The Abundant Life of Manny Klausner
The Reason Foundation co-founder took seriously the idea that libertarians should win—not just in the courts but also in the broader culture.

Tariffs are, among other things, a crime against Manny Klausner's dinner table. As a man who reveled in the pleasures of a perfect bottle of wine and an impeccably crafted cheese—no matter what distant land they hailed from—he found the protectionist impulse that has taken hold in the current political moment not just economically illiterate but personally offensive. Manny's libertarianism wasn't an abstract policy preference. It was rooted in his life: a life lived joyfully, passionately, and without permission.
Klausner, co-founder of Reason Foundation and longtime torchbearer for individual liberty, passed away in March at the age of 85. He was many things—a lawyer, an editor, a generous mentor, a tireless advocate for free minds and free markets—but above all, he was a man who fully appreciated the fruits of freedom.
Shortly after its inception, when Reason was a scrappy operation running on fumes and mimeograph ink, Manny helped put it on more stable footing that made its long run possible. Along with Bob Poole and Tibor Machan, he established Reason Enterprises, which took over the task of publishing the magazine in 1971. Swapping the various roles of editor and publisher with the other two men, he steered the publication through its adolescence.
"One of my favorite stories from the Reason Enterprises days," writes Poole, "was the aftermath of our 1973 Ayn Rand issue of Reason." This was an issue of the magazine featuring a pop-art portrait of the Atlas Shrugged author and a lengthy essay comparing that work to Plato's Republic. The issue is, if anything, a love letter. But Rand was famously hostile to libertarianism in all of its guises—and Machan had been excommunicated by Rand in the 1960s for asking the wrong questions in a letter. "Several months after it appeared," Poole explains, "we got a letter from Rand's attorney demanding that we publish a retraction and cease selling any back issues. Manny engaged in correspondence, which made no progress until he suggested that he would welcome the opportunity to defend us in a legal case named Rand v. Reason. That was the last we heard from that attorney."
Long before it was fashionable, Manny took seriously the idea that libertarians should win. Not just in the courts—where he brought cases alongside his close friend and fellow litigator Ted Olsen—but also in the broader culture. (He was less successful in his early efforts to attain political office under the banner of the fledgling Libertarian Party.)
He believed that beauty, pleasure, and good taste were not indulgences to be justified but evidence of a life well lived. He made the case, by example, that a principled life could also be an abundant one.
It's fashionable at the moment to talk about living with less and returning to the old ways. Manny understood, better than anyone, the ways that physical stuff facilitates the good life—one of connection, engagement, and leisure for intellectual pursuits. He was an irrepressible optimist, who saw a better future around every corner. A passionately devoted husband, he saw no allure in a past where his marriage to the accomplished and beautiful Willette would have been illegal under miscegenation laws.
In an era when many libertarians hoped to win the day with either stridency or mainline respectability, Manny cut a different path: sharp, stylish, and deeply principled. He was the kind of man who could debate the finer points of antitrust law over a perfect roast duck, and leave both the argument and the diner better off for it.
In his obituary for co-founder Machan, Manny recalled that in early days of Reason, "no one had any sense of 'the libertarian moment.' Rather, it wasn't unusual to be referred to as a libertine—and I was once even mistakenly introduced as a librarian."
In fact, Manny studied with Ludwig von Mises and sat at the feet of Murray Rothbard, but he wore his erudition lightly. He understood that no one changes their mind by being beaten down. One must persuade with carrots—ideally braised in brown butter and served alongside an aged rib-eye—not sticks.
On Reason's fifth anniversary, Manny quoted Rothbard, who had recently declared that "no libertarian periodical, regardless of promotion, advertising, layout, or whatever….has been able to get its circulation above two or three thousand" and that "there seems no real warrant for gauging the [libertarian] movement at more than 3000."
"We are delighted," wrote Klausner, "to be able to prove Dr. Rothbard's pessimism premature."
He remained closely involved with Reason throughout his life, serving on Reason Foundation's board of trustees for decades and offering sharp-eyed copy edits on everything from fundraising appeals to cover stories. He was one of the magazine's fiercest protectors—always pushing us to be better, braver, and truer to our mission.
To know Manny was to experience his generosity: with his time, his table, and his spirit. He hosted dazzling dinners full of laughter and smart people. And he never lost faith in the idea that persuasion, done right, could move the world.
Manny Klausner lived his values. He knew that freedom isn't just about the right to say no—it's about the opportunity to say yes: to travel, to taste, to think, to risk, to love.
And yes, to a bottle of burgundy that no government had any business trying to tariff into oblivion.
He will be missed—and toasted often.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Rand v/s Reason". I love it! I will take Reason any day!
Today shit's "Trumpanzees Gone Apeshit v/s Reason"... And once again, I will take Reason any day!
Finally, I do wonder twat Dear Orange Leader will do to PUNISH Reason if Reason should DARE to publish on the front of their cover, twat percentage of the magazine costs is due to tariff-taxes?
So you're saying...
Advocate for welfare for illegal and legal immigrants
Support terrorist sympathizer.
Support judicial abuses.
Support foreign gang members.
Cut children's dicks off.
Promote raising taxes (KMW)
Promote jailing politicla opponents (Sullum)
Engage in TDS.
Support censorship until it is untenable.
This is how to win the culture war for reason libertarians?
If we can't cut our own kids' dicks off, do we really have liberty?
Give me vaginaplasty or give me death!
JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia), the folks at Reason have come out of the closet and revealed themselves to be far left. Indistinguishable from "progressives."
In 2013, Manny Klausner tried to find a lawyer to represent me in my California Open Carry lawsuit. He was unsuccessful, but at least he tried.
Team Blue tends to see liberty in terms of utilitarianism. In this view, we only have the authority to exercise our liberties if the benefits outweigh the costs. So we have the right to free speech - up to a point, until the costs of that speech outweigh the benefits (in their view). So "hate speech", campaign donations, "misinformation", etc., don't count as 'free speech' to them.
Team Red tends to see liberty in terms of morality. In this view, we only have the authority to exercise our liberties to the extent that we are 'good people' who are worthy to have those liberties. So "normal people" have the right to do as they please, but those who have misbehaved, or "weirdos", or otherwise people who are social pariahs, they have less and less. So e.g. the right to have a drag show in public is curtailed or prohibited, because in their view drag queens are deviants and perverts and shouldn't have the right to do what they want.
Libertarianism is a belief that, at its core, recognizes that liberty is a birthright of all human beings. It doesn't matter if the exercise of that liberty fails a cost/benefit analysis, it doesn't matter if the exercise of that liberty is done by sinners and not saints. This is a view that both Team Red and Team Blue fundamentally reject.
You should have the right to own a gun, you should have the right to dress up as a drag queen, you should have the right even to carry a gun while in drag! No one except us weirdo libertarians is willing to stand up for that.
We won't get the 'libertarian moment' that we seek so long as too many libertarians hitch their wagons to either of Team Red or Team Blue. They fundamentally reject us and only use us for votes, they don't fundamentally believe in liberty for its own sake.
STOP THE PRESSES! HOT NEWS FLASH!
INSSSSIGHT (Infallibly Noble, Succulently Scientific SQRLSY-Survey Intelligently Gathered Hot Takes) has conducted in-person surveys of almost 10 million Democrats very recently, and here are the findings! Today’s USA Democrats identify or agree with the below statements at the following rates (please ignore sum total mismatches with 100% due to rounding errors):
‘A) 0.15%: “Marxism is the One True Way, and North Korea is Utopia on Earth!”
‘B) 0.25%: “Antifa, the Lizard People, and BLM are the ONLY ones properly qualified to teach CRT to all of Our Children, all of which MUST be embraced by ALL schools!”
‘C) 0.65%: “The Republican Party must be outlawed ASAP, because they are grooming innocent young people to become Republicans! Also, chimpanzees and monkeys that have been grooming each other need to be prevented from performing ANY further grooming! Everyone knows that grooming is horrible!”
‘D) 2.3%: “Religion (especially Christian religion) must be kept out of the schools and public policy debates! However, the ironclad, unquestionable revelations to Democrats concerning the Earth Mother Gaia, and the facts that higher minimum wages don’t cause unemployment, and that forced-lower rents don’t cause homelessness, may NOT be questioned, because they are compassionate and self-evident, and do NOT come from God, so they are NOT religious beliefs.”
‘E) 17%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I get SOOOO much pleasure out of punishing the evil Republicans, that I consider the punishment inflicted on the poor, by these Democrat policies, to be just a bit of ‘collateral damage’. And WHY do the Republicans deserve punishment? As revenge for the damage that they do to the poor, by using statist womb control to force them to have larger families. Republicans thus thwart the ‘demographic transition’ for the poor, through policies that encourage ‘the rich will get richer, while the poor will have more children’. So we must PUNISH the Republicans for this! Revenge is ours!”
‘F) 30%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I can’t find any Democrat politicians that will vote my way on these issues, and I can’t bring myself to vote Republican or Libertarian, because most of them are so pro-life that they want to take over my womb, my wife’s womb, or my girlfriend’s womb.”
‘G) 50%: “I would LOVE to see a Grand Compromise whereby Democrats stops punishing the poor with higher minimum wages AND excessive licensing laws which ultimately cause more unemployment, and with forced-lower rents that ultimately cause homelessness among the poor, and Republicans cease and desist with anti-abortion and anti-birth-control laws that ALSO punish the poor! ALL statist policies that yank the ladders of success away from the poor should be removed! However, Republicans are fanatics who won’t listen to reason. So for now, I’ll keep on voting “D”, and the poor will keep on having more and more children, they’ll vote “D”, out-vote the “R” fanatics, and THEN we can perhaps finally get to a sensible-policies-place!”
“Give a little to get a little”, said a materialistic slutty girlfriend of mine way back when. See https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/love-language-youre-more-likely-170236564.html “If This Is Your Love Language, You're More Likely to Divorce”… Couples treasure the following items, or express their love in the following ways, says this article: ‘1) gifts (presents), ‘2) quality time together, ‘3) acts of service (AKA work… Do the dishes already!), ‘4) words; I love you, etc., ‘5) physical touch (affection).
Beware of #1!!! Materialism, gifts, status symbols, conspicuous consumption!.. Designer this and designer that! “I spent more money on you than you spent on me!” A quick way to fights, broken relationships, and divorces! Achtung, Baby!
Well, I digress. “Give a little to get a little” can make a LOT more sense in politics!!!
Hey, look, assholes, see what the above polling data says!!! Combine categories E, F, and G, and 97% of Democrats would be open to having Republicans give a little, to get a little! “Team R” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ wombs, AND with how THEY chose to raise THEIR children (all this BS about anyone raising their kids differently than I would is “grooming”), and “Team D” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ money! Only self-righteous assholery stands in our way!!!
So a materialist?
So long then.