Charles and David Koch are two of the wealthiest men in the world. They’ve funded a vast number of projects, especially in New York, and it would be hard to say boo to a lot of what they’ve done: they’ve restored theaters, supported museums, and even funded cancer centers. This has all been at whopping costs, ranging into the hundreds of millions of dollars. But this is just the stuff that’s going to be mentioned in their eulogies.
The Koch brothers have also channeled millions and millions of dollars into efforts to deny reality. They’ve fought many Democratic policies tooth and nail, giving sly support (i.e., funding) to the Tea Party movement, and it’s all been done in the guise of libertarianism. The reality is much different.
In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.
They have even gone so far as to fund an exhibit on evolution (good) in an effort to deny the significance of global warming (bad).
Underlying the libertarian ideology of the Koch brothers is greed. Given the massive revenues of Koch Industries ($100 billion annually), it ought to be surprising, but it really isn’t. Libertarianism has its root in the positive ideals of liberty and freedom, but it almost always is taken too far, taken to a point where it causes obvious harm. In this case, the Koch brothers are using their ideology to motivate a sizable portion of the country to do their biding, including: reducing government help for the needy, polluting the planet, and harming our infrastructure. No one wants these things. No one wants people to be needy, no one wants pollution, no one wants bad roads and bridges. The pragmatic (i.e., reasonable) position is to find a middle ground which allows us to afford all these good things while making sure we aren’t harming jobs and other necessities. Given the $100 billion in annual revenue, I would say Koch Industries doesn’t particularly need any more “liberty”; it has been thriving just fine within our current system. (And I suspect it would continue to thrive even if it didn’t skirt laws and undermine reality.) Pragmatism, in this case, tells us there is no need to further enrich the Koch brothers; if anything, they ought to be taxed more.
Of course, this all is somewhat a misrepresentation of libertarianism. The reality is that very few people actually adhere to such an abhorrent ideology because, like with all ideologies, it quickly reaches a point of ridiculousness and harm. Who can name an actual libertarian politician in America, after all? Rand Paul is the closest, but when he maintained his ideology and said people ought to be able to deny black people service, there was an uproar – even among Teabaggers. Unfortunately for all the so-called libertarians, Paul was perfectly in line with the ideology. It wasn’t that he said black people ought to be denied service. In fact, it’s unfathomable that he believes that. What he said was that people ought to have the right to deny others service. That is libertarianism. Sorry if facts rub you the wrong way, Teabaggers.
Besides that, most so-called libertarian Teabaggers are really just far right-wing conservatives who only favor economic libertarianism. Don’t believe me? Go to the nearest rally on April 15th and start asking how many Teabaggers think gay marriage ought to be legal. Or go far enough south and see how many still favor anti-sodomy laws. I doubt the spirit of libertarianism will be so buoyant at that point. And the reason is simple: libertarianism is a convenient excuse for greed. That is why it is so selectively applied to economic issues. People aren’t adhering to a bad ideology because they think it’s good. They’re adhering to a bad ideology because they think it’s good for their wallets.
There isn’t anything inherently bad about wanting personal wealth and success. You want it? You can get it? Go nuts. But if it’s done at the expense of the poor, of the middle class, even of other wealthy people (that last one is a stretch), then tough. Too bad. Back off. There is something inherently bad about wanting personal wealth and success when it makes the poor poorer, when it increases the income gap, when it makes workers weaker, when it harms the overall economy, when it’s done in an unfair way. We all want to see poor people rise up, we all want to see the middle class increase, we all want to see workers have control over their well being, we all want to see a strong economy, we all want to see a fundamental fairness in our system. Following a sloppy, or even worse, a stringent, libertarian ideology gets us further and further away from all that.
Filed under: Philosophy, Politics and Social | Tagged: Charles Koch, David Koch, Koch Industries, Libertarianism, Rand Paul, Tea Party |
For the Sake of Science 
I’m ignoring every post with the term “teabagger” in it from here on out. It’s childish and unnecessary.
Everyone knows you don’t like the tea parties.
That sums up modern libertarianism exactly.
Modern libertarians only want liberty for themselves and almost no one else. Quite often, their attitude is “I got mine, go fuck yourself” but they deny it vehemently
Once the movement forms a coherent platform and message, I’ll start taking it seriously.
Also, I have added some more material to the post since the comments.
Hey, whatever, it’s your business.
I really don’t think you understand what you’re talking about.
You have never learned the difference between being pro-corporation and pro-market. This is important, and it shows why your attempt at criticism falls flat.
The Koch brothers could maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else by adopting a corporatist strategy, that is, influence government to hurt their competition and funnel tax dollars directly into their pockets with subsidies. There are plenty of groups that do this, but they aren’t examples.
Instead, they hire speakers who speak of the opposite: those who speak out against corporate welfare and regulatory capture: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/left039s-double-standard-kochs-and-soros
Libertarians do indeed believe people have the right to be wrong, and that business owners should be able to discriminate against customers – just like the ACLU supports the right of the KKK to hold rallies with their stupid message. It’s a tough position to hold, but you’re right, it exists.
However, your assumption that the Tea Party opposes gay marriage is wrong. More importantly, despite your claim that the movement doesn’t have a coherent platform and message, it does – and that message has no social issues. It is about limiting the size and scope of goverment and taxes, period. There are libertarians in it, but it also has a lot of conservatives as well.
I declare Limbaugh is wrong when he says liberals don’t care about the poor, they just use them to gain power. That is the same thing you’re doing here. There really are people who care about human freedom and dignity and think policies that respect that are best for all of society. Most of us aren’t rich, and we have recently been accused of caring about people in other nations just as much as we care about Americans.
http://www.younghipandconservative.com/2011/01/guilty-as-charged.html
Your distinction between pro-corporation and pro-market perspectives is not relevant. My whole article is about libertarianism and how it leads to greed under the guise of principle – or even because of principle. That the Koch brothers take one particular strategy over another has absolutely no bearing on libertarianism and greed.
I did not say the Tea Party is against gay marriage as a movement. I said most of its members are far right-wing conservatives who selectively apply their libertarian ideology to economics because it’s convenient for their wallets.
Then let me clarify – I was demonstrating that the Koch brothers care more about freedom then their own profits by supporting a system that maximizes freedom at the expense of their own profits.
You may be right about the Tea Party being old-school conservatives more than liberatarians. A lot of the members are registered as independents and I think a lot of it is the GOP’s failure to support free markets and small-government solutions. I have indeed met people who call themselves libertarian that really aren’t.
My real qualm is that you’re declaring that people like me don’t exist. It’s a weird position to be in. I don’t know what other evidence would be needed to say we exist other than to show that most of us aren’t rich, and do vocally support gay marriage and whatnot. Have you seen how many anti-police state Reason Magazine has had lately? Where is the profit in that?
A real corporate shill like Ian Fletcher, who works for the “U.S. Business and Industry Council” pushes for protectionism and corporate subsidies, and writes HuffPo pieces against libertarians. This is not one strategy over another, it is a different world.
I’m not trying to deny that you and people like you exist. It’s just that people who claim to be like you are rather far off, imploring an ideology only when it’s convenient. As with the Rand Paul example, when libertarian principles are espoused – and his were not extreme – I see a lot of denunciation.