More from Matt Welch

[billyjoeallen]

Matt-

That's strange. I actually DID deny beating my wife
yesterday. It was a Nolanchart blog highly critical of
the ADL and I thought it might have been written by a
stormfront type. Due dilligence begins with simply
asking if the accusation is true and listening to the
reponse.

Why do you think you can be excused with an indignant
"I don't have to dignify that with an answer" response
when you don't let Dr. Paul off for doing the same
thing?

Regards,
-Joe


--- Matt Welch <matt.welch@reason.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> And you haven't denied beating your wife ... /have
> you???/
>
> Seriously, I'm not interested in responding to
> fantasia from people who
> don't even begin to attempt due diligence.
>
> Best,
> Matt
>
>
>
> William Allen wrote:
> > Matt-
> >
> > That's not exactly a denial, is it? As far as your
> > past coverage is concerned, that could just as
> easilly
> > be setting Paul up for the knock-out punch. If you
> are
> > as self-intrested as you are accused of being, the
> > play would get you maximum exposure, and status as
> an
> > anti-kingmaker.
> >
> > The well-publicised accusation you need to adress
> > (using your own newsletter logic here) is
> Reasons's
> > alignment with the CATO anti-Mises faction. and if
> > there is such an alignment, how does it affect
> your
> > coverage of the candidate.
> >
> > The best alliteration of the proxy-war theory is
> at
> > nolanchart.com "Ron Paul: now for the piling on"
> by
> > Phil Manger. It may not be accurate, but it is
> well
> > written and really makes you guys look like
> shitheels.
> >
> > Best,
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > --- Matt Welch <matt.welch@reason.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> There are other standards of evidence besides "it
> is
> >> being circulated
> >> around the internet." One of them is our past
> >> coverage of Ron Paul,
> >> including the cover story in this month's issue.
> I
> >> invite you to read
> >> all our past coverage (there is a handy search
> >> function on our site)
> >> before assuming the truth of what you read on
> some
> >> blog.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> William Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is being circulated around the internet that
> >>>
> >> this
> >>
> >>> newsletter flap is a proxy war between Reason
> and
> >>>
> >> Cato
> >>
> >>> "beltway libertarians" and Von Mises Institute
> >>> "paleolibertarians."
> >>>
> >>> Since little in the TNR story seems newsworthy
> to
> >>>
> >> me,
> >>
> >>> I believe the accusation is credible. It seems
> to
> >>>
> >> me
> >>
> >>> to be the only rational explanation why Reason
> >>>
> >> would
> >>
> >>> fan the flames of a non-story that damages a
> >>> libertarian candidate.
> >>>
> >>> The implication--if true--is that Reason would
> be
> >>> willing to sacrifice the candidacy of the most
> >>> pro-freedom national figure in decades to get a
> >>>
> >> leg up
> >>
> >>> on some libertarian family feud.
> >>>
> >>> When Austin NAACP president Nelson Linder went
> on
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> record defending Dr. Paul you guys
> did...nothing.
> >>> Why? Your silence on the issue is more defening
> >>>
> >> than
> >>
> >>> Paul's on authorship of old newsletters.
> >>>
> >>> Whay haven't you covered the story of his
> >>>
> >> returning
> >>
> >>> part of his congressional budget?
> >>>
> >>> Assuming the absolute worst of the candidate,
> >>>
> >> Reason's
> >>
> >>> coverage is bafflieng to me. It seems to imply
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>> racism is a bigger threat than statism. That's a
> >>>
> >> valid
> >>
> >>> position to take, but it is not the libertarian
> >>> position.
> >>>
> >>> The story of the CATO/Reason betrayal of
> >>>
> >> libertarian
> >>
> >>> for factional gain may not be true, but it has
> >>>
> >> more
> >>
> >>> legs in cyberspace than the newsletter flap.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>

 

[billyjoeallen]

some thoughts on this corresondence

I was pretty surpised that Matt answered my first Email and then continued to answer my responses. I am not an important person and I am certainly not much of a shaper of public opinion.

Two possible reasons why he answered me are: 1) he is genuinely interested in feedback from his readers or 2)He is trying to stop this whole proxy-war meme before it goes viral.

My public assertion is that Reason's coverage of the newsletter scandal is not objective nor is it pro-liberty.

It is entirely plausible that Reason's coverage of Dr. Paul is affected by ideology, namely the "paleolibertarianism" of Dr. Paul Lew Rockwell, and Ludwig Von MIses VS. the "neolibertarianism" of Reason and CATO.

As Manger asserts in his excellent blog post, there seems to be a "barely surpressed glee" from the Reason boys in covering the newsletter bomb.

Just for disclosure, I am enthusiatically Pro-Paul but I have no particular ideological ties to either flavor of libertarianism. My main concern is to stop the infighting so we can exert more political influence on policy.

I further contend that newsletter "story" is in fact a non-story, a voodoo curse that only has power if we beieve in it. It appears that Reason's complicity in the smear-scandal comprimises their claim to be a trusted libertarian news source.

Hope you enjoyed that.
-Billy Joe Allen
Truckernomics at nolanchart.com

 

[Johncjackson]

It is entirely plausible that Reason's coverage of Dr. Paul is affected by ideology, namely the "paleolibertarianism" of Dr. Paul Lew Rockwell, and Ludwig Von MIses VS. the "neolibertarianism" of Reason and CATO.

FWIW, Lew Rockwell heads the Von Mises Instutite, but Ludwig Von Mises is dead and probably would not support many of the positions taken in his name.

Many Austrian economists distance themselves from that organization ( while not distancing themselves from the man himself) and see it more as the Institute of Rothbard and Rockwell. many doubt Mises would have supported all the racialist, anti-semite, and anti-immigration stuff. I don't know what the economic views of Mises have to do with any of that. And many "neolibertarians" do support the ideas of Mises- some even are fans of Paul and even Rockwell.

My own particular view is that there is libertarianism and non-libertarianism. If anything the "neo" libertarianism is the classical and the "'paleo" is a newer "libertarianism" forged between disgruntled libertarians who drifted right and paleoconservatives ( many say Rockwell and others were always conservatives, but i don't know for sure myself).

 

[Duckman]

It does sound like Matt Welch is being a bit of an asshole here.

I am sure Reason would like to see any connection between libertarian ideas and racism die. I am also sure Reason thinks it is more important to keep racism away from libertarianism than it is for Ron Paul to be elected.

Unfortunately, I think at this point Ron Paul's candidacy DOES result in some association between libertarian ideas and racism, whether that is his fault or not.

 

[billyjoeallen]

It does sound like Matt Welch is being a bit of an asshole here.

I am sure Reason would like to see any connection between libertarian ideas and racism die. I am also sure Reason thinks it is more important to keep racism away from libertarianism than it is for Ron Paul to be elected.

Unfortunately, I think at this point Ron Paul's candidacy DOES result in some association between libertarian ideas and racism, whether that is his fault or not.

We are freekin tiny moniroty. Aligning with ANYONE is not endorsing theire whole ideology or even neccesarily ANY of it. We don't have the luxury of being picky who our allies are. That's why the LP gets 0.5% of the vote.

The tough choice is this: which collective ideology is hurting America more, Statism or Racism. Libertarians should say statism. That is why I think Welch and the beltway boys are selling us out.

BTW, most racist ideologies also like statism.

peace.