As A Young Adult, Do You Feel Your Views Are Represented In Ireland?

V4Voluntary wrote: »

This argument is typical of a total retreat from the question. You haven't answered the question put to you and now you seem to think that you have justified your claim by completely reiterating the exact same point you made several pages back. Let me ask you another question.

If corporations favour and support Libertarians, then why the hell don't they financially back them in campaigns? It's your puppet candidates like the Obamas, the Romneys, the Camerons, the Kennys of this world that received corporate donations. That's where the corporate money goes, not to libertarian candidates. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? If not, why?

You don't even contest my claims, you just demand further validation of them; do your own research. Take Cato - funded by the Koch Brothers (very uncontroversial point - you won't even bother denying this, because you know it's correct, you just demand further validation for rhetorical effect), Ludwig Von Mises is tied to the Mont Pelerin Society think tank, which is also tied to the Koch's and a whole bunch of other lobbyists/propagandists; Rothbard has ties to many early Libertarian think-tanks, including those involved in the early history of the Mont Pelerin Society; Hayek has ties to Cato and reams of other corrupt think tanks.

Combined, these think-tanks have a very wide variety of oil industry lobbyists (not least the Koch's), tobacco industry lobbyists, among many other industries lobbyists.

Their goal is not to lobby politicans direct, but to create an entire set of academic and political narrative/ideology, to create faux-legitimacy for ultra-conservative economic views (which if implemented, just-so-happen to massively benefit finance/business and often corrupt industry lobbyists, to the detriment of the rest of society), that tend to be extremely anti-science in many instances, to try and control and muddy political debate.

You're not going to bother actually contesting any of my very easily researched claims though, because you don't give a toss about the truth of it, just about rhetoric to back the views you support, and to remain eternally 'unconvinced' of every possible point that contests them.

I'm not posting to convince you, I don't care about that; I'm posting to point out largely to other posters, the massive hypocrisy and corrupt nature of the political ideology you support, which anyone here can verify with a little searching/reading.

If you (and other posters with similar views) have zero skepticism towards the intellectually/morally corrupt people and institutions responsible for constructing your favoured ideology, yet are ultra-skeptical of government (even in cases where it is blindingly obvious fault lies in private hands), it shows extreme hypocrisy (and in my view, probable knowledge that what you support is bunk), so I'm not going to waste my time further with that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All that proves is that some members of the Libertarian movement have been corrupt, well of course. All movements have their bad eggs and Libertarianism is no different. I understand that. What you don't understand, or at least don't seem to accept is under a true theoretical libertarian system white collar crime is punished mercilessly by the judiciary system. Something we're missing in our current version of corny capitalism were bankers who swindled away the wealth of the nation walk free.

Straight away that is nonsense, and this is why Libertarians never talk about 'deregulation' in anything other than cheap anti-government soundbites.

Regulations are laws, Libertarians want to remove laws which define what is illegal (which define fraud itself), and which make it possible to investigate illegal activity/fraud. Libertarians promote reforms that would make much of private business so opaque, that it would be utterly impossible to even detect fraud, nevermind prevent any of it.
They also talk primarily of focusing on punishment of fraud, not prevention, which as we see now is completely insufficient, when failing to prevent fraud in the first place can bring down entire economies.

Out of one side of their mouth they claim to want 'freedom'/deregulation, and out of the other side of their mouth they will claim fraud won't happen (which requires regulations).

You'll never find a Libertarian capable of describing precisely how such a system will work, from the ground up (and I'm not talking about mere assertions that 'everything will be ok', or 'things will work like this, despite that being directly contrary to reality'), because their views require a form of doublespeak like above, where they inherently contradict themselves, but pretend it is all consistent and that it will work.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not true. Libertarianism is built on hypersketicism towards both. Under a Libertarian system neither government or companies can be allowed monopolistic power over any part of people's lives.
..
Ever ask yourself why big companies don't want a libertarian system to come into effect? No? Well here's why, because monopolies/oligopolies are not a natural creation of the market. That's right they're formed by government restrictions of entry. Take away this regulation and monopolies are impossible to maintain.

These two points are mutually contradictory. You will have us trust that 'free markets', free from government interference, are going to magically not end up producing monopolies/oligopolies, and you pretend to be hyperskeptical towards private business?

That's nothing more than a cult-like belief in the mythical 'free market', which can never exist in reality, and which (yet again) tries the stupid trick of taking the blame for private faults (creating monopolies), and placing that on government.

Staff Infection

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not posting to convince you, I don't care about that; I'm posting to point out largely to other posters, the massive hypocrisy and corrupt nature of the political ideology you support, which anyone here can verify with a little searching/reading.

Ok, I have a question so. I wouldn't label myself as anything really including libertarian. I do however, agree with views some would describe as liberal such as gay marriage, the legal regulated and taxed sale of most drugs, more focus on respecting personal privacy and I'm pro-choice. On an economic standpoint I'd be described as a wee bit conservative I'd try a 50-50 approach with taxes and cuts to reduce deficits, would be largely pro europe and agree with both banking and market regulations.

Based on the above apart from naive, foolish etc. is there any label such as crazy liberal that would kind of cover my beliefs?
Also which of our current parties if any do you think would be closest to my political stances? I know labor tick one or two but definitely not others.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Straight away that is nonsense, and this is why Libertarians never talk about 'deregulation' in anything other than cheap anti-government soundbites.

You should explain why something is nonsense instead of simply stating it as fact and expecting me to believe you.

Regulations are laws, Libertarians want to remove laws which define what is illegal (which define fraud itself), and which make it possible to investigate illegal activity/fraud.

That's not true at all. Libertarians want to cut back on regulation yes, and all regulations are indeed laws but not all laws are regulations and not all regulations are in place to investigate fraud.

To say that Libertarians wish to eradicate regulations so they can commit white collar crime is intellectually dishonest at best and a down right lie at worst.

Libertarians promote reforms that would make much of private business so opaque, that it would be utterly impossible to even detect fraud, nevermind prevent any of it.

That's simply not true. Again ignorance at best and a down right lie at worst.

http://business-ethics.com/2010/02/16/1035-who-detects-corporate-fraud-tip-its-not-usually-the-sec/

They also talk primarily of focusing on punishment of fraud, not prevention, which as we see now is completely insufficient, when failing to prevent fraud in the first place can bring down entire economies.

Talking about prevention of fraud is all well and good but what you would do put regulations on business that will stifle the economy to prevent fraud which may happen which may stifle the economy. Pretty much like nuking your garden to get rid of cockroaches.

Out of one side of their mouth they claim to want 'freedom'/deregulation, and out of the other side of their mouth they will claim fraud won't happen (which requires regulations).

Fraud will happen with regulations or without and you know that. You've displayed a lot of intellectual dishonesty in your previous couple of posts. Furthermore as I've pointed out earlier the most amount of corporate fraud in the US isn't caught by the SEC.

You'll never find a Libertarian capable of describing precisely how such a system will work, from the ground up (and I'm not talking about mere assertions that 'everything will be ok', or 'things will work like this, despite that being directly contrary to reality'), because their views require a form of doublespeak like above, where they inherently contradict themselves, but pretend it is all consistent and that it will work.

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works. Of all the major "fringe" movements Libertarianism is the most expanded upon the and most workable.

These two points are mutually contradictory. You will have us trust that 'free markets', free from government interference, are going to magically not end up producing monopolies/oligopolies, and you pretend to be hyperskeptical towards private business?

Nothing contradictory about them. A monopoly can only survive under state controlled entrance laws. Take away the entrance laws and more companies will join the market until it is no longer competitive to do so. It would be impossible to hold monopoly or even oligopoly power in a libertarian society.

That's nothing more than a cult-like belief in the mythical 'free market', which can never exist in reality, and which (yet again) tries the stupid trick of taking the blame for private faults (creating monopolies), and placing that on government.

The free market is a theoretical concept. Of course it doesn't exist in real life. The world isn't that simple. But the closer you move towards the free market the more the real market begins to resemble it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

Now now, you shouldn't make snap judgements on political philosophies. Especially ones with so many followers.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now now, you shouldn't make snap judgements on political philosophies. Especially ones with so many followers.

You just ignored what I wrote and went off on a soporific soliloquy. True to form.

I'll make it easier for you.

You said:

there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

To which I replied:

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

How can 'eloquent proponents of libertarianism' 'elaborately detail how the system works' when there is no libertarian system at work?

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How can 'eloquent proponents of libertarianism' 'elaborately detail how the system works' when there is no libertarian system at work?

You understand the concept of theoretical models and how elaborations are performed by proponents (or critics) of these models to describe how they would (conditional tense) function if applied to the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

models to describe how they would function if applied to the real world.

They describe how they believe a libertarian fantasy society will function in a fantasy future which brings us back to my original point:

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're talking bollocks

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They describe how they believe a libertarian fantasy society will function in a fantasy future which brings us back to my original point:

Incredible.

Well that's the entire concept of political and societal thought thrown out the window.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Incredible.

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

It's incredible that one person is so utterly wrong. To truely believe that a concept developed by academics, business leaders, and ordinary people alike cannot possibly exist in the future just because it hasn't existed in the past? That's conservatism in the extreme.

EuropeanSon

No. But they certainly wouldn't be represented by you and your ilk.

laoch na mona

not enough poll options some of the oposition represents my views well enogh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To truely believe that a concept developed by academics, business leaders, and ordinary people alike cannot possibly exist in the future just because it hasn't existed in the past? That's conservatism in the extreme.

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

A plot by who? Corporations? Even assuming there was a corporation hive mind they certainly wouldn't be supporting libertarianism.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A plot by who? Corporations? Even assuming there was a corporation hive mind they certainly wouldn't be supporting libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a wide spectrum. On the extreme ends you have anarcho-capitalists (who nobody takes seriously) and on the other you have right wing proto-fascists who pretend they hate government but actually love it.

I don't need to tell you which end of the spectrum has lots of money and influence.

Staff Infection wrote: »

Ok, I have a question so. I wouldn't label myself as anything really including libertarian. I do however, agree with views some would describe as liberal such as gay marriage, the legal regulated and taxed sale of most drugs, more focus on respecting personal privacy and I'm pro-choice. On an economic standpoint I'd be described as a wee bit conservative I'd try a 50-50 approach with taxes and cuts to reduce deficits, would be largely pro europe and agree with both banking and market regulations.

Based on the above apart from naive, foolish etc. is there any label such as crazy liberal that would kind of cover my beliefs?
Also which of our current parties if any do you think would be closest to my political stances? I know labor tick one or two but definitely not others.

I wouldn't say there's anything in those views there, that approaches Libertarianism; the hallmark of Libertarians, is anti-everything-government (privatization, stripping almost all public services, deregulating everything - even when it ensures massive fraud), mixed with devout free-market-fundamentalism (even though 'true' free markets are unattainable and can't exist, and implementing half-measures just ensures perverse incentives and massive fraud), and many other economic policies that are just regressive and aimed at benefiting the wealthy (like flat taxes, so that the less well off pay a higher percentage of taxes, and the wealthy pay less than before - so they all pay the same percentage-wise, even though the wealthy earn far more beyond cost of living).

Libertarians are mostly identified by their economic views, more than anything else; usually they follow Austrian economics, but that doesn't mean every Austrian follower is a Libertarian (compared to mainstream/neoclassical economics, Austrian economics even has a lot of merit - but with Libertarians its turned far more into a political ideology, than just economics).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To say that Libertarians wish to eradicate regulations so they can commit white collar crime is intellectually dishonest at best and a down right lie at worst.

I didn't say Libertarians wish this, though I do think many of them are fooled into believing the ideology, and end up becoming 'useful idiots' for advocating this (though it is notable that so many Libertarians I encounter, seem to turn out to work in finance a lot of the time - the place where white collar crime has become more concentrated, than it ever has been before in any other industry).

A political ideology largely constructed by corrupt corporate-funded think-tanks, is designed to promote policies that corruptly benefit the people who fund the construction and dissemination of these political views.
Putting all that together is not exactly a huge leap in conclusions, given the well documented connections here; "wealthy private industries/individuals, in corrupt propaganda shocker!".

It's not like Libertarians aren't fully aware of this either, seeing as it happens all the time, particularly in the US; hell, even the defense earlier in this thread didn't even contest it! (just was a variation of 'other parties do this too' - the usual whataboutery, just not applied to government this time)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's simply not true. Again ignorance at best and a down right lie at worst.

http://business-ethics.com/2010/02/16/1035-who-detects-corporate-fraud-tip-its-not-usually-the-sec/

Eh, your article (which by the way, is a study limited to a timeframe in one of the most deregulated financial periods in modern history), backs my point that deregulation makes business opaque, since the article describes relying almost entirely upon whistleblowers for information.

Luigi Zingales (who co-authored the paper) is also a member of several right-wing think tanks, including the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, which has all sorts of corrupt ties to the Tobacco industry and Bush Administration, and tons of other right-wing think tanks, as well as ties to borderline-racist authors like Charles Murray.

If you want good writing on fraud, William K. Black (Bill Black), a former regulator in the US who helped put thousands in jail during the Savings & Loans crisis, is one of the most prominent experts on fraud around.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Talking about prevention of fraud is all well and good but what you would do put regulations on business that will stifle the economy to prevent fraud which may happen which may stifle the economy. Pretty much like nuking your garden to get rid of cockroaches.

See there we go - bland assertions that it will 'stifle the economy' (I think the gigantic economic crisis resulting from widespread deregulation, has 'stifle[d] the economy' a bit). You don't favour adequate regulations at all, you just pay lip service to it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fraud will happen with regulations or without and you know that. You've displayed a lot of intellectual dishonesty in your previous couple of posts. Furthermore as I've pointed out earlier the most amount of corporate fraud in the US isn't caught by the SEC.

I haven't displayed any intellectual dishonesty here - you're the one claiming to support regulation for dealing with fraud, while in the same breath saying it would stifle the economy.

Now we're at 'but fraud will happen anyway', which is just nonsense because there's a huge difference between small-scale fraud failing to be detected and clamped down on even with strong regulations, and massive widescale economy-destroying fraud that was staring regulators in the face for most of a decade.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works. Of all the major "fringe" movements Libertarianism is the most expanded upon the and most workable.

Yet never a Libertarian poster who can do it. Only posters who reference others to multi-dozen page books as reference.

If you (or others posters) tried to describe/construct a complete Libertarian economic/political system (not even in huge detail, just general strokes), inconsistencies and faults would become apparent so fast, and in such great number, that you would not be able to answer challenges against them.

That's why these posters never attempt this, and why they rely primarily on anti-government bashing, instead of presenting actual solutions themselves ('solutions' which they know, cause far more damage than the overexaggerated problem they are supposed to solve)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing contradictory about them. A monopoly can only survive under state controlled entrance laws. Take away the entrance laws and more companies will join the market until it is no longer competitive to do so. It would be impossible to hold monopoly or even oligopoly power in a libertarian society.

That's a ridiculous assertion; just look up natural monopolies and barriers to entry to see how completely wrong that is.

This is one of the big things Libertarians do their utmost to deny: The very possibility of monopolies/oligopolies in private industry (even though it is blindingly obvious to almost everyone that this happens and will happen).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The free market is a theoretical concept. Of course it doesn't exist in real life. The world isn't that simple. But the closer you move towards the free market the more the real market begins to resemble it.

That's total nonsense. Another completely unbacked assertion, which is more like a religious belief than backed by anything based in reality. You say "The world isn't that simple", and in the next sentence make one of the most oversimplified semi-religious assertions that exists in economics today.

The 'free market' is not just a theoretical concept, it is an impossible concept; that's like a physicist saying "we have this model of a perpetual motion machine - we know it's theoretical and not possible in reality, but if we try to construct it, the closer the construction moves towards the model, the more it will begin to resemble a perpetual motion machine".

That's just ridiculous stuff - I'd say that's even one of the most insane and harmful ideas that exists in economics today, and there are plenty of authors (notably Steve Keen) who have ripped that idea to shreds.

SupaNova2

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing. "If a system without slaves is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen". Well after enough time it did arise.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing.

Except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral.

The places where the least slavery and forms of slavery are the norm are places where the power differential of vast wealth, and thus power, is mitigated by a robust social democratic state and government in places like Denmark, Sweden and Norway which highlights the 'government is the problem' for being the absolute libereligious gibberish that it is.

V4Voluntary

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral.

The places where the least slavery and forms of slavery are the norm are places where the power differential of vast wealth, and thus power, is mitigated by a robust social democratic state and government in places like Denmark, Sweden and Norway which highlights the 'government is the problem' for being the absolute libereligious gibberish that it is.

Sadly you're somehow under the wrong assumption that the countries you list is in someway the end goal or destination in which everyone walking planet earth is undertaking to imitate. They're not.

You say "except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral". What about this? You think people today that view the State in a similar light don't exist? In any event, this is not the place to get into a topic such as this. I do however find your hypocrisy of interest particularly given the myth that is Scandinavian socialism and would refer you to look up the subject with regards to their more laissez faire approach to certain aspects.

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Sadly you're somehow under the wrong assumption that the countries you list is in someway the end goal or destination in which everyone walking planet earth is undertaking to imitate. They're not.

They're the societies that consistently top lists that attempt to measure how happy people are with their lot. Unlike libertarian fantasists I prefer to be more rational and examine what works in the real world to see where people enjoy a good standard of living and comfortable life.

You think people today that view the State in a similar light don't exist?

How very embarrassing for you that you've swallowed so much libertarian propaganda that you equate distaste with living in a modern state to distaste with ownership of human beings by other human beings by threat of torture and murder. What a perverse persecution complex.

I do however find your hypocrisy of interest particularly given the myth that is Scandinavian socialism and would refer you to look up the subject with regards to their more laissez faire approach to certain aspects.

Ah yes, the libertarian strawman is rolled out. Let me set fire to it by reminding you that I didn't claim Scandinavian countries were socialist, rather, they're social democracies where the government and state play a strong role in mitigating the vagaries of capitalism.

SupaNova2

It seems there is a misconception here. Being in favour of freer markets does not mean being in favour of no regulation. A private business can set rules and regulations for its staff and customers on its premises. Take a private system of competing banking systems and currencies, the rules and regulations that govern are set to offer the customer the most attractive package. Back to banking today. This isn't a system of privately competing banks and currencies but a government monopoly where private institutions are given privilege to create credit. The government is perfectly entitled and should set rules for how this system operates, just as it does with roads. A free marketer could even help in offering regulations they feel would be healthy and would naturally emerge in a market system such as strict rules surrounding consumption loans.

William K. Black (Bill Black), a former regulator in the US who helped put thousands in jail during the Savings & Loans crisis, is one of the most prominent experts on fraud around.

Trust me, I would like to see the same happen today and so would many others who see themselves as libertarians. Sorry if I don't fit the simple cartoon character libertarian you have created.

You've just described an entirely voluntary system of regulations. That amounts to just trusting business to behave, i.e. having a lawless system.

Regulations are laws (I would say that is a mandatory condition, for the term to be valid - otherwise it is engaging in semantic muddying of debate). 'Regulations' not backed in law are toothless and voluntary, and might as well not exist at all.

Bill Black there does a lot of writing on the 'Greshams dynamic' in economics; it applies to a very wide range of economics, from currencies ("bad money drives out good"), to consumer items ("lemons, i.e. items with concealed faults, drive out quality goods"), and business ("bad/fraudulent business, drives out good/honest business").

It's all about control of information. If you don't know about hidden fraud, lack of quality, debasement of currency or valuable items (such as clipping gold coins, or mixing in cheaper metals), you get conned and the person who conned you generates greater profits than his competitors who behave well.

If this information stays concealed, the fraudulent competitor has an advantage over the rest of the market, and drives out honest competitors, leaving only the fraudulent competitors.
This is why you need proper regulations, ones which are mandatory (not optional/voluntary), and which prevent fraud, not just react to it (which is often too late, with irrecoverable damage already having been done to competitors in the market, or even entire economies).

Trusting private industry to self-regulate, requires undue faith in impossible 'perfect markets', in 'perfect information sharing' (efficient markets hypothesis), and something close to 'perfect competition'; basically, trusting private industry like this requires trusting that the impossible 'free market' will spontaneously come about.

It is nothing more than a semi-religious belief, that everyone will 'behave' in such an economy, even though that belief is based on an impossibly perfect economic model, that proponents know can never exist in reality.

Christ the Redeemer

I hate the word liberal. It sounds like yank double speak.

Their "liberals" were all anti war until Obama came along. Where are they now?

Liberal means nothing.

Valmont

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already? Have you found a little civilisation in your fish tank like Lisa Simpson? Have you dropped in a copy of Das Kapital and then Atlas Shrugged and published your findings?

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

Corporations are a creation of the state. But could you explain who are the principal players behind such a ploy? And what they might gain from such a decentralised system?

Valmont wrote: »

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'pre-tested' and 'proven' (proven at what?) we can't replicate societies in Lisa's fish tank to see how they might work you know. Now I know libertarians like to sell their fantasies as if they were on the other side of a wall that the gubmint has built but let's just stay with reality here shall we? Regardless, here are some systems that have arisen in more recent times with various levels of success and failure.

China's managed one party state capitalist model (hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty in a generation). Scandinavian/European social democracies. Anarcho syndicalism in Spain pre WW2. The Kibbutzim in Israel. State socialism in Eastern Europe.

Corporations are a creation of the state.

You don't say?

But could you explain who are the principal players behind such a ploy?

The Koch Brothers would be one of the principal players who profess to be libertarians but have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to right-wing 'causes'.

In 1977, Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank, with the aim of injecting free-market ideas into the mainstream. The Kochs would go on to establish and fund a vast network of overlapping think tanks, institutes, foundations, media outlets, and lobby groups that would vilify centralized government and promote laissez-faire capitalism as the only route to economic prosperity.

exiledonline.com

If you read the rest of the article you'll see the perverse hypocrisy of people like the Kochs.

Let me guess? They're not real libertarians like you?