Dear Reason:
I have been a nearly continuous subscriber to Reason magazine for over twenty years. There was a time when, for a few days early in each month, I would arrive at home hoping that there was a "Reason" to check my mail box. You see, Reason magazine was a very important part of my life. I read every article, in every issue I received. In addition, I bought many gift subscriptions over the years, hoping to influence my family and my friends. I archived copies for future reference, and as a useful tool for debate and persuasion. Sadly, those times are gone. I am no longer excited by Reason, because Reason no longer presents an exciting and principled defense of "free minds and free markets".
I believe that Reason has become overly obsessed with its conception of itself as "the most influential libertarian publication in America". This has led the editors at Reason to grant prominent and respectful space to authors promoting overtly statist and anti-libertarian viewpoints. At the same time, many writers at Reason act as if they are the sole arbiters of acceptable libertarian viewpoints. Consider the fact that Matt Welch chose to attack Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard in his first editorial as editor in chief at Reason. This decision, coupled with his willingness to misrepresent the views of Paul, Rockwell and Rothbard suggest that he is more interested in maintaining acceptable liberal credentials than in promoting a principled defense of libertarianism.
It should be apparent to every libertarian that there is a profound difference between an allegation of racist sentiment and the advocacy of public policy and actions that actually cause harm to people. Despite the claims of the holier than thou crowd, all human beings harbor some prejudices. These include elitism, yokelism (see comments by Ayn_Randian on the Hit & Run blog to see what I mean), nationalism, racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, etc… From a libertarian perspective, all of these prejudices are benign until they are coupled with a willingness to use force to violate the rights of others. This distinction is apparently lost on many of the writers at Reason. Writers like Matt Welch and David Weigel remain baffled that all libertarians don't share their petty obsession with the politically incorrect libertarians over at the Mises Institute. And yet, they think it is reasonable, even respectable, to give space to people who advocate for the anti-libertarian concept of aggressive, preemptive war. They also failed to be outraged that Reason magazine found room to print the thoughts of a woman whose malignant prejudice against Islam is so extreme that she believes that it is the duty of Western governments to suspend basic civil liberties in order to "defeat" it.
In the November 2007 issue, Reason published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In it she states that there are no moderate Muslims, and therefore that all of Islam must be considered an enemy. In order to crush this enemy, she endorses an aggressive, preemptive military and cultural war against Islam. As part of this total war she insists that Western governments must close all Muslim schools and all Muslim churches. Interestingly, she believes that the welfare and immigration polices of the Dutch government play a large role in fostering the violent actions of some Muslims in her adopted country. She correctly notes the absurdity of forcing taxpayers to fund "public schools" that, according to her, preach violence and hatred of others. She is also correct to point out that it is a lot easier to pursue violence if you don't have to worry about getting a job. Thus, her profoundly illiberal views, advocating the annihilation, through government force, of an entire religion, are deeply influenced by her perception of the adverse affects of the immigration and welfare policies of Europe. The tragic irony here is that a woman who appears, in most respects, to be a remarkable and moral person, has embraced virulent prejudice against an entire group of people, in part because of the effect of Europe's welfare and immigration policies.
Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul have all argued that open immigration and a welfare state cannot co-exist. During his campaign, Ron Paul repeatedly stressed that current welfare policies create resentment and hostility directed toward some immigrants, usually the poorest and neediest. Thus he believes that our perverse and immoral welfare system must be changed in order for liberal and expansive immigration to be desirable or practical. During an interview last year, Nick Gillespie acknowledged the views of Friedman and Rothbard on immigration, and did not challenge them. Still, he chose to present Ron Paul's position in the worst possible light. Apparently, Mr. Gillespie possesses psychic powers. What else could explain his suggestion that Dr. Paul was being dishonest when describing his objections to our current welfare and immigration policies? According to Mr. Gillespie, Dr. Paul was really just pandering to a populist fear of "brown" people. This characterization was especially petty and dishonest as Mr. Gillespie needed to look no further than the pages of his own magazine to find a dramatic example of precisely what Dr. Paul describes.
Sadly, Reason is no longer a great magazine. The editors have lost perspective and have adopted priorities that I find baffling. Is it really so hard to understand that advocating policies that empower government to rob innocent people of life, liberty, property and health is infinitely more dangerous to morality and freedom than some distasteful, but benign, comments from some old newsletters? I understand that Reason has provided a platform for libertarian opposition to the Iraq war and the appalling concept of preemptive aggression that has been adopted by President Bush, most media pundits, and most politicians. But, Reason has also provided a platform for advocates and apologists for the insane, illegal and murderous agenda of the Bush administration. Considering the fact that these advocates of preemptive war had virtually every media establishment in America at their disposal, eager to peddle their views, why did Reason not take a principled stance against it? By welcoming these views, Reason has openly endorsed the idea that the initiation of force is compatible with libertarianism. It is not, and every writer at Reason should know this.
There are still many great writers at Reason, and I know that Reason will continue to provide some excellent commentary on issues and stories that are important. However, when the Editors at Reason are willing to compromise on the first principle of libertarianism, it is clear to me that they have lost their way. Although it saddens me, I must ask that you cancel my subscription and refund any remaining balance.
Sincerely, Jeremy Parfitt
May 7, 2008
Jeremy Parfitt [send him mail] is the proprietor, with his wife Sarah, of Alchemy Bicycle Works in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
