I Chose Liberty - Ludwig von Mises Institute

296 I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians
methodology, which doesn’t interest corporations, or blast the newest policy gimmick, a
stance that doesn’t interest foundations. Finally, government money was not ever a
consideration.
In the end, our support has come from individual donors and nearly exclusively so. I
had a good-size Rolodex, so I started there. Ron Paul and others signed letters to their lists,
which was a big help, and I had enough savings to work a few years without a salary.
We’ve been in business now for 17 years, and it took a long time to become viable. But
we built slowly and carefully, brick by brick, and now have a solid edifice. And we still have
our independence, and we still have an edge.
Doherty: I’ve heard intimations that Koch interests attempted to stymie the Mises
Institute’s development. Is this so, and if so, specifically how?
Rockwell: It wasn’t exactly subtle. In the early eighties, Charles Koch monopolized the
libertarian think-tank world by giving and promising millions. That’s fine, but he was
gradually edging away from radical thought, which included Austrian economics, and
toward mainstreaming libertarian theory (as opposed to libertarianizing the mainstream)
that attracted him in the first place.
I have never understood this type of thinking. If being mainstream is what you want,
there are easier ways to go about it than attempting to remake an intellectual movement
that is hostile to government, into a mildly dissenting subgroup within the ideological
structure of the ruling class.
Murray and Charles broke at this point, and I won’t go into the details. But it was clear
that Koch saw their break as the beginning of a long war. Early on, I received a call from
George Pearson, head of the Koch Foundation. He said that Mises was too radical and that
I mustn’t name the organization after him, or promote his ideas. I was told that Mises was
“so extreme even Milton Friedman doesn’t like him.” If I insisted on going against their
diktat, they would oppose me tooth and nail.
Later, I heard from other Koch men. One objected to the name of our monthly newsletter,
The Free Market. The idea this time was that the word “free” was off-putting. Another
said that the idea of an Austrian academic journal was wrong, since it implied we were a
separate school, and mustn’t be. All urged me to dump Murray and then shun him, if I
expected any support.
I was taken aback by what I interpreted as pettifoggery, and I had no idea what we
would yet face. I negotiated a contract with Lexington Books for an annual journal, and
put together a pretty good list of editorial advisers with Murray as the editor. Soon after,
what came to be called “the boycott” began. Letters and calls poured in from those
associated with Koch-dominated organizations. They resigned and swore eternal enmity.
We even lost some big donors. It was my baptism-by-fire into the world of research
institutes.
It may seem absurd to talk about this as if it were some sort of conspiracy against the
Mises Institute. Why would a multi-billionaire care if the Institute existed or not? I mean,
we were a gnat compared to his water buffalo. It’s a mystery that even today I do not entirely
understand. In any case, there was blood all over the place by the time it was over.