Exploring Koch-Funded Podcasts: Directly or Indirectly Funded

  • The Reason Roundtable

    NPR Politics Podcast Logo

    Every Monday, the libertarian editors of the magazine of “free minds and free markets”—Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Peter Suderman—discuss and debate the week’s biggest stories and what fresh hell awaits us all.

  • The Rubin Report

    The Rubin Ropert Podcast Logo

    Dave Rubin is a bestselling author, comedian, and TV personality, known for his political commentary. He hosts The Rubin Report, a top talk show focused on politics, culture, and current events. The show is fan-funded, with viewers playing a key role in supporting its message of freedom and open dialogue.

  • Going Big

    The Going Big Podcast Logo

    Going Big! is a top-ranked podcast hosted by Kevin Gentry, focusing on transforming marketing and fundraising. Each episode features influential business and nonprofit leaders discussing strategies for driving impactful results. The podcast offers valuable insights for leaders and changemakers aiming to make a positive difference in organizations and communities.

  • U.S. Taxpayer-Funded Podcasts (As of June 2025)

    The production of podcasts has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $8.5 million since early 2020, according to a report by the government watchdog OpenTheBooks.

    Through a combination of grants and other funding, the federal government provided a total of $8,535,556 to produce podcasts between February 2020 and September 2023. The overarching projects responsible for the podcasts received a staggering $323 million over the same time period.

    The National Desk: US Taxpayers Have Funded $8.5 Million in Podcasts Since 2020



    Tolerating the Misguided: An Inoculation Against Villainy: Defending Odysee

    According to The Guardian, the platform Odysee issued guidance to moderators stating that “a Nazi who makes videos about the superiority of the white race” would not, in itself, be grounds for removal from the platform. I "MoribundMurdoch" agree with Odysee’s stance, particularly because the notion of white superiority is non-threatening—it’s both foolish and easily refuted. While racism and ideas of racial superiority may have posed greater challenges when people first began to intermingle, once the absurdity of discriminating based on immutable characteristics becomes evident, such beliefs inevitably shatter like glass. Tolerating even misguided ideologies, like those espoused by neo-Nazis, aligns with the core principle of a free speech platform. The benefits of such a platform are significant—when extreme voices engage with more reasonable individuals, there’s a potential for redemption. Conversely, if we retreat in fear from vice and evil, many will remain unchallenged and unprepared, leaving large swaths of people vulnerable to these very ideas and vices.
    The primary challenge for a free speech platform is that its early adopters tend to be more extreme voices—those with fringe opinions, such as hardcore socialists, libertarians, mentally ill people with poor impulse control, individuals banned from mainstream platforms, fascists, etc.—rather than mainstream liberals or conservatives. In this early internet age, people are highly brand-conscious, and guilt by association has grown especially potent, particularly in today’s zeitgeist of left-leaning liberalism, where a cancel culture for controversial speech has become commonplace.


    Normal Person Leaving the Free Speech Platform: Link To A Blog Post About A Normal Person Leaving The Platform

    Article That Inspired This Blog Post 



    A Reaction to Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules for Life Tour - Melbourne, Australia." YouTube Video            

    Jordan Peterson seems a bit monomaniacal in regards to this hierarchy/nature over nurture vibe to his argumentation. I Sydney Barbour am in the opposing camp to this "vibe".  I prefer a non-positional mindset [An insouciant attitude towards the rat race, especially when someone has gratitude for things regardless of how they may benefit from them in regard to the pecking order.]. I suppose my position comes out of constructivism, social constructivism, nurture over nature/nurture over the hereditarian arguments, and radical fluid identity theory [which posits that many of the putative unchangeable characteristics, such as race or gender,will become irrefutably protean in the future given we reach the point where it's technologically possible to do things like switch genders or race more easily & or in a (more) irrefutable manner. Supposed unchangeable characteristics would become patently changeable & analogous to the clothes one chooses to wear or the colour of hair one chooses to have.]. 

    I do like his grow the pie vibes & his opposition to cherry-picking the 1% that would conveniently leave out the middle class of highly developed countries as opposed to the significantly less well-to-do countries.I dig him calling out some hypocrisy of them phony statisticians -- dude. 


    The Murdochian Political Ideology [Attempt II]

    1. A person who substantially agrees with Murdoch Maxwell

    2. Murdoch Maxwell advocated for a voluntary society in which groups and individuals maintain and develop their culture or interests whilst maintaining a pluralist attitude valuing philoxenia (a love of strangers). Their philoxenia & their pluralist attitude are valued by each of the societies, despite them being apart of various schools of thought because they all consider the possibility that the other society is more correct. Each of these societies evinces a willingness to update their theories as more evidence becomes available. These voluntary societies treat their ideas like code where there are willing to update to new versions, fork into separate versions experimenting with different ideas, and are willing to boot up older iterations with the knowledge they obtained with newer iterations.

    Not Murdoch: "Dude your Murdochian ideology sounds a lot like GitHub."
    Murdoch: "Yeah, it's totally GitHub dude."

    The GitHub Political Party

    Advocates for a government where policy is managed via a respiratory hosting service that governs voluntarily via subscription plans. The GitHub Political Party would put in place a open-source government that stores revisions of projects for ideologies and policies. 
    In practice the Github party would advocate for a voluntary society in which groups and individuals maintain and develop their culture or interests whilst maintaining a pluralist attitude valuing philoxenia (a love of strangers). Their philoxenia & their pluralist attitude are valued by each of the societies, despite them being apart of various schools of thought because they all consider the possibility that the other society is more correct. Each of these societies evinces a willingness to update their theories as more evidence becomes available. These voluntary societies treat their ideas like code where there are willing to update to new versions, fork into separate versions experimenting with different ideas, and are willing to boot up older iterations with the knowledge they obtained with newer iterations.
    Within these voluntary societies people will be able to vote with their feet or dollar ;in lieu of, diluted votes associated with regular democracy. 

    Reimagining Socialism: A Governmental Framework for the Future

    Isn't the iterations of socialism that are emerging these days making socialism look bad? In contemporary discussions, socialism is often associated with excessive centralization, bureaucracy, and regulations that only seem to necessitate even more regulations.

    The Flaws of Current Socialism

    We're stuck with electoral market-socialist policies that undermine our markets. This socialistic system should not be tied to any nation-state; rather, socialism should be seen as a governmental system of the future—one suited for a land of decentralization, where smart contracts replace lawyers, and scarcity becomes a thing of the past.

    Unfortunately, socialism does not appear to benefit any modern nation-state system. If only socialists had an anarchic agorist movement instead of adhering to revisionist Marxist and reformist ideologies. This would allow them to experiment with various iterations of their "ideology in process" rather than releasing substandard policies that result in higher living costs, which in turn make a minimum wage seem necessary—a policy that often exacerbates the problem.

    The Impact of Current Policies

    The versions of socialism being introduced lately are substandard and lead to inflation year after year, enriching the wealthy while diminishing social mobility. This creates a situation where individuals must become stock speculators or seek alternative currencies to escape their national currencies. Such issues contribute to the socialists’ poor track record, often linked to flawed Keynesian economics.

    A New Approach to Governance

    Perhaps we should treat these socialists like governnauts—a term derived from "govern" and "naut," where "naut" is a suffix meaning "sailor" or "explorer." Thus, governnauts are explorers of new forms of governance. We should support their exploration through voluntary crowdsourcing, unlike the current non-voluntary democratic socialism that feigns consent through incomplete democracy. Socialists should consider relocating to a seastead or similar environment, where they can develop their ideology more voluntarily and allow individuals the right to secede from such systems.

    Embracing Austrian Economics

    While socialists explore these new ideas, if we must continue with nation-state systems, I propose that Austrian economists take charge. Their approach can help mitigate the negative aspects associated with crony capitalism, including revisionist Marxism, market socialism, mercantilism, and protectionism. We should strive to increase the popularity of Austrian economics.

    Redefining Government and Business

    Governments should be treated like companies competing for customers, while companies ought to act as though they exist for the public interest, with more explicit philanthropic goals. Ideally, governments would adopt a voluntary subscription model, incentivizing individuals to contribute to others' welfare and thus avoid the pitfalls of involuntary socialism.


    Written By: Levi Mulder (a forked personality of Murdoch’s with a Republican political bias)

    Author's Note: Murdoch will write under the influence of various political characters, including Elliot McCreary (anarcho-syndicalist), Sydney Barbour (voluntaryist), Jody Hewitt (socialist/democrat/market socialist/democratic socialist), and Carson Malley (environmentalist), among others.


    Do Libertarians eschew most partisan traps?

    Is the US Libertarian party the only political party with staunch supporters who are aptly ready to call out the party when it does something dumb? Republicans & Democrats seldom seem to be able to call out their party.
    As of late, I've seen the Democrats who have this Micheal Sandal guy willing to say that the Democrats haven't put up a decent candidate to oppose Trump in 2020, but a lot of Democrats say that and sort of religiously endorse Biden anywho.
    Aside - ROFL the presidential race is between these two old, out of touch, Keynesians. 
    Aside 2 - To be honest the Democrats had some ludicrous presidential nominees this year too like some new-age mystic lady [See: DnD]. 
    Continuation - Yet, for this 2020 election, the Democrats had a promising rising star (a sort of Keynesian superhero) Andrew Yang who seemed willing to call out the democratic party for their bosh – for while at least. Sadly methinks he's given way to pragmatism; because of the putative Trump threat. Along with every other Democratic nominee, Andrew Yang endorsed Biden #Disapointing. Which in my mind twas somewhat sketch that all the Democratic nominees were willing to endorse someone like Biden. Someone with a lousy track record on immigration (very harsh), drugs (war on drugs leader), and worst of all a Keynesian.
    In regards to the Republicans and their people who would be willing to call out their party for its humbug. Would prolly be this Justin Amash guy who calls out the poor incentive structure within the US government all the time [See: Justin Amash on "Yang Speaks" juxtapositing how laws get passed in the statehouse versus how laws get passed in congress]. 
    Plus, these Republicans have this Rand Paul guy who calls out the dumb nature of making it super impossible for most of the congress-people to have time to read the bills & whatnot. With the result of such having it so only the party leaders supposedly know what's in the bills. These main congress folk ends up whipping the rest of their partisan side into voting whichever way their part leaders, please.
    Finally, upon reflection, this Libertarian party is seemingly chockful of these highly individualized people – who (to be honest) are a bit too oppositional to everything. There was one VP candidate who stripped on stage apparently – I'd say that's very oppositional to societies tacit norms. I say the US's Libertarian party may have a superfluity of these disputatious folk. Yet the confounding variable to this situation may be the fact that tis a small 3rd party which draws the highly ideologically motivated or attention-seeking wacky-folk to run as candidates. Also, to that, I hear the Libertarian presidential race is pretty open and easy to join in comparison to the other parties – so that may give way to less established to join the race.
    In regards, to calling out political parties for doing dumb stuff. Methinks the Libertarian party shouldn't have picked Spike Cohen as it's 2020 VP pick –albeit I do understand that a podcaster may be good for marketing. I'd prefer to put up a qualified front for a presidential race. With Jo Jorgensen as the presidential pick (something which I approved of wholeheartedly) and Judge Jim Gray as the VP pick. – Murdoch Harris's 2020 Self Who is Leaning Libertarian & Interested In Ricardian Socialism & Anarchic Marxism Whatever Those Are Iteration

    Should Capitalists act like Socialists?

    If capitalists act like socialists within a free-market system couldn't we have the putative benefits of socialism without the bureaucracy, rules, mandates, superfluity of laws, and whatever else I'm not thinking of right now? My hopes with this "capitalists act like socialists" idea is that capitalists should knock socialists out of the park with their altruism. Charity should be top of mind for capitalists. Capitalists should popularise charities to the point where governments have no reason to expand nor for much of the involuntary situations to occur.
    Aside P.S. Does anybody here know how to get into Liberty for North Korea or to volunteer for them. How does one check if a charity organization is legitimate?

    A Home For All The Ideologies? A Pan-ideological Utopia.

    As a Jreg fan, methinks political ideologies should become tribe thingos that people could visit. It would be cool if all the ideologies could thrive. With the only rules being that everybody has the right to migrate/opt-out of an ideologies city/village/whatever. 

    In the case that the ideology draws in masochists who feign to hate being tortured by the ideology most of the time. Should still have the right to migrate if they believed that the tortured outweighed the pleasure they got out of their masochistic whatnot.

    Libertarians could live in their Seasteads, Marxists could live in their phalansteries, Republicans could live in their McMansions, Democrats could live in their public housing, etcetera. 

    People could raise capital in their secure job in a Marxist state and then move over to a Libertarian state for their investments. 

    I believe these ideologies should have within their social contracts that they cannot vote outside their ideology; albeit, the way their ideologies are implemented would be protean. Thence the vote for policy would be more of an inconsequential thingo. In this system of pan-ideological utopia where people's vote is more nonessential than it otherwise would be; people's main tool for evincing their policy preferences would be to go where they're treated best. 

    Commenting on a Point From: "Richard D. Wolff Lecture on Worker Coops: Theory and Practice of 21st Century Socialism" [See: 18:12 of Video]

    "I don't think there is such a thing as a sensible capitalist who would dislike socialism if it was voluntary. Whether voluntary through the private sector or voluntary via the public sector, but with people having the option to opt out without penalty." Maxwell Murdoch from the Moribund Institute 



    Raw RSS Feed

    WearYourDictionary

    Total Pageviews