Talk:Reason Foundation/Archive 1

This is a terrible article
Whoever wrote this article has a serious axe to grind apparently. Sounds like the foundation fired them, or they work for a competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.218 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a very interesting opinion, but not terribly helpful. Would you care to be more specific about the problems you see with the article? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made a number of additions to the page and improved the objectivity and quality of content. I am going to remove the "disupted" tag over the section on Drew Carey's videos because it is now objective (in my opinion). Feel free to say if you don't think so. Hakenny (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Overlooking Reason's "War on drugs" section
Of the 7 Major sections/areas of research at Reason (judging by the menu at the top of their website), the "War on Drugs" is one. But this article fails to reflect this. Is there some reason for that oversight?  petrarchan 47 T c 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a criticism section?
Seems to me that this should be broken up like the rest of WP, and have a section dedicated to criticism of Reason, in general.137.183.232.24 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason not arguably libertarian
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024666.html

Will add more as I come across new stories, steady stream of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.163.3 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur...from everything from transportation (see http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00014.htm) to the fact that one of their former presidents took a position in the Bush administration, to David Koch's board position (and, presumably, money), to the foundation's "faith" in free markets and less regulation, this is not libertarian, but extreme conservativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsilverm (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OH come on, they self identify as libertarian. Faith in free markets is a central tenet of libertarianism and David Koch is a well known supporter of libertarian thinking.  The mere fact that one of their members took a position in the Bush administration proves nothing.  I think you need to study what libertarianism is before you declare someone or something not libertarian.  Bonewah (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your defence? That they self-identify? That's like Union Carbide self-identifying that they are a "good global partner" for the environment, but that doesn't let them off the hook for Bhopal, does it? I think you need to do your homework on who David H. Koch is and what he supports. He likes to fund "think tanks" (such as Mercatus, which conveniently supplies articles to Reason) as well as fund "astroturf" movements. Why does he hide his involvement with "Americans for Prosperity" or the fact that Dick Armey split with him (founder of FreedomWorks), and both are funding/training Tea Party members? Koch is not a libertarian, despite his run on the Libertarian ticket. He is an opportunist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.105.40 (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that and the fact that their main publication, Reason Magazine publishes libertarian articles on a daily basis. You seem to think that because you personally think Reason and Koch are conservative that you can label them as such in Wikipedia, you can not. I think you do not understand what a libertarian really believes and in any event, your claim that such and such organization must be conservative because of one of its supporters is absurd, even if Koch is conservative that does not make any organization he supports conservative by transference. By that logic if Koch gave Greenpeace money they would become conservative despite all their past actions and statements of positions and beliefs.  What a group claims to stand for and what it does and says is what matters, and you cant wisk all of that away just because of what you personally think. Bonewah (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How does the random Thatcher quote relate to anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.208.54 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"""free markets and less regulation, this is not libertarian""" You have no idea what librtarianism is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.240.228 (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the New York Times says it's libertarian, then it's libertarian, case closed, unless/until someone points to an equally reliable source stating otherwise. Oh, and by the way, it's quite possible to be libertarian and conservative at the same time. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing "libertarian" in the intro and infobox to "right-libertarian". That is both accurate and more specific. People seem to be forgetting that "libertarianism" and communism can overlap. Epigrammed (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm changing the infobox back since I realized that that might be a quotation of their mission statement. Verification would be appreciated.  Epigrammed (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option could be to link to Libertarianism in the United States like the Cato Institute article does in the lead. Epigrammed (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)