Looks like that’s the response Justin Raimondo is getting to the his previous post I blogged yesterday.
This is why the Reasonoids didn’t bother examining and
analyzing what was written, and certainly not in context: as Sanchez
himself admits, Kirchick did “stretch” the truth. But the only truth
Kirchick and his pals at Reason and Cato were and are interested in is
who wrote the material in question, not if (and why) it was “racist.”
With that, Senor Sanchez can’t be bothered: truth doesn’t matter,
context doesn’t matter, and he doesn’t “feel much need” to go into it.
Of course he doesn’t: let Fox News take it from here, right Julie?
I quit donating to Cato years ago, and had been thinking about not renewing my subscription to Reason Magazine whenever it happens that it expires, of which I have no idea (I always take the 4-yr option or whatever it is). Given this nonsense, as well as a recent outrage at Reason’s Hit & Run Blog, I think I’ll just stop.
It’s not that I don’t wish them (Reason and Cato) well, but for organizations that are so-called "libertarian," but not anti-state, their treatment of Ron Paul has bean despicable, disgraceful, and outrageous at every level (yea: I been usin’ that ‘O’ word a lot, lately). I wish them well, but I wouldn’t give a flying fuck if they both decayed into complete irrelevance and oblivion. I’m not going to cheer it on, or contribute to it, but other than a possible irresistible urge to link something they put out now and then, I just don’t care about either of them, anymore.
…And I don’t know why they’re behaving as they are. I don’t for a second believe that any of them seriously believes Paul is a racist or a sympathizer (which means I consider them dishonest; but what’s new?). I’m also suspicious of the convenient speculation — often assertion — that a President Paul or even a serious national contender by MSM standards would steal their thunder and diminish what little prestige they think they have. That leaves me with just the fact: they don’t want to publicly support Ron Paul. I suspect the real reason is pretty pedestrian. They didn’t think he had a serious shot, and didn’t want to be seen as "fringe" or "kooky" or "unserious" in supporting him. You see, libertarianism, to many of them, needs to sneak in through the back door. Never mind that, for instance, locking people in jail for a decade for some dope "crime" is an insolent contradiction of justice and liberty: it’s more efficient not to. To the extreme: if Reason and Cato were public policy advisers to the Third Reich, you’d see them making arguments of what bad political and economic policy it is to exterminate the Jews, and they’d collect all sorts of studies, statistics, and charts showing what a net economic benefit the Jews were to Germans at large. That’s true, of course, but it’s as impertinent as you can get.
I am an anti-statist and that’s really all I am. Libertarian? Liberty? There’s no possibility of any such thing in the shadow of an evil institution that feeds and self-perpetuates on warfare from the right and welfare from the left (or when they switch places or join forces, just to keep up illusions). Wring your hands to your heart’s content about how worrisome and risky things would be without it. Fine. I don’t believe you — I have no honest reason to believe you — but you may be right. Still: I’m willing to take my chances. It’s that simple. None of you have any moral right to tie my to your grand utopian/dystopian schemes.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
I thought Reason endorsed Paul in their February issue (however tepidly). You may be interested in David Friedman's take on the whole shebang.