|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
why is 'history of reason magazine' above what it's current incarnation? People who look up usually want to know the present before a history.
Reason claims to be nonpartisan. --Theaterfreak64 07:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Reason doesn't necessarily support the Libertarian Party (or any other), but it does support libertarianism as an ideology. So in that sense it is nonpartisan. -- Scott eiπ 07:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- While we're at it--and, yes, I realize that these two messages above are from more than a month ago--I know that Ayn Rand denounced libertarianism, and many agree that she was not a libertarian (although I'm sure many others feel the opposite way, too). While it was reason's choice to put her on the cover and write an article about her, there are probably more neutral covers we could put on here. Also, I'm not sure what the official title of the magazine is, but it seems to always refer to itself (albeit, not in official enviroments) using a lower-case r.
- It seems to me that, while clarification is good, changing to a more neutral cover is still the better solution. I'd suggest the "Database Nation" cover (http://reason.com/june-2004/samples.shtml) as one of the most talked-about (if also a bit counterintuitive for Reason), but any recent cover would probably do. Also, I don't think one company's complaint about their advertising policy is relevant enough to include, let alone devote that much space to. I'm deleting it for now. Though if the article gets big enough I'd have no qualms with a section on criticism.
- --Our Bold Hero 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reason wb site down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:51, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
so what's the magazine about???
This is an awful description of the magazine. Free minds and free markets? What the heck does that mean??? Is this libertarianism? Is it anarchism? Is it conservatism or progressive? What is it? Left wing, right wing. If not a label, how about a comprehensive description about the ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first line in the article (as of now) describes it well: Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine from the Reason Foundation. I think to quantify it anymore than that is very difficult if not impossible. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Free minds = not necessarily Conservative Christian moralist/theocrat; free-markets = "uber-Republican-style"/laissez-faire capitalism; yes it is U.S.-style pro-property "libertarianism"; no, it is "not quite" anarchism (not hardly); it can be thought of as being "secular conservative" (not necessarily religious, but not necessarily pro-separation of church-and-state either); no it is not progressive in any sense; definitely not left-wing; essentially it is right-wing (pro-capitalist/pro-corporate), albeit mostly without the usual flag-waving and God-talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 19:32, July 2, 2009
- Please stop injecting your personal and misleading views. I trying hard not to start a debate here but I feel I must comment a little. Reason is libertarian, specifically the pro-property rights variety also known as laissez-faire, market liberalism, neoliberalism or classical liberalism, all with subtle variations in meaning. Reason isn't so doctrinaire that it can be pinned down so precisely (hence, "free minds" as in open minded). Libertarians are definitely in favor of the separation of church and state. They are pro-capitalism, but I would argue not "pro-corporate." I'm fairly certain Reason has never published anything that could be described as Christian Conservative or pro-theocracy. —D. Monack talk 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Then what would you? Of course they are libertarian. But they cater more to the individualist, secular, moderate right wing. Although I saw a CNN interview once, where two Reason editors admitted they were closest to "conservative democrats" than anything else.
Libertarian = unlimited personal freedom / unlimited economic freedom
Liberal = unlimited personal freedom / limits on economic freedom
Conservative = limits on personal freedom / unlimited economic freedom
No matter how hard you try you cannot be pro capitalist, yet NOT pro corporatist. Period. The corporate state is nothing but a manifestation of no-holds-barred capitalism. If you support limiting corporations from having too much power through the government, you are talking about PEOPLE POWER regulating BIG BUSINESS through government intervention.. putting limits on their economic freedom, which is absolutely and positively NOT libertarian.. Libertarians would criticize you and deem you a "STATIST" for even suggesting taking such a liberal position. This explains why libertarians will almost always lean to the right by nature, but certainly not always (ie Chomsky) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement that you can't be pro-capitalist without being pro-corporatist is one of the most hilarious, poorly-argued lines of crap I have ever read on this site. That being said, it is not nearly as funny as the notion that "Liberals"(in the American sense of the word) are for "unlimited personal freedom". That must be a description of the Liberals that live in a fantasy-land version of the United States. Moreover, the ludicrous distinctions in the above comment are meaningless because it is simply not possible to wholly separate so-called "economic freedom" from "personal freedom". However, as this talk page is not supposed to be a place for political debates, I will move on to the point I want to make: when classifying the politics of the magazine for descriptive purposes, deference should be shown to those responsible for producing Reason, not some random editor who probably knows next to nothing about the magazine or libertarian politics. When describing their politics, the words of those who produce the magazine ought to suffice and shouldn't be replaced with a description that I am sure will amount to nothing more than asinine psychobabble along the lines of "libertarianism is anarchism".22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Reason, like most political magazines, does not make a profit and is subsidized by its publisher, the non-profit Reason Foundation. —D. Monack talk 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can the Reason Mag fan club readers here establish the arm's length separation from its corporate funders, giving rise to conflict of interest? One can say that Reason Magazine is GOP Party Lite minus Christian Right Values and military Keynesianism. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1976 "Historical Revisionism" issue
There's an article about "Reason's" magazine's infamous 1976 "Historical Revisionism" issue here, where I sourced the articles:
There are several discussions about the Mark Ames articles about "Reason's" 1976 issue online, including this one: http://s-usih.org/2014/07/roundtable-us-foreign-policy-and-the-left-chapter-9.html
Reason magazine's response to Ames' criticism is here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-holocaust-de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Great work. Thanks for adding this content. Steeletrap (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraphs related to the "special issue". Here is the rationale: 1. From the start, Pando.com is a technology-focused website, not academic or policy or history, etc. focused. 2. The author Mark Ames is not the ex-pat Mark Ames (his WP article does not mention Pando and I find no connection via other sources.) 2.a. In fact, Pando.com is more of a blog, not WP:RS. 3. The focus on a single issue, published 39 years ago, is UNDUE. 4. While the first 3 reasons are sound as is, the paragraphs may have BLP issues as well. 5. I removed the super glue mention too. (See the point – magazines talk about a lot of stuff. They may (for better or worse) be sources we use for WP articles. But the individual issues or articles they publish are not WP:NOTEWORTHY in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)