:51 AM

Matt doesn't care who Daniel McAdams is. All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.

Exactly, and he's so transparent that it's hard for me to respect anyone who doesn't see through him.

Matt Collins

12-09-2013, 11:43 AM

If you are staunch in your beliefs and support for liberty, then you are just a small minded person who can't appreciate the nuances of working the freedom message into the machine. See one of his co-horts quote in my sig.No, not at all. But broadly attacking Reason is stupid because Reason isn't monolithic. That's like someone broadly attacking LRC because of one author's post.

Matt Collins

12-09-2013, 11:45 AM

All he cares about is buttering his bread (pun intended) which is why he never badmouths the corporate-funded beltway libertarians.HA HA HA lolz.... If you knew how much money I have lost working for the cause of liberty you would be aghast.

And secondly I do badmouth beltway libertarians. Robert Levy (Cato) for example is an imbecile on the issue of nullification. But that doesn't mean all of the Cato institute is bad :rolleyes:

Christian Liberty

12-09-2013, 12:00 PM

Exactly, and he's so transparent that it's hard for me to respect anyone who doesn't see through him.

I believe he's a shill, but hey, I don't know for sure.

No, not at all. But broadly attacking Reason is stupid because Reason isn't monolithic. That's like someone broadly attacking LRC because of one author's post.

There's been too many examples of this from Reason, it seems like. But... I wasn't saying you can't get anything good out of them. Just that what is described in the OP is evil.

Depends on the nature of the disagreement. There are fundamental issues and superficial. Disagreement on the latter may be no big deal - Reason says "chocolate" and you say "vanilla". Fair enough and no harm done. But when some entity, be it a man or some institution like "Reason Magazine", departs from provably correct fundamentals, then has there arisen a firm basis to alter one's opinion and to cry "foul".

If the entity says, "we should change the flag to the old Gadsden version" and you disagree, so what? The basic fabric of the entity remains intact, good or otherwise.

But if the entity declares we must violate the fundamental rights of some subset of the population, or the even the entire mob, for the sake of "security", then assuming the fabric was once sound, we now see it has become unsound and the call must go up for repair or for everyone to find a new entity.

One needs to be able to distinguish between that which can and cannot be tolerated and respond correctly to the latter.

There's always going to be a little bit of disagreement with regards to what can and cannot be tolerated, and issues that libertarians disagree with each other on. That's fine. But at a certain point, enough is enough. Sometimes, depending on the issue being discussed, that's one issue. Sometimes its more than one.

green73

12-09-2013, 12:16 PM

HA HA HA lolz.... If you knew how much money I have lost working for the cause of liberty you would be aghast.

And secondly I do badmouth beltway libertarians. Robert Levy (Cato) for example is an imbecile on the issue of nullification. But that doesn't mean all of the Cato institute is bad :rolleyes:

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that. And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.

Christian Liberty

12-09-2013, 12:34 PM

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that. And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.

I agree.

I know that on LRC, off the top of my head, Pat Buchanan, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell, while all having wonderful things to say on some topics, do not really fit the LRC stated agenda on a few issues. And I don't have a problem with that, at least not as far as LRC printing them goes. I don't need to agree with someone on every issue to find them to be worth reading.

That said, LRC is very clearly an anti-state organization, even if a few of their writers may not be card-carrying (metaphorically speaking) anarcho-capitalists.

Henry Rogue

12-09-2013, 01:27 PM

Thanks for the link Matt, but I read the Reason article already and it discussed herd immunity. The term defines it's self, the concept is easy to understand. That however, doesn't answer my question at all. I did find the answer in the reason article. It read > Which is exactly what I deduced in my earlier post. The article goes on to say these people are protected via "herd immunity", that it acts as a firewall. I don't argue this, it seems logical. At this point the article deviates from medicine and plows into politics and this is where it goes all wrong. The term "Free Rider" sets alarm bells off in my head every time I read it, as progressive socialist always invoke it when ever they want to use force against others, typically when they want to force you to pay taxes. However progressive socialist never use it when they are promoting the welfare state, oh no, you never here a peep about it then. Does the article discuss the state handing out free vaccines to the poor who can't afford it? If it does, I doubt it invokes "free rider" in that instance.

The other political garbage found in this article deals with those who chose to be vaccinated, but didn't develop immunity. The article goes on to blame those who chose to not be vaccinated for any infections developed in the vaccinated. Now there was a mutual exchange between the vaccinator and the vaccinated, the doctor provided a service in exchange for the patients money, You could broaden that and say the vaccine producer provided it's product in exchange for the insurance company's money, which of course comes from the insured's premium or in some cases the taxpayers money. In any case, If the vaccine fails to perform it's expected purpose and that person becomes infected, the exchange is no longer mutually beneficial, the fault falls on the provider, not someone who chose to forgo vaccination.

By the way I didn't read much of the Rockwell article did it us my arguments?

I can't believe my post is ignored. I SMOKED that article through the heart with a 200 grain combination load of NAP, Free Market and Liberty.

Matt Collins

12-09-2013, 02:25 PM

Levy just happens to be the chairman of Cato, and he's also penned an NYT column advocating for gun control! Great outfit they are.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

You totally miss the point on Reason, why so many take issue with them. It's not just numerous articles of dubious distinction over the years, it's what they stand for: nothing. They don't have a discernible philosophy. "Socially liberal, fiscally semi-conservative," is about all you can get out of them when asked. They're really good at criticizing easy targets of government mismanagement. But you'll never see them get much more radical than that. They are not trying to be fighting in the trenches, they are a place of ideas. Don't try and make them something they are not, they fit very well in their place. But you have to understand what they are and what they do, and once you grasp that, you'll see why it's no big deal that they don't have a discernible philosophy.

And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.
There were a few article about Ron that were negative, and there were some articles that were REALLY awesome. What's your point? :rolleyes:

They are bad news because at the end of the day they channel people away from the ultimate truths, keep them from truly waking up---which is the Kochs' ultimate goal in their libertarian endeavors.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
and
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

green73

12-09-2013, 03:10 PM

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

You're right, the leader of an organization needn't be representative of the values of said organization. :rolleyes:

They are not trying to be fighting in the trenches, they are a place of ideas. Don't try and make them something they are not, they fit very well in their place. But you have to understand what they are and what they do, and once you grasp that, you'll see why it's no big deal that they don't have a discernible philosophy.

Here's an idea: End the Fed. Will they propose that? Hell no. Don't want to upset the apple cart. Need to keep those invitations to Beltway cocktail parties coming.

What are these great ideas coming from Reason? You would think "being a place of ideas" they'd have gotten somewhere after all this time. Hard to get somewhere without a philosophy.

There were a few article about Ron that were negative, and there were some articles that were REALLY awesome. What's your point? :rolleyes:

They were horrendous, condescending, and dismissive of the man who was doing more to spread libertarianism in a year than they had over their entire existence. The only time they got excited was over the newsletters.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
and
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://youreanidiot.com

Bastiat's The Law

12-09-2013, 03:17 PM

Reason's videos on Youtube are usually pretty solid. They do some pretty in depth interviews.

NewRightLibertarian

12-09-2013, 04:39 PM

And secondly I do badmouth beltway libertarians. Robert Levy (Cato) for example is an imbecile on the issue of nullification. But that doesn't mean all of the Cato institute is bad :rolleyes:

I don't get why someone would want to support an organization with an imbecile as its Chairman or want that organization representing libertarians in any way, shape or form.

And does anybody seriously need to be reminded of their horrible treatment of Ron Paul? Nothing showed their true colors more than that.

Amazing how people will line up to defend and promote proven traitors to the cause, isn't it? The beltway libertarians are a bad mix of money-grubbers and suckers, and their influence on the movement must be aggressively resisted.

DamianTV

12-09-2013, 08:13 PM

There are a LOT of people that hide behind Labels.

Im a Christian, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im a Muslim, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im a Libertarian, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im an Elected Representative, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im an Officer of the Law, therefore you should trust me blindly.
I have a Degree in Economics, therefore you should trust me blindly.
I report for a Major News Organization, therefore you should trust me blindly.
I am more qualified than you are, therefore you should trust me blindly.

Starting to see the Pattern? And they PANDER to anyone they can get to buy their bullshit.

Im white, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im black, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im American, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im Mexican, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im Japanese, therefore you should trust me blindly.
Im a Male, therefore Males should trust me blindly.
Im a Female, therefore Females should trust me blindly.

They all play the guise of pretending to be the same as the people they pander to. Their bullshit becomes plainly visible once the common man learns to look beyond both of their labels and do their own research on the subjects they present.

Im an Economist, therefore you should trust me blindly.

When we dig deeper, we find that their Economics Degree is nothing more than a symbol of Debt and Obedience. We find that their self proclaimed expertise to be full of holes. They expect that we will take them at their word and not investigate for ourselves, but when we do, we see right through their Blind Faith in ther False Qualifications.

Then, we understand they are NOT anywere even close to even being similar to the people their words screw over.

Matt Collins

12-09-2013, 09:49 PM

I don't get why someone would want to support an organization with an imbecile as its ChairmanBecause some of us are either mature enough, or have the intellectual capacity, to realize that one man does not an organization make, even if it is the Chair.

or want that organization representing libertarians in any way, shape or form.Fortunately no one has a monopoly on the word "libertarian" so if you want to cast them aside, you need to build up a better more visible organization.

NewRightLibertarian

12-09-2013, 11:10 PM

Because some of us are either mature enough, or have the intellectual capacity, to realize that one man does not an organization make, even if it is the Chair.

The rest of the people in the organization aren't any better. But go ahead and keep supporting CATO if you want to see 'libertarian' defenses of the welfare state, conscription, NSA spying, gun control and the rest of it.

VoluntaryAmerican

12-09-2013, 11:11 PM

No, not at all. But broadly attacking Reason is stupid because Reason isn't monolithic. That's like someone broadly attacking LRC because of one author's post.

Yep, same thing.

SHOULD it also need to be mentioned that both are competing and have incentive to discredit one another?

green73

12-10-2013, 12:01 AM

I don't get why someone would want to support an organization with an imbecile as its Chairman or want that organization representing libertarians in any way, shape or form.

Amazing how people will line up to defend and promote proven traitors to the cause, isn't it? The beltway libertarians are a bad mix of money-grubbers and suckers, and their influence on the movement must be aggressively resisted.

This and that.

green73

12-10-2013, 12:05 AM

Yep, same thing.

SHOULD it also need to be mentioned that both are competing and have incentive to discredit one another?

Oh absolutely the same thing! One has a concise definition of liberty and the other...well..nobody knows what the fuck they stand for.

green73

12-10-2013, 12:10 AM

How satisfying is it that no matter how much filthy money comes into depraved Reason’s coffers, they are still outgunned by LRC in terms of traffic. Ha,,Bwahahaha fuck you, establishment shills!!!

Matt Collins

12-10-2013, 07:19 AM

The rest of the people in the organization aren't any better.

Your ignorance is showing now... :rolleyes:

DamianTV

12-10-2013, 08:07 AM

I don't get why someone would want to support an organization with an imbecile as its Chairman...

I think people may believe the Imbecile as the lesser of two evils. Same excuse why I heard a lot of people voting for Obama. They didnt like him, but they saw Romney as flat out pure fucking evil. Turns out they were both just as Evil, but one was a better salesman who played a Race card.

(Note: Quote is taken slightly out of context as indicated by "...")

Christian Liberty

12-10-2013, 10:50 AM

Oh absolutely the same thing! One has a concise definition of liberty and the other...well..nobody knows what the fuck they stand for.

Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Market.

Done.

I think people may believe the Imbecile as the lesser of two evils. Same excuse why I heard a lot of people voting for Obama. They didnt like him, but they saw Romney as flat out pure fucking evil. Turns out they were both just as Evil, but one was a better salesman who played a Race card.

(Note: Quote is taken slightly out of context as indicated by "...")\

I've heard the same thing from people who voted for Romney. And yes, you're right, they're from the same system.