I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government.  [1] That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch -$40,000,000,000 worth of Libertarian "Freedom" [image source]

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. [2] This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) [3] This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."

Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. [4]

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. [5] This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way [6], our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

Now, let's take a second look at a few selected excerpts.


Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. [1] 


This "proclamation" should be considered through the lens of what influence Koch money is currently attempting to effect on American culture and politics. The "Koch network" is illustrated in this Washington Post article. Every aspect of this outrage is designed to amplify the political influence and prerogatives of the Koch brothers in excess of that enjoyed by citizens who are not billionaires.



"Dignity, respect equality" - Koch style [image source]
[Visit the site to read the entire article at Washington Post blog]

A central element of "dignity" imbued on American citizens by the US Constitution is the dignity of equal access to this country's representation democracy. Any departure from this basic foundation of democracy amounts to a reduction of that "dignity."


The issue of "respect" is specious.



The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. [2] 


Both the semantics and vocabulary of statements such as this one betray the heavy influence of the incendiary propaganda "peddlers" found throughout the right wing media. Specifically, the term "disrespect" is an especially used to emphasize the idea of oppression -- a primary issue of propaganda directed to further aggravate the low self-esteem denizens.

The second sentence in this quote is embarrassingly structured directly from the Herman Goebbels play book.

While the White House is unquestionably running on "policy," Charles effortlessly cites "central belief" as the force representing the guiding principle of the Obama Administration.This subtle implication is quite salable to the low information audience Charles is addressing. That demographic is much more comfortable with the "explanation" of government policy as manifest "belief" than as the more complicated "explanation" involving what's remaining of Congressional debate, legislation creation and implementation following laws passed in the Congress.

Charles' audience. lost and confused deep in FOX world, has been convinced that the nation is governed entirely by the fickle whimsy of demonic President.

In the thinly disguised racism of this particular billionaire, the next term: "fatal conceit," drops quickly into an effortlessly modified "Ayn Randism." 

Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

The remainder of this last sentence is presumptive.  There is nothing factual which suggests its validity -- there is no supportive argument or evidence.  Charles plunges ahead to re-state an additional "Randism collectivism" premise.

The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality.


...you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you.


The "collectivist" philosophy supports the view that a man's senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality?  MeanMesa supposes this may be a reasonable explanation for the inability of Charles Koch's "party" to win fair elections.



Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) [3]


Charles would clearly wish that the "matter covered in his editorial" really amounts only to a debate in which contradictory academic and hypothetical arguments might be debated and resolved. Charles is probably quite uncomfortable with the general vision of Americans who are not billionaires that what has been proposed here is not a debate.

It amounts to the public response to an oligarchic economic coup d'etat attempt.

Once again, Charles opinions are not an popular and attractive alternative to the Constitutional basis which has traditionally defined an individual citizen's interplay with the US government.
Charles' counter argument will never suffice as an intellectual position in some sort of a debate or anything similar to one.

"Collectivists" -- remember, that amounts to almost everyone else here -- are not "striving to discredit" arrogant elitists such as Charles.  They are only days away from building the barricades they saw in Kiev.  Americans have little interest in "discrediting" Charles Koch. 

They are interested in stopping him.



Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. [4]


Charles denies "rigging" the economic system because he "opposes cronyism." However, all the nasty items on the list of his virtuous disclaimers are economic, while the general complaint concerning his extremely self-serving political take-over attempt includes only as a "later consequence" reaping the "hard won profits" made possible by controlling Congress.

First priority: control the government by controlling elections and candidates [financing the campaigns of the compliant while financing primary contests for all who resist..]. Second priority: shoe horn the government's inability to interfere -- including environmental regulation, "free range" political parties which can't be extorted, regulation of cash driven political influence [Citizens United, McCutcheon, 501C4's, etc.] -- into a a new, unregulated, more profitable business environment.

There are simply not enough alternative definitions of "cronyism" to make Charles' self-righteous position something anyone else could swallow.


Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. [5] 


Pay special attention to the idea expressed as Charles rattles off the justification for his obsessively false elevation of self-reliance: "...destroys value..." This phrase is revisited as a counter concept in the quote cited below: [6] "...creates real value..."

Remember, regardless of his eagerness to cite the principle, Charles has never faced the necessity of self-reliance for a single millisecond since his birth. This is something that "billionaires by inheritance" never do.
While the "raises costs" idea might have traction if it were to ever escape the walls of FOX world in tact, it lacks both of the argumentative elements usually found in a noun and a predicate. Charles names "the system" with which America is saddled as the perpetrator and "millions of citizens" relegated "to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness" as the victims.
MeanMesa agrees, at least a little.  There are millions of victims.  They didn't used to be victims, but after the nation's economy was utterly looted, they became victims.  Thanks to the rapacious machinations of billionaires like Charles Koch, that state may be a perpetual one this time.
Charles' head is still ringing from the last time he read John Galt's hundred page rambling manifesto in Atlas Shrugged.  Dripping, maudlin dramatics are not economic policy.
They are nothing more than narcotic, incendiary manipulations, tragically directed at those lacking the rational capacity to actually consider what they reading or hearing.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way [6]...


This issue of "real value" is a curious one. The distinction between "value which isn't actually real" and the "real stuff" is clearly considered by Charles to hold a very persuasive meaning. Given the constant reference to "lives controlled by government" and "lives lived in liberty" [i.e. lived not controlled by government...], we can presume that the "value reality" question is somehow connected to the origin of the "real value" of things a citizen might access.
If that "origin" can be tracked down to the action of a representative government providing things paid for with the tax money from the citizens, can what's been provided still be considered to have "real value?"  Does the origin of that thing "destroy value" if it has come from the government?
Further, if the collective will of represented citizens is to spend their own tax money to provide something that some or all of them need or want, is there something "unprincipled" about the "way" that was done?
Here, we must remember that Charles got everything he ever got from the same origin -- his inherited billions.  Also, it's not a secret that Charles considers the relation between the "origin" of something that someone gets and the person who gets that something to amount to an issue of "control."  In Charles' model, if someone or something ever "gives" you anything under any circumstances, that someone or something then "controls" you.
MeanMesa suspects that whenever that sort of transaction might occur, Charles would  also consider that "someone had gotten something" in an "unprincipled way."
Randi Rhodes [The Randi Rhodes Show, weekdays 4 PM to 7 PM, AM 1350, KABQ, Albuquerque] offers a very interesting explanation for the awkwardly grotesque hatred the billionaires have for the Affordable Care Act -- an explanation which fits in here nicely.  It is her view that the billionaires are horrified at the possibility of common citizens, that is, citizens without lobbyists,  ever getting the benefits of a tax subsidy -- any tax subsidy for any reason.
This may reveal the "dark heart" of Charles Koch's concept of "an unprincipled way."
Thanks for visiting.