>>655
>Who are the Koch Bros?
They're the boogy-man of the American new left, the embodiment of all things wicked, and are often used as a distorted example of how all libertarian thinkers must be. They're extremely rich people who were involved with Rothbard until his disagreement with them https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/david-gordon/why-the-koch-brothers-went-after-murray-rothbard/ , and who had a strong hand in developing varying think tanks.
>Supporting libertarianism supports the koch brothers
This borders on many fallacies, some of which are guilty-by-association and hasty generalizations. It's no different than saying, Alexander Berkman was a violent anarchist, therefore all anarchists purport a land of reactive violence. We can also rephrase it as this: This person donated money to this place, therefore all people who donate money are just like this person. Importantly, it ignores the actual politicized infighting which went on- and presumably still goes on- in between the upper echelons of Cato and the Kochs. https://archive.is/y9VYf
>why is this a bad thing
I'm not an expert on the Koch Bros but I do know they're wealthy libertarians that finance think tanks which promote philosophical variances ranging from paleo-conservatism to American libertarianism. However, according to Cato:
>Cato is not associated with any political organization or party — Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or other.
>Cato is a think tank, dedicated to increasing and enhancing the understanding of key public policies and to realistically analyzing their impact — positive, adverse, and other — on the tenets Cato is dedicated to protecting — individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
http://www.cato.org/mission
Without glancing at what the other think tanks are about, as there are several to which the Koch's donate, I submit the position that "it's bad cuz Koch Bros" is just fallacious and reductive reactionarism. Both American and European libertarianism precede Cato and the Koch Brothers. Thus, a brief glance at the history of the accusation devolves the claim as a product of ideological and nonsensical hysteria.