Source: Original Site Post

  • Only One….

    1. THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND THAT IS PROPERTY. All else is a command given by man. 2. THE ONLY NUMBERS ARE NATURAL NUMBERS. All else is ratio and relation. 3. THERE IS ONLY ONE MEANS OF REASON, AND THAT IS NATURALISM. All else is deception or self deception.

  • But Why Are Austrians Draw To The Austrian Model?

    (not profound, but almost) (good Austrian argumentative material) I need to update Peter Boettke’s definition of Austrian Economics to include the reasons WHY certain groups of people are morally and intellectual attracted to the Austrian model, rather than just the methodological differences: 1) The testability of incentives as rational 2) The visibility of voluntary versus involuntary transfers 3) The visibility of the redistribution of risk to entrepreneurs, and the impact on entrepreneurial incentives. 4) The visibility of the impact on opportunity costs. 5) The visibility of the cumulative effect on opportunity costs. 6) The visibility of decline in linguistic, rational, social, moral, mythological, and institutional capital. The longer your time preference the higher the cost of the portfolio of opportunity costs. (I should diagram this out a bit.) It was very frustrating to read the number articles of late that just put us outside the consensus, and paint us as extremists. I mean, I know that *I* agree with the mainstream: they affect what they measure. They achieve their short term objectives. But I disagree with the mainstream that the accumulation of externalities is inferior to the short term benefits. I don’t think honest progressives like Karl Smith disagree that there may be a cumulative effect of continuous distortion of the monetary system. I think they just feel that the moral good in the short term is greater than the risk and damage in the long. Now, I was right in my prediction, and Paul Krugman was wrong, that voters would absolutely NOT tolerate what they viewed was immoral behavior; and that the Germans would simply adjust Europe slowly rather than allow ‘immoral’ redistribution, or financially expensive adjustments to occur rapidly. Politics is a moral, not empirical exercise. (See my post on Paul Krugman’s Moral Blindness). And he couldn’t grasp that. The first problem of politics may be the suppression of violence. But the SECOND problem of politics, is the suppression of free riding. It doesn’t matter the size of the group, whether tribe or nation. Now, just because we are too unsophisticated to measure the impact on moral, social, calculative-coordinative, and institutional capital except in the longer term, because we don’t know how to price it, doesn’t mean that that stock of capital, priced or not, doesn’t increase or decrease. Or that we do not depend on that stock of capital as much or more than any other. So, given that the math in economics isn’t really all that challenging (knowing which data to pull, and its construction is), it’s not that Austrians are afraid of empirical work. (Although we get more nuts and fruits because we lack that filtration system). Its that what we care to measure doesn’t leave behind a record of prices. And opportunity costs dont create a record of prices. Furthermore, the use of large scale aggregates, launders all causality from the analysis. And in our view of the world, basing policy on these aggregates, unless it is extremely TACTICAL and LOCAL (loans, and debt forgiveness), pays the vast majority of attention is to that which matters very little, and ignores that which matters very much. We can spend down social and moral capital, just as we can spend down environmental capital, but we must give these things a few generations to recover. We have been spending it down for over fifty years. Probably a century as of 2014. I think our side does disagree with the fact that ‘it’s all demand’. And I am not certain that we are right. I’m certain that there are extremely negative consequences for stimulating demand unless it’s given directly to consumers as cash by bypassing the financial system. But the cumulative effect on the quality of goods and services still appears to diminish – although proving that’s a very hard task of teasing signal from noise. The stock of capital that troubles me most, because of the Marxist, Freudian, Postmodern, and Feminist attacks on the meaning of terms via obscurant language, is the stock of metaphysical bias embedded in the language. It’s eroded pretty consistently since the first world war. Even if our scientific language (nod to Flynn) is increasing, our stock of moral capital in the language is declining rapidly. This stock is what the Postmoderns attempt to ‘steal’ from the commons. And they are very good at stealing. So, in POLITICAL ECONOMY I tend to look at our biases as a division of knowledge and labor along time preferences. With Austrians and conservatives with very long time preference (aristocrats) and common people with shorter time preferences, and most progressives simply displaying conspicuous consumption as a means of demonstrating status. I don’t really care about the mathematical and procedural Platonists. They’re everywhere. But that’s an entirely different battle. Austrian Economics isn’t a debate over method. Thats a nonsensical sideshow. It’s a debate over priorities. Our methods are different because our TIME PREFERENCE is different – and we don’t have the LUXURY of taking the EASY way out, because our stock of preferred capital isn’t PRICED. It’s just HARDER to do what we do. That is how we must position it. And with that positioning we wipe out the influence of the … ahem, silly ideological pseudo-Austrians bent on stealing our name and identity. That’s my mission with reforming libertarianism anyway. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • But Why Are Austrians Draw To The Austrian Model?

    (not profound, but almost) (good Austrian argumentative material) I need to update Peter Boettke’s definition of Austrian Economics to include the reasons WHY certain groups of people are morally and intellectual attracted to the Austrian model, rather than just the methodological differences: 1) The testability of incentives as rational 2) The visibility of voluntary versus involuntary transfers 3) The visibility of the redistribution of risk to entrepreneurs, and the impact on entrepreneurial incentives. 4) The visibility of the impact on opportunity costs. 5) The visibility of the cumulative effect on opportunity costs. 6) The visibility of decline in linguistic, rational, social, moral, mythological, and institutional capital. The longer your time preference the higher the cost of the portfolio of opportunity costs. (I should diagram this out a bit.) It was very frustrating to read the number articles of late that just put us outside the consensus, and paint us as extremists. I mean, I know that *I* agree with the mainstream: they affect what they measure. They achieve their short term objectives. But I disagree with the mainstream that the accumulation of externalities is inferior to the short term benefits. I don’t think honest progressives like Karl Smith disagree that there may be a cumulative effect of continuous distortion of the monetary system. I think they just feel that the moral good in the short term is greater than the risk and damage in the long. Now, I was right in my prediction, and Paul Krugman was wrong, that voters would absolutely NOT tolerate what they viewed was immoral behavior; and that the Germans would simply adjust Europe slowly rather than allow ‘immoral’ redistribution, or financially expensive adjustments to occur rapidly. Politics is a moral, not empirical exercise. (See my post on Paul Krugman’s Moral Blindness). And he couldn’t grasp that. The first problem of politics may be the suppression of violence. But the SECOND problem of politics, is the suppression of free riding. It doesn’t matter the size of the group, whether tribe or nation. Now, just because we are too unsophisticated to measure the impact on moral, social, calculative-coordinative, and institutional capital except in the longer term, because we don’t know how to price it, doesn’t mean that that stock of capital, priced or not, doesn’t increase or decrease. Or that we do not depend on that stock of capital as much or more than any other. So, given that the math in economics isn’t really all that challenging (knowing which data to pull, and its construction is), it’s not that Austrians are afraid of empirical work. (Although we get more nuts and fruits because we lack that filtration system). Its that what we care to measure doesn’t leave behind a record of prices. And opportunity costs dont create a record of prices. Furthermore, the use of large scale aggregates, launders all causality from the analysis. And in our view of the world, basing policy on these aggregates, unless it is extremely TACTICAL and LOCAL (loans, and debt forgiveness), pays the vast majority of attention is to that which matters very little, and ignores that which matters very much. We can spend down social and moral capital, just as we can spend down environmental capital, but we must give these things a few generations to recover. We have been spending it down for over fifty years. Probably a century as of 2014. I think our side does disagree with the fact that ‘it’s all demand’. And I am not certain that we are right. I’m certain that there are extremely negative consequences for stimulating demand unless it’s given directly to consumers as cash by bypassing the financial system. But the cumulative effect on the quality of goods and services still appears to diminish – although proving that’s a very hard task of teasing signal from noise. The stock of capital that troubles me most, because of the Marxist, Freudian, Postmodern, and Feminist attacks on the meaning of terms via obscurant language, is the stock of metaphysical bias embedded in the language. It’s eroded pretty consistently since the first world war. Even if our scientific language (nod to Flynn) is increasing, our stock of moral capital in the language is declining rapidly. This stock is what the Postmoderns attempt to ‘steal’ from the commons. And they are very good at stealing. So, in POLITICAL ECONOMY I tend to look at our biases as a division of knowledge and labor along time preferences. With Austrians and conservatives with very long time preference (aristocrats) and common people with shorter time preferences, and most progressives simply displaying conspicuous consumption as a means of demonstrating status. I don’t really care about the mathematical and procedural Platonists. They’re everywhere. But that’s an entirely different battle. Austrian Economics isn’t a debate over method. Thats a nonsensical sideshow. It’s a debate over priorities. Our methods are different because our TIME PREFERENCE is different – and we don’t have the LUXURY of taking the EASY way out, because our stock of preferred capital isn’t PRICED. It’s just HARDER to do what we do. That is how we must position it. And with that positioning we wipe out the influence of the … ahem, silly ideological pseudo-Austrians bent on stealing our name and identity. That’s my mission with reforming libertarianism anyway. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • What Is The Best Kanban Board Software That Integrates With Sharepoint?

    Thanks for asking me to answer this question.

    Unfortunately I can’t do it comfortably, because all the products that I would classify as ‘good’ or ‘recommended’, are not on Sharepoint. The reason is architectural.   Although Sharepoint is an amazing and nearly universal product.   Sharepoint isn’t well designed for this problem and neither is Jira really, although at Atlassian they do an amazing job of it.

    This space is our industry, and we know if fairly well, and the best tool we can find for pure (analytical) devs is TargetProcess. It’s very powerful and nerdy. The best tool for production support, and the industry standard is Jira. Jira is simple and usable if you can tolerate the rather terrible navigation. There are a half dozen others that are extremely good.  But these are our top two choices, and they’re the one’s we recommend if our product Oversing would be overkill.

    Our product is probably the most powerful solution by a couple orders of magnitude, but it’s for running an entire services business and making money at it, and so it’s not just a dev tool, and it’s not on Sharepoint.


    Check out these links
    Which is the best agile software project management tool?

    And this product
    SharePoint & TFS

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-Kanban-board-software-that-integrates-with-SharePoint

  • What Is The Best Kanban Board Software That Integrates With Sharepoint?

    Thanks for asking me to answer this question.

    Unfortunately I can’t do it comfortably, because all the products that I would classify as ‘good’ or ‘recommended’, are not on Sharepoint. The reason is architectural.   Although Sharepoint is an amazing and nearly universal product.   Sharepoint isn’t well designed for this problem and neither is Jira really, although at Atlassian they do an amazing job of it.

    This space is our industry, and we know if fairly well, and the best tool we can find for pure (analytical) devs is TargetProcess. It’s very powerful and nerdy. The best tool for production support, and the industry standard is Jira. Jira is simple and usable if you can tolerate the rather terrible navigation. There are a half dozen others that are extremely good.  But these are our top two choices, and they’re the one’s we recommend if our product Oversing would be overkill.

    Our product is probably the most powerful solution by a couple orders of magnitude, but it’s for running an entire services business and making money at it, and so it’s not just a dev tool, and it’s not on Sharepoint.


    Check out these links
    Which is the best agile software project management tool?

    And this product
    SharePoint & TFS

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-Kanban-board-software-that-integrates-with-SharePoint

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations

  • Is It True, As John C. Drew Asserts, That He Is “the Only Ph.d. Level, Published Political Scientist Contributing Comments At Quora”?

    I don’t know if he is the only PhD, since there are a lot of PhD’s in Political Science.  You must realize that in America that a PhD does not mean that  you have mastered a field, but it means you have mastered the art of RESEARCH in your field.  And I am fairly sure that most questions are better answered by Pollsters, statisticians and Political Economists than political scientists. I am not sure that those of us who write political philosophy, even the philosophy of political economy, are any better at it than any of the other groups. 

    But, that hedging said, by and large, very few specialists post here, and most of the questions are fraudulent attempts to promote leftism by asking critical questions.  See “The Critical Theory” and “The Culture of Critique” as means of undermining western moral and social structures through obscurantist criticism.

    I tend to only answer questions here if they sound reasonably intelligent and honest, and thats a high bar for this forum.  And it’s getting worse.  Democracy is a pretty good way of peaceful transfer of power, but not a good way of understanding much of anything. It’s a race to the bottom in most cases.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-as-John-C-Drew-asserts-that-he-is-the-only-Ph-D-level-published-political-scientist-contributing-comments-at-Quora

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • Capitalism: How Much Is Wasted In Finding Market-based Solutions?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE:

    RE: “That represents a huge expenditure of human and physical resources that is not typically looked at when evaluating the efficiency of the winner.”

    Actually, it is obvious, common sense, and assumed in economics and politics, but we come to the opposite conclusion.  (a) we are constantly researching and developing new products and services, and variations of them through constant refinements of products, services, and prices called ‘entrepreneurial research and development”. It is not a process of PRODUCTION. The market is a process of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Furthermore, as the world consists of millions of resources, all of which have multiple demands on them, we must constantly look for what we refer to as ‘substitutions’ in the form of different resources, different suppliers, different technology, to adapt to constant changes in the demand for and availability of resources from the most simplistic primary resources to the most complex combination of sophisticated production techniques. 

    So. NONE OF IT IS WASTE.   The market is not a machine following a production program. It is a vast network of individuals working in networks some of us call ‘patterns of sustainable specialization and trade”, dynamically changing our efforts in response to other similar networks, in real time on a momentary basis in some cases (oil prices) and on a long term basis in others (commercial construction) and on a very, very long term basis for others (pharmaceutical research.)

    A COMMON ERROR
    It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to apply very simplistic concepts of production to an economy. It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics and to fail to understand prices as an information system by which we coordinate ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY to serve each other’s needs, in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that is incomprehensible to any individual or group of individuals.  It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to confuse the difficulty in producing goods and services, as one of applying labor, when labor is, in fact, the cheapest most ready commodity available, and worth very little. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to ORGANIZE VOLUNTARY participation in production that is not a constant process of producing what is know, but a perpetually dynamic process of organizing the process of research and development, which produces an infinite variety of goods, wherein the competition between multiple producers forces all production to the lowest price, so that an increasing number of people can afford to consume goods. 

    Each of us produces very little. None of us, individually, matters to production. However, by voluntarily coordinating our efforts through self interest, by using the information system we call prices to guide us, we can cooperate by in a vast division of incomprehensible knowledge and labor.

    For this reason, people who ORGANIZE production are compensated highly for it, but those who CONSUME that production.  Largely, those of us who consume or labor, gain the benefit of our efforts, each of which is very small, in the form of affordable consumer goods and services.  Not necessarily as compensation. Because it is our labor that is of little value, and the organization of labor for the purpose of production as highly valuable. Because risk taking, forecasting, and guessing the future against competitors, so that we make the best use of the world’s resources at any given time, is what determines success or failure of the coordination of many people’s interwoven efforts as successful. And that success is told to us by the information system in the form of ‘profit’.  Profit which is quite hard to obtain it turns out.  That is because, except at the extremes, organizations, whether private or public consume the maximum amount of profit that investors will tolerate. 

    I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

    It cannot be waste if it is experiment.  The problem with your question is that you assume we know what we do not and cannot know. It may help to remember that the socialists thought like you do and 100 million people are dead because of it. And the entire world has abandoned socialism (central planning of production) for this reason.  Prices and Incentives are inseparable. without prices we literally cannot think, or plan, or coordinate out efforts. Without incentives we cannot voluntarily get people to continue to conduct research and development.  Without research and development we cannot sustain production at low prices, with increasing advancement in technology, goods and services. Without advancement we would eventually become incrementally poorer as all differences between us were equilibrated, and the incentive to cooperate voluntarily declined. 

    EASY ENTRY LEVEL READINGS
    “I Pencil” (Essay)
    “The Use Of Knowledge In Society” (Essay / Hayek)
    “Parable Of The Bees” (Essay)
    “Economics In One Lesson” (Book / Haslitt)

    That’s about it. You get that. You get economics.  We call it The Economic Way of Thinking. 

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute.
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-How-much-is-wasted-in-finding-market-based-solutions

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations