"No Pity for the Poor Reader"

My second—and last—Naomi Klein post. Via Arts & Letters Daily, Canadian journalist Robert Fulford slogs through The Shock Doctrine, currently the number one non-fiction book in the Great White North (just edginging out Bill Clinton's Giving) and is underwhelmed. It's a wonderfully mean review. Sample:

If supporters of free trade celebrate a success, like China, Klein calls it "corporatism" and reminds us that many millions of Chinese remain impoverished. When globalism fails, in Argentina or Indonesia, Klein quickly identifies the enemies of humanity, the "Chicago Boys," University of Chicago economists who destroy social democracy everywhere.
...
Klein writes with little sense of style and no pity for the poor reader. The Shock Doctrine requires that we hack through a thicket of self-contradictions and wild overstatements. For her, hyperbole is not a literary device, it's a way of life.
...
If you can manage to read Klein, you need read no more. Learn her way of thinking and you'll not be required to think again. She delivers a packaged one-size-fits-all theory of history that shares just one attribute with Marxism: When you have absorbed Klein you will in future always know the answer before you know the question.

Whole thing.

For a more generous review, check out John Grey's ebullient endorsement of The Shock Doctrine in—you guessed it—The Guardian.

Comments

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 11:35am | #

Salon also has an interview with Klein on their front page today where she discusses the book and the ideas behind it.

Episiarch | September 21, 2007, 11:36am | #

Just saw her on Colbert Report last night. Unless she is a brilliant satirist along with Colbert, as far as I could tell, she didn't even realize that his whole fucking character is an elaborate act.

She seriously seemed to think that the things he was saying were serious, and she got super-earnest about the whole thing.

It was pathetic.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 11:40am | #

When you have absorbed Klein you will in future always know the answer before you know the question.

Whereas one could have never guess how any book critical of globalism would be recieved by a memeber of the Reason staff.

Although it appears that The Shock Doctrine is very critical of government's role in taking economic advantage of areas that have experienced natural or man-made disasters, for example the way governemnt's reaction to 9/11 has amounted to big profits in the "homeland security" industry.

You'd hope that Reason would give her at least a fair shake based on that. But I guess not.

ed | September 21, 2007, 11:40am | #

currently the number one non-fiction book in the Great White North (just edginging out Bill Clinton's Giving)

Yes, but numbers 5 and 6 on that list are splendid anti-religion books, so just when you think you can kick around the Canadians, they do something smart like this. Eh?

ed | September 21, 2007, 11:43am | #

You'd hope that Reason would give her at least a fair shake based on that.

No you don't. You expect just the opposite and bore us daily with your tedious contrarianism.

Warren | September 21, 2007, 11:46am | #

Wow, Naomi Klein is like some sort of troll hotel. I expect joe to be checking in shortly.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 11:48am | #

No you don't. You expect just the opposite and bore us daily with your tedious contrarianism.

Well, it is true that I don't expect Reason to give more than token criticism to government when they help the big businesses that support the Reason Foundation.

But that doesn't mean that a true libertarian wouldn't hope otherwise, at least.

iih | September 21, 2007, 11:50am | #

I can't help but ask, if The Shock Doctrine is such a crappy book, why even pay it any attention? Have we done so for every single crappy anti-market book? Why pick on this one in particular? Just wondering.

The subtitle is about "disaster capitalism", which from another article that I read by Klein, refers to the use of terrorism, 9/11, security threats, etc by the military/security/counter-terrorism industries to market their products.

I still haven't read the book, but I plan on it. Just got in the mail a couple of days ago. You can learn stuff, even from crappy sources (at least I will then be able to identify crappy sources).

joe | September 21, 2007, 11:53am | #

Painful prose, confusion of corporatism with the market, and a one-size-fits all philosophy that allows you to know the answer before you hear the question?

Man, conservatives are going to hate this book.

iih | September 21, 2007, 11:55am | #

Hear is a quick discussion that I had with Cesar on the earlier Moynihan post. In the short exchange (I am too lazy to retype here -- sorry) I link to a Nation article by Klein on the marketing and profiting off of "shock" and fear of terrorism. Sort of like GWB's use of 9/11 to scare the crap out of Americans. I am all for open-markets and deregulation and all, but if I am sold a product based on a lie, I would feel cheated. That is what I read in Klein's The Nation article. She is absolutely confused about Friedman, capitalism, etc, but even fools can say some good stuff sometimes.

iih | September 21, 2007, 11:56am | #

Correction: "Here" not "hear".. duh!

iih | September 21, 2007, 11:58am | #

And the link to the discussion with Cesar (I am absolutely lazy/brain dead today -- sorry again, but it is Friday!):

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122582.html#788975

J sub D | September 21, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Well, it is true that I don't expect Reason to give more than token criticism to government when they help the big businesses that support the Reason Foundation.

Excuse me, Dan T. Do you live on counter earth or the anti-universe? WTF?

pinko | September 21, 2007, 12:11pm | #

"When you have absorbed Klein you will in future always know the answer before you know the question"

Ouch!

Can I apply this standard to other people who have the answer before the question is asked? Or is it just for leftist moonbats? Was this intended to be the Friday fun posting? Cause it's about to unleash the fucking fury.

joe | September 21, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Do think stronger regulation of...

No.

joe | September 21, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Am I ever wrong?

No.

Bizarro Dan T. | September 21, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Bizarro Dan T. think mister monnyhand have good point.

BDT

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Excuse me, Dan T. Do you live on counter earth or the anti-universe? WTF?

No, I'm serious. Google up who exactly donates to the Reason foundation, and then observe how infrequently you see H&R posts about big business and its relationship to the government.

In fact, the default position here appears to be that corporate profits are earned strictly by making customers happy. Klein is suggesting otherwise.

Brian Sorgatz | September 21, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Excuse me, Dan T. Do you live on counter earth or the anti-universe? WTF?

Dan has selective memory about what Reason authors say about corporations.

SxCx | September 21, 2007, 12:22pm | #

I admit I'm a bit surprised by some of the dismissive attitudes towards her new book, not because I think she's right, but because I think it's important to understand her argument and be able to refute the bullshit.

This "fuck Klein, ignore her" shit is callous and very likely to backfire when she inspires another wave of anti-capitalist sentiment.

Jesse Walker | September 21, 2007, 12:26pm | #

You'd hope that Reason would give her at least a fair shake based on that.

I gave her a fair shake, not based on whether I happen to agree with her about any particular issue but based on the fact that it's good to give writers a fair shake. And so I watched her movie. And guess what? The wild logical leaps and historical inaccuracies were just astounding.

To give just one example, she advanced her thesis that elites use "shocks" to push through unpopular economic policies by pointing to Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War -- a war that was fought three years after Thatcher came to office and well after she began to enact the most painful portions of her economic agenda. (Thatcher did come to power following a shock of sorts -- the labor strife of the 1978-79 "winter of discontent." But it might complicate Klein's thesis if she examined that, or any other piece of real history.)

I also read an interview on her website. Among other lulus, she says that Hayek dreamed of a "pure system" and seems (though her phrasing leaves some room for slippage) to link him to mathematical modelers.

Believe it or not, I've actually enjoyed some of Klein's reporting in the past -- specifically, some of her pieces from New Orleans and Latin America. After this stuff, though, I have to question whether anything she says is reliable.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 12:27pm | #

I admit I'm a bit surprised by some of the dismissive attitudes towards her new book, not because I think she's right, but because I think it's important to understand her argument and be able to refute the bullshit.

This "fuck Klein, ignore her" shit is callous and very likely to backfire when she inspires another wave of anti-capitalist sentiment.

Free market libertarianism for some is basically a religious faith, and the religious are not known for being willing to consider that they might occasionally be wrong.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 12:29pm | #

To give just one example, she advanced her thesis that elites use "shocks" to push through unpopular economic policies by pointing to Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War -- a war that was fought three years after Thatcher came to office and well after she began to enact the most painful portions of her economic agenda. (Thatcher did come to power following a shock of sorts -- the labor strife of the 1978-79 "winter of discontent." But it might complicate Klein's thesis if she examined that, or any other piece of real history.)

I have no idea if you're right about that or not, but is it really "astounding"?

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Yes, Dan, because it puts the "cause" that Klein posits after the "effect." So yeah, "water started coming out of the faucet, and three minutes later I turned it on" is kind of astounding.

joe | September 21, 2007, 1:15pm | #

joe | September 21, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Am I ever wrong?

No.

But then, I could be mistaken about that.

Cheers, poseur!

stuartl | September 21, 2007, 1:36pm | #

Free market libertarianism for some is basically a religious faith, and the religious are not known for being willing to consider that they might occasionally be wrong.

You may be right for those who argue for libertarianism strictly from a belief in individual freedom. But for those who also understand something about economics, this is as silly as arguing that belief in evolution is religious.

Belief in the success of free markets is based on an overwhelming majority of the facts.

DAMON | September 21, 2007, 1:39pm | #

ME UNDERSTAND EKONOMIKS.

DEMAND KURV!!!!!!!!!!!

Edward | September 21, 2007, 1:55pm | #

And so I watched her movie. And guess what? The wild logical leaps and historical inaccuracies were just astounding.

Is it any worse than Aaron Russo's film?

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 1:56pm | #

probably about the same

Why would any regular libertarian be concerned with the propaganda piece by Russo?

Jesse Walker | September 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Edwards is under the mistaken impression that Reason embraces Russo's conspiracy theories.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #

You may be right for those who argue for libertarianism strictly from a belief in individual freedom. But for those who also understand something about economics, this is as silly as arguing that belief in evolution is religious.

Belief in the success of free markets is based on an overwhelming majority of the facts.

I agree that free markets are by and large successful. But where I see an almost religious element is the belief that they fix everything and that no criticism of them can possibly be valid.

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #

stuartl,

Reagan's tax cuts were going to increase federal revenues. Clinton's economic program was going to have us in soup lines. George Bush's tax cuts were going to reduce the deficit.

I'm sorry, but there is a great deal of faith to the Laffer Curve people - even if, like Scientologists and Christian Scientists, they fancy their beliefs to be based on science.

Episiarch | September 21, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Why would any regular libertarian be concerned with the propaganda piece by Russo?

Exactly. Conspiracy theorists make everyone associated with them look bad. It's hard to argue that the government is incompetent and intricately, intelligently malevolent at the same time.

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Yes, Dan, because it puts the "cause" that Klein posits after the "effect." So yeah, "water started coming out of the faucet, and three minutes later I turned it on" is kind of astounding.

Consider this: many people, myself included, think that the Bush administration used the "shock" of 9/11 to promote the idea of invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But plans to invade both those countries were already on the table when 9/11 happened. So perhaps Klein's argument is that Thatcher used the Faulkland war to build support for policies that had already begun?

VM | September 21, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Laughter Curve.

When people cite these days it's a signal to ignore them! ARGH!!!!!!!!!

DanT: you do have a point. Many economic issues are more complex than a simple slogan, and nuance is frequently lost!

Dan T | September 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

It's hard to argue that the government is incompetent and intricately, intelligently malevolent at the same time.

Not really, you just have to frame it so that the "government" is not one giant organization but a collection of smaller organizations, some incompetent and some very good at covert operations.

Both the CIA and your local DMV office are "government" but beyond that they seem to have very little relation to one another.

JasonL | September 21, 2007, 2:14pm | #

To be fair to Laffer though, even he didn't argue what people always say he argued. The curve is a curve, and the proposed sensitivity of revenue to tax rates depends where on the curve you happen to be.

VM | September 21, 2007, 2:19pm | #

it's when people cite it these days that it's the Laughter curve.

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:28pm | #

JasonL,

Can you, or anyone else, point me to a real-world example of government revenues falling as a result of a tax increase?

VM | September 21, 2007, 2:57pm | #

joe -
DEMAND KURV?

ha ha. :)

the laffer curve, as mentioned, and as most know, does exist - and it does describe the relationship between tax revenue and income tax rate.

You'll most likely not find the T (down) as t (up) because it's not on that side of the curve, for a given case. (it drops off steeply after Tmax.) Or if you can find an example of what joe was talking about, great. As he knows, it's not generally an expected result, since the marginal tax rate isn't that high.

"What about the other way, tax cuts causing growth which increases tax revenues?" is a question going the other way.

Tax cuts have a short run stimulus effect (a Keynesian effect). Kennedy even mentioned this. Also, t(optimal) = t(max utility) doesn't necessarily equal t(max T)

While the Laffer Curve does describe a relationship, it's kinda limited. Okay, kinda useless :)

let's have some fun with the Laffer Curve!

T = tax revenue
t = tax rate
y = f(k)

In the steady state, simplified
T = ty = t f(k)

Assume a Cobb Douglas prod. function

y = Ak^b (0 < b < 1)

f' = bA(k)^(b-1) = (n+r+d)/(1-t)

solve for k

after some math tricks (this was fun on the exam, I can assure you, grin - hard to do without notation, etc. sorry!)

T = A[Ab/(n+r+d)]^(b/(1-b))*t*(1-t)^(b/(1-b))

FOC: dlnT/dt = 0
t max = (1-b)
for the US t has been determined to be 70%...

stuartl | September 21, 2007, 3:15pm | #

Reagan's tax cuts were going to increase federal revenues. Clinton's economic program was going to have us in soup lines. George Bush's tax cuts were going to reduce the deficit.

I'm sorry, but there is a great deal of faith to the Laffer Curve people - even if, like Scientologists and Christian Scientists, they fancy their beliefs to be based on science.

I'm not sure how my comment "Belief in the success of free markets is based on an overwhelming majority of the facts" was construed to support the Laffer curve, although I will say that at the end points it is certainly true.

BTW, in all three examples you gave the economy did well afterwards. Unlike Britain in the 60s and 70s with its punitive tax rates.

VM | September 21, 2007, 3:23pm | #

no worries. your comments weren't construed in that way - since the LC got brought up anyways, that's where the conversation went.

But "the economy doing well" after tax cuts can be explained by lots of different mechanisms, and from how it's phrased, it's actually irrelevant to the laffer curve. (which is why it doesn't seem you're talking about it)

Lurker Kurt | September 21, 2007, 3:51pm | #

JasonL,

Can you, or anyone else, point me to a real-world example of government revenues falling as a result of a tax increase?

Wasn't there an article on this site a few weeks ago about a state that raised tobacco taxes and then collected less revenues the following year? I think it was New Jersey.

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:53pm | #

stuartl,

I'm not accusing you, personally. Just noting that basing one's political philosophy on one's understanding of economics is not, in and of itself, a talisman against faith-based politics.

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Lurker Kurt,

Fair enough. An increase in capital gains tax revenues in the immediate aftermath of a CGT cut, resulting from people time-shifting transactions, would be another similar case.

What I should have asked is "Can anyone provide an example of income tax revenues falling as the result of a tax increase?" The Laffer Curve is about people's motivation to engage in work, which makes cigarette and capital gains taxes outside of its scope.

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 4:00pm | #

dan t,
I get what you're saying, but it seems like any thesis that involves using "shocks" to achieve political goals would require the political actor to direct the "shock" he used. Otherwise, people like GWB and Thatcher were just lucky enough to be around when the "shock" happened.

Anyways, it seems like she's saying that large-scale capitalists are directing these shocks, otherwise she couldn't very well call it "shock capitalism."

Lurker Kurt | September 21, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Your right Joe. I forgot that the Laffer Curve was about income and capital gains taxes. I think it is pretty obvious that the principle can apply to other taxes.

What we need, and what I have been trying to find without success, are statistics on tax revenues collected and their rates of increase in the 8 years of the Reagan term, vs Clinton's 8 years vs Bush's almost 8 year.

I have tried but have not been successful.

VM | September 21, 2007, 4:07pm | #

the laffer curve is about tax rates and tax revenues. in and of itself it has nothing to do with motivation (I know you know that - your phrasing probably would have been better with "supply side beliefs" than "laffer curve")

VM | September 21, 2007, 4:10pm | #

why do we need those statistics?

there is a laffer curve - as described above
economic stimulus as a result of a tax cut is also described, and unless you can show what "1-b" is or econometrically determine where we'd be on the laffer curve to have that effect, you're looking for Zebras with those stomping of hooves.

Lurker Kurt | September 21, 2007, 5:40pm | #

why do we need those statistics?

Well, one reason is, Joe implied that revenue did not increase under Reagan's tax cuts.

Secondly, I like graphs and charts.

Edward | September 21, 2007, 6:07pm | #

"Edwards [sic] is under the mistaken impression that Reason embraces Russo's conspiracy theories."

I stand corrected. What does Reason embrace him for again? His great contributions to libertarian thought?

Paul | September 21, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Both the CIA and your local DMV office are "government" but beyond that they seem to have very little relation to one another.

You've never been to my DMV office.

VM | September 21, 2007, 6:18pm | #

agreed on the charts and graphs!

and where did he imply that? (apologies for missing it)

and the discussion is largely irrelevant to the theme of the laffer curve, anyways.

Paul | September 21, 2007, 6:20pm | #

"Can anyone provide an example of income tax revenues falling as the result of a tax increase?"

You're kidding us, right, Joe? Should we give specific examples or general ones? Without doing a stich of research, the State of Washington has seen revenues fall after a slump in the economy, despite tax increases which occur every year-- EVERY YEAR.

Therefore, you can argue that revenues fell after a tax increase. Was it because of the tax increase? Probably can't be directly attributed. However, the theory is that when you increase taxes beyond a certain point, your economy will slump and your revenues fall.

VM | September 21, 2007, 6:28pm | #

to make these claims, anyways, you'd really want some decent econometric analysis.

paul - slump in the economy - you gave the reason.

and what is that point you refer to? you can show this econometrically, but just asserting it really does underscore DanT's "faith" point.

that's just faith talking up there, not macro theory.

Paul | September 21, 2007, 7:06pm | #

paul - slump in the economy - you gave the reason.

VM, did you read my entire post? Let me quote myself:

Therefore, you can argue that revenues fell after a tax increase. Was it because of the tax increase? Probably can't be directly attributed.

VM:

and what is that point you refer to? you can show this econometrically, but just asserting it really does underscore DanT's "faith" point.

I'm not trying to even argue that the laffer curve or anything else in the "dismal science" is absolute. I was just a bit flabberghasted that joe would suggest that tax revenues never fall after a tax increase.* Even if I were "joe II, the Revenge of Joe", and believed everything he did, I would find it questionable to even assert that all tax increases lead to a revenue increase. I may even agree that 95% of them do. In the short term. It's in the long term that counts. Problem is, once the "long term" actually happens, then you can attribute the drop in revenue to anything you want. "It's that lying sonofabitch Johnson!!!"

*joe will inevitably claim that he didn't say this, he just asked for examples of where this occurred. By asking for these examples, I interpreted his question as a rhetorical one.

VM | September 21, 2007, 9:29pm | #

Probably can't be directly attributed.

cannot at all. Or without the theory and the backing econometrics. I did read it.

Joe was arguing in the context of the laffer curve.

Again, I hopped off after David Romer's Advanced Economics and didn't sit for the macro comp, so I'm not a macro economist...

Mike Laursen | September 22, 2007, 2:03am | #

No, I'm serious. Google up who exactly donates to the Reason foundation, and then observe how infrequently you see H&R posts about big business and its relationship to the government.

That's funny, you seem to have read and commented on this post about the problem of big businesses pushing for more regulation from the government to stifle their competitors:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122533.html

Lurker Kurt | September 22, 2007, 7:41am | #

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #
stuartl,

Reagan's tax cuts were going to increase federal revenues. Clinton's economic program was going to have us in soup lines. George Bush's tax cuts were going to reduce the deficit.

There you go,VM.

Jesse Walker | September 22, 2007, 1:24pm | #

"Edwards [sic] is under the mistaken impression that Reason embraces Russo's conspiracy theories."

I stand corrected. What does Reason embrace him for again? His great contributions to libertarian thought?

Sorry for the typo, Edward. Though if there's any topic you should probably avoid, it's that one. Your comments typically include at least one gross spelling error. Of the Hit & Run regulars, only John is as careless a typist as you, and he makes up for it by actually attempting to engage with the people he's debating.

As for your silly question about Russo: We don't "embrace" his views at all, of course. We noted his death, and one or two of us said nice things about him on a personal level. And then you built up an elaborate fantasy about what that means.

joe | September 22, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Paul,

I said "as a result of." You read "after."

I'm talking abour causality, not timing.

And Kurt is right - I claimed that Reagan's tax cuts led to falling (adjusted) revenues. And they did - so much so that he had to reverse course and implement the largest tax increase in American history in 1986, in order to shore up the massive hole in the budget.

joe | September 22, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Excuse me, but I am the most careless typist on Reason threads, than you very much.

Lurker Kurt | September 22, 2007, 4:26pm | #

What does (adjusted) revenues mean?

IIRC, the 1986 tax increase consisted of the closing of many loopholes and deductions, not the increase in the tax rate.

Once again, IIRC, that was sort of the bargain, lower income and capital gains rates in return for the closing of many loopholes.

Edward | September 23, 2007, 10:32am | #

"We don't "embrace" his [Aaron Russo's} views at all, of course. We noted his death, and one or two of us said nice things about him on a personal level." --Jesse Walker

A sampling of H&R posts on Aaron Russo:

Luke P. | August 24, 2007, 10:06pm | #
Aaron Russo was a great guy. Freedom to Fascism is a must see.
He'll be missed.

cliff | August 24, 2007, 11:11pm | #
I just watched "Freedom to Fascism", it is a must see for every Libertarian. God bless you Mr. Russo, you have reinforced my love of liberty.

Rick Barton | August 25, 2007, 1:42am | #
Such sad news. I hope that the fact that Aaron was such a champion of liberty helps bring comfort to his family and friends.

A fitting way to tribute this hero is to watch his America: From Freedom to Fascism. It's shocking, frightening, and maddening. But it's also solid, well argued, and compelling.

I met Aaron when he was here in Denver for the screenings of the movie. After the film, I asked him what I could do to help. He answered that I should work to bring an end to the Federal Reserve, and to the income tax. Those are both worthy goals. He also implored me and everyone else, for the sake of our liberty, to refuse a National ID card. You have my word, Aaron.

RIP

Dixon Cannon | August 25, 2007, 4:31am | #
I met Aaron Russo twice; once at the WTP Conference in D.C. where he brought the crowd to their feet, and later in Tucson, AZ at a showing of AFTF. He was always smiling and was an ebullient advocate of Liberty. Godspeed, Aaron Russo. Thank you for bringing us closer to our goal of Freedom.

Liberty4All | August 25, 2007, 5:31pm | #
This is very sad news. I just received America:From Freedom to Fascism in the mail today, and am looking forward to watching it. In a world where lovers of individual liberty seem to be shrinking, Aaron was unapologetic about his beliefs. Whether right or wrong about everything he was willing to stand up and fight. We need more men like Aaron and less Obamas, Clintons, Bushes and Giulianis. I'm not holding my breath. My sincere condolences go out to Aaron's family and friends. May he rest in peace.

We loved you man, your a true patriot and a friend to everyone who loves freedom.

Sincerely
Keith Crawford
Dr Ron Paul for President in 2008

Ben | August 27, 2007, 12:49pm | #
Please continue to follow the brilliantly evil money trail directly to the Rothschilds, The Bank of England, Kuhn & Loeb and the other war profiteers that hate real patriots like Aaron Russo. Now that we've taken the Red pill what's next?
Jasmin Cohen | August 31, 2007, 7:43am | #
We lost a great man.

Being a part of the NWO, and very familiar with their operations, I told my husband recently that Aaron will be probably assassinated soon. I did not expect it so soon.
Can someone post more details, as to how Aaron died?
WE HAVE SO MANY TRAITORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT
THERE IS NOTHING TO DO
JUST WAIT FOR BUSH TO ATTACK IRAN
AND WW3

Jesse Walker | September 23, 2007, 2:11pm | #

I notice that none of your "sampling of Hit & Run posts on Aaron Russo" are, in fact, Hit & Run posts. They're comments by non-staffers left on an open comment thread. They no more represent Reason's views than your own comments do.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Edward | September 23, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Hmm, maybe it's a problem with terminology. I assume that regulars reacting here are posting, so I call their contritbutions posts. In any case, my point has always been that you are rather tolerant of nonsensical drivel on your side of the ideological divide. I don't see why Russo's crackpot views are more worthy of respect than Naomi Klein's muddled thinking, which you justifiably hold up for ridicule. If Reason has been openly critical of Russo, I missed it. Most of the avid Reasonoids (or soi-disant libertarians) who make comments on Hit@Run seem to think he was a great defender of liberty. Doesn't that bother you? Do you think paranoid conspiracy theories somehow further your cause?

Jesse Walker | September 24, 2007, 9:07am | #

Of the selection of commenters you posted, the only one who's a regular here (or, at least, the only one whose name I recognized) is Rick Barton.

For the most part, Reason just hasn't written about Russo. He appears in our coverage of the LP's 2004 nomination battle, but other than that I can't think of any time he was mentioned here before his death.

We have covered Russo-style theories about the alleged illegality of the income tax. Needless to say, we did not endorse them.

Edward | September 24, 2007, 10:03am | #

"We have covered Russo-style theories about the alleged illegality of the income tax. Needless to say, we did not endorse them."

How about Russo-style theories that 9/11 was an inside job? Of course, you don't endorese them either. Inasmuch as Russo was a Libertarian, and Reason is a Libertarian magazine, shouldn't you go a bit further than simply not endorsing his noxious views? Your respectful obituary certainly implies that you hold your fire when it comes to noxious views held by your own.

Jesse Walker | September 24, 2007, 12:22pm | #

How about Russo-style theories that 9/11 was an inside job?

We mock them occasionally on the blog.

Edward | September 24, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Okay, I did assume the commenters on Russo were all regulars. I guess the loons come out for special occasions. Ron Paul's eulogy at Russo's funeral makes me wonder if Paul's a loon at heart. What do you think?

Jesse Walker | September 24, 2007, 7:36pm | #

I think Paul was honoring a fellow activist and a friend. In all his criticisms of the income tax, the Federal Reserve, U.S. foreign policy, and health regulations, I have not ever seen Paul claim the income tax is illegal, or make a lot of hay out of the Fed's nominally private status, or embrace the claims of the 9/11 Truthers, or endorse a quack alternative therapy.

Edward | September 24, 2007, 8:32pm | #

But Ron Paul isn't exactly pushing the 9/11 Truthers away either, is he?

Jesse Walker | September 24, 2007, 10:57pm | #

It's pretty clear that he doesn't share their views, given how much time he spends explaining why Al Qaeda attacked us.

Edward | September 25, 2007, 12:12am | #

Good points. In any case, Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. But why do you think Ron Paul has attracted so many loonies? David Duke is a big supporter. What do you think Duke sees in Ron Paul?