And on a related note, George Bernard Shaw said:

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

I’m deeply uninterested in whether Koch industries has a libertarian track record, or whether Soros has always behaved in ways that would make a progressive proud. Their moral purity is irrelevant to the value of the ideas they fund.

But I’m quite interested in what kind of incentives exist at think tanks and publications, for writers and thinkers to limit what they discuss or what arguments they make or what positions they take. Does arguing against the economic interests of Koch industries risk losing your job? What arguments could you make that would lose you your job or funding?

As we’ve moved to having more and more serious policy thinkers working for think-tanks, I worry that we’ve also moved toward having more and more of the people seriously thinking about important policy questions living within ideological prisons, which they dare not exit for fear of losing their jobs. You can see something parallel happening at the top level of journalism. This seems like an area that would be worth more discussion.

Mange was insulting damaged justice by implying that he is some disaffected immature teenager caught up in internet crusades. Mange is making an accusation of immaturity through a series of stereotypical pop culture references, which should really speak for itself.

citation needed

Furthermore, given how the predominate focus of Mr. Balko’s blog is police misconduct and the repeated violation of civil liberties, I hardly see how that makes him the same as Glenn Beck.

And hasn’t it occurred to anyone claiming that if libertarians had such widespread power and influence, drugs would have been completely legalized by now and we’d be able to buy cheaper prescription drugs from overseas as well? The Democratic Party still supports keeping both illegal, by the way.

Wait, so just because your focus is criminal justice and policing (which is a liberal point of view by the way and isn’t unique to libertarians) means you don’t comment on other unlibertarian activities such as corporatism and lobbying that Koch industries does?

“I think (some parts of) the oil industry support (some) libertarian think tanks because they feel their bottom line will improve in an overall more libertarian economy.”

I think this sums up Radley’s bias pretty well, seeing as Koch industries is one of the biggest energy companies in the world, and they just happen to fund Radley’s employer. Do you have any one negative comment to say about the Koch brother’s, Radley?

Seriously? An ideology that advocates property rights over giving favors (in the form of other peoples’ money) to political donors is “pro-corruption?”
Your post is an excellent tribute to Keith Olbermann.

I’m just amazed how the “he has never condemned X, therefore he fully supports X” argument has taken hold on the left blogosphere lately. You’re getting pegged for this like once a week now.

To the best of my knowledge you’ve never once written an article about why it is a bad thing to blow up the moon. Their logic dictates that you must be in the pocket of some anti-lunar cabal. I await for you to waste your time responding to my random substance-less internet accusation.

Also, the Kocks are personally responsible for Citizens United, currently thought to be a good idea by all of 12% of the US population.

88% of the population supports banning New York Times from covering elections?

Are you sure?

Also, the Kocks are personally responsible for Citizens United, currently thought to be a good idea by all of 12% of the US population.

lulz. Making a point on a libertarian site by referencing a US opinion poll!

As a long time Buffett follower, I approve of post #38 (c andrew). Nailed it.

I work in the financial services industry, and Buffett’s use of the Estate Tax as a means of forcing families to purchase insurance products or sell the family business at a fire-sale is pretty well known.

At this point, rent seeking has so thoroughly corrupted the industry that all the large investors are using investment models that depend on state intervention in the economy.

Interestingly, libertarians are fighting to make the government incapable of serving rent seekers. all the other political factions are doing the opposite. If anything it is the Koch family that are being used by the libertarian movements they fund and not the other way around. Is freedom foolish merely because someone who benefits from totalitarianism supports it?

To your point, from wikipedia:

Some critics have argued that Buffett (through Berkshire Hathaway) has a personal interest in the continuation of the estate tax, since Berkshire Hathaway has benefited from the estate tax in past business dealings and had developed and marketed insurance policies to protect policy holders against future estate tax payments

Ya know how the Romans saw all non-romans as barbarians regardless of their civility? Not much has changed.

You write a blog. By definition there’s something seriously wrong with you. Anyone who posts on the internet has issues….

Radley Balko said,
Warren Buffet won’t lose a dime if we raise the estate tax. The tax won’t be applied until he’s dead.

Good point, Radley. It also might interest people that Warren Buffett has used the estate tax’s impact on other families to enhance his own bottom line. Buffett bought R.C. Willey and (I believe) Dairy Queen at fire sale prices because the families had to liquidate them in order to pay the estate taxes on them. I’ll see if I can dig up the link but someone at IBD made a list of all the companies so acquired by Buffett.

I have no problem with Buffett doing this; one could argue that he provides cash for bereaved families under the tax-man’s gun that they couldn’t get any other way. I’m not blaming Buffett for the actions of the taxman which he, to some extent, mitigates.

But I do have a problem with Buffett when, rather than exploiting the status quo, he advocates an increase in the estate tax that will help increase his bottom line while putting more family businesses under the gun. That’s pure rent-seeking. And what is even more irritating is his attempt to claim the moral high ground for this. And of course, his apologists who try to do the same thing.