Reason (magazine)
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''''Reason''''' is a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] magazine published by the Reason Foundation and formerly edited by [[Nick Gillespie|Nick "The Jacket" Gillespie]], who stepped down and let Matt Welch take over in 2008. Gillespie is now the Editor in Chief of Reason.com and Reason TV. Readers of ''Reason'' refer to themselves as Reasonoids, which is reminiscent enough of [[Randroid]] to be unintentionally funny. However, Ayn Rand disavowed libertarianism and libertarians, whom she famously derided as unserious, whim-worshipping "hippies of the right." | '''''Reason''''' is a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] magazine published by the Reason Foundation and formerly edited by [[Nick Gillespie|Nick "The Jacket" Gillespie]], who stepped down and let Matt Welch take over in 2008. Gillespie is now the Editor in Chief of Reason.com and Reason TV. Readers of ''Reason'' refer to themselves as Reasonoids, which is reminiscent enough of [[Randroid]] to be unintentionally funny. However, Ayn Rand disavowed libertarianism and libertarians, whom she famously derided as unserious, whim-worshipping "hippies of the right." | ||
| − | ''Reason'' tends to do pretty good work on civil liberties issues. However, they're bankrolled by the usual suspects, including [[Koch Industries]] and [[Richard Mellon Scaife|the Scaife foundations]], who appreciate the fact that ''Reason'''s answers to most problems are "[[deregulate]] it" or "[[privatize]] it." Reason has a long history, starting in 1968 as a mimeographed newsletter, predating the Kochtopus by several years and was not part of the stable of groups set up by Koch in the late 1970s, although it has received Koch funding since. | + | ''Reason'' tends to do pretty good work on civil liberties issues. However, they're bankrolled by the usual suspects, including [[Koch Industries]] and [[Richard Mellon Scaife|the Scaife foundations]], who appreciate the fact that ''Reason'''s answers to most problems are "[[deregulate]] it" or "[[privatize]] it." ''Reason'' has a long history, starting in 1968 as a mimeographed newsletter, predating the Kochtopus by several years and was not part of the stable of groups set up by Koch in the late 1970s, although it has received Koch funding since. |
Despite this, the signal-to-corporate [[astroturf]] ratio is much more even than most other libertarian think tanks. When it comes to [[environmental]] issues, they eschew outright [[denialism]] and criticize [[Republican Party|Republican]] inaction on climate change,<ref>One such example: [http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/16/republicans-vs-the-environment Republicans vs. the Environment] by Steve Chapman.</ref> instead taking a position of minimization and support for (obviously) [[free-market]] solutions to environmental problems (their favorite consultant on these issues tends to be [[Bjorn Lomborg]], although they have run articles by noted denialist [[Patrick Michaels]]<ref>[http://reason.com/people/patrick-michaels/all Michaels' columns]</ref>). Their brand of libertarianism is much closer to [[Megan McArdle]] than [[Ludwig von Mises]]. On [[science]] matters, their science editor Ronald Bailey has done some good work opposing [[intelligent design]] and [[creationism]].<ref>http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/06/flunk-this-movie</ref><ref>http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/19/creation-summer-camp</ref> | Despite this, the signal-to-corporate [[astroturf]] ratio is much more even than most other libertarian think tanks. When it comes to [[environmental]] issues, they eschew outright [[denialism]] and criticize [[Republican Party|Republican]] inaction on climate change,<ref>One such example: [http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/16/republicans-vs-the-environment Republicans vs. the Environment] by Steve Chapman.</ref> instead taking a position of minimization and support for (obviously) [[free-market]] solutions to environmental problems (their favorite consultant on these issues tends to be [[Bjorn Lomborg]], although they have run articles by noted denialist [[Patrick Michaels]]<ref>[http://reason.com/people/patrick-michaels/all Michaels' columns]</ref>). Their brand of libertarianism is much closer to [[Megan McArdle]] than [[Ludwig von Mises]]. On [[science]] matters, their science editor Ronald Bailey has done some good work opposing [[intelligent design]] and [[creationism]].<ref>http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/06/flunk-this-movie</ref><ref>http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/19/creation-summer-camp</ref> | ||
Revision as of 21:50, 14 June 2013
| Is it news? |
| Random articles |
| Resources |
| The Latest News |
Reason is a libertarian magazine published by the Reason Foundation and formerly edited by Nick "The Jacket" Gillespie, who stepped down and let Matt Welch take over in 2008. Gillespie is now the Editor in Chief of Reason.com and Reason TV. Readers of Reason refer to themselves as Reasonoids, which is reminiscent enough of Randroid to be unintentionally funny. However, Ayn Rand disavowed libertarianism and libertarians, whom she famously derided as unserious, whim-worshipping "hippies of the right."
Reason tends to do pretty good work on civil liberties issues. However, they're bankrolled by the usual suspects, including Koch Industries and the Scaife foundations, who appreciate the fact that Reason's answers to most problems are "deregulate it" or "privatize it." Reason has a long history, starting in 1968 as a mimeographed newsletter, predating the Kochtopus by several years and was not part of the stable of groups set up by Koch in the late 1970s, although it has received Koch funding since.
Despite this, the signal-to-corporate astroturf ratio is much more even than most other libertarian think tanks. When it comes to environmental issues, they eschew outright denialism and criticize Republican inaction on climate change,[1] instead taking a position of minimization and support for (obviously) free-market solutions to environmental problems (their favorite consultant on these issues tends to be Bjorn Lomborg, although they have run articles by noted denialist Patrick Michaels[2]). Their brand of libertarianism is much closer to Megan McArdle than Ludwig von Mises. On science matters, their science editor Ronald Bailey has done some good work opposing intelligent design and creationism.[3][4]
The magazine was more hard-core libertarian in its early years, but by the 1980s and 1990s, under the editorial leadership of Virginia Postrel, it had swung to the right and was accused by some of embracing neoconservatism and turning its back on libertarianism.[5][6] The magazine's endorsement of the first Gulf War was particularly unpopular with its traditional readership. After 9/11, Reason underwent a fairly rapid swing back to the left in opposition to Bush's warmongering and clampdown on civil liberties. The Mises Institute, however, has never quite forgiven it for its dalliance with neoconservatism long ago (never mind that the Mises Institute was palling around with social conservatives from the paleoconservative movement at the same time), so Reason is frequently a subject of disdain on the pages of Lew Rockwell's site. After the election of Barack Obama, Reason's editorial platform returned to its pre-9/11 right-wing perspective, though libertarians insist that they are neither Republicans nor Democrats--eschewing political affiliations and deriding the two-party system as mere "teams" playing games. This disdain for the two-party system does not, however, preclude the editorial support at Reason of certain Republican politicians (chiefly Rand Paul and a few Tea Party up-and-comers) who pay lip service to some libertarian principles while violating others.
The comments section on Reason's "Hit & Run" rivals Yahoo! News and YouTube for being the worst hive of scum and villainy on the Internet, and provides plenty of evidence to conclude that Web 2.0, with its "anyone can comment on anything" archetype, perhaps isn't such a good idea. The Hit & Run comments model was originally intended as an unmoderated free-speech zone, but by April, 2012, the area had become overrun by trolls, sock puppets, spoofers, pornographers and malcontents, rendering it almost inoperable. Later that month Reason administrators finally acknowledged that utopian anarchy doesn't work very well in reality, and imposed a new registration system for the comments section. An updated disclaimer states: "We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time." Despite this entreaty to civility, Hit & Run's reader commentary remains--in keeping with anarchistic principles--uncivil, disorderly and almost entirely off-topic at all times. However, and despite the claim that comments are unmoderated, ideological dissidents are now routinely censored, IP-banned and "disappeared", Argentina-style, in the Hit & Run chatrooms, to the general--albeit grudging--approval of the still-devoted anarcho-libertarian commentariat.
External Links
Footnotes
- ↑ One such example: Republicans vs. the Environment by Steve Chapman.
- ↑ Michaels' columns
- ↑ http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/06/flunk-this-movie
- ↑ http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/19/creation-summer-camp
- ↑ Sam Konkin's history of the libertarian movement
- ↑ Murray Rothbard, The Irrepressable Rothbard, p. 111-112