Talk:Reason Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Establish Reason's Neutrality
One can argue that the views expressed by the Reason Magazine are biased as they seem to frame arguments for the benefits of its financial donors. There is an obvious conflict of interest raised here. Please note Libertarian views on economics are framed Neo-liberal policies in line with Lew Rockwell and its economists. == What? No. That's completely inaccurate. Lew Rockwell belongs to the Austrian schools of thought. Rockwell wouldn't describe himself as a neo-liberal at all.
Please discuss and expand.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that "There can be little doubt that these financial backers would prefer commuters drive automobiles
rather than take public transportation" is neutral enough? 83.77.197.147 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and have remoevd that and other non-neutral language. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that the following should be removed since there is no citation to which someone can go to verify the statement.
"Funding for Reason comes from corporations and other organizations including the American Petroleum Institute,
Chevron, ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motors, General Motors and Shell.[citation needed]"
Patrick Henry 1776 03:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What consumes more resources than public transport? 100 individuals in 4 buses or 100 individuals each in 100 cars? Not really economically rationalist is it? Then it follows an oil company and a car company has an interest in promoting its views through the "REASON" think-tank.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This is a terrible article
Whoever wrote this article has a serious axe to grind apparently. Sounds like the foundation fired them, or they work for a competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.218 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
