Why the Cato/Reason Crowd Hates Ron

[Yvonne]

Do you ever wonder where so-called "libertarian" entities like Cato and Reason get their money from and who's really calling their shots? Or what their real agenda is? David Gordon has written an outstanding expose which answers those questions and much more. You'll learn about more about Ron's past experience......and why he continues to fight for the true libertarian ideals of smaller, constitutional government. It's worth your time to read it in its entirety:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

[FireofLiberty]

I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron, but I know CATO isn't his biggest fan. Even Ron said this to me when I met him last week. When I dropped by the Reason headquarters in DC, in the other hand, I heard no animosity towards Ron by anyone there and all of them were fans and were down with the rEVOLution.

[Bradley in DC]

"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).

But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different. Austrians differ on the gold standard even (with a "free banking" debate prominently archived on the Mises.org site), and Friedman had said publicly that we would have been better off had the Fed never existed (and Cato published Anna Schwartz's call to abolish the ESF and help end discretionary monetary policy).

There are supporters of Dr. Paul at Cato and obviously at Reason (David Weigel most prominently); and yes, there are people who don't. To generalize everyone by one association is a group rights mentality contrary to our goals.

Hopefully our movement will realize that if we are to survive--and thrive--we need to move past pissing matches from generations past. Dr. Paul's inspired rEVOLution should be more than just picking fights for dead people.

[NightOwl]

"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).

Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.

[Bradley in DC]

Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.

Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working for him (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working there (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?

Why do liberals call it a conservative thinktank?

[Bradley in DC]

Why do liberals call it a conservative thinktank?

I'm at a loss to understand--much less explain--most of what socialists do and think.

[brunner]

I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron

Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.

"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.

Don't be a douche, Brad.

But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different.

This is so far beyond an understatement that I don't know what to call it. "personality conflicts"??
Come on.... they did their best to contribute to the smear campaign without overstepping their bounds as a think tank. This goes way beyond personality conflicts.

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog:

And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.

[Bradley in DC]

Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.

The newsletter issue has been dogging Dr. Paul for years--and Reason sat on the story for many weeks knowing TNR was going to do a hit piece--Jamie gets the blame--in order to defer to the official campaign (which was a mistake in hindsight).

Don't be a douche, Brad.

For those readers who don't know, Chris and I are friends--even when acting like feminine hygiene products--who have hosted the other at our places.

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog:

And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.

+1

(and knowing something of the preceding histories can help, yes)

[mdh]

I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.