Manuel Klausner, RIP
Manuel Klausner, a co-founder and longtime trustee of Reason Foundation, and former editor and publisher of Reason, has died at 85.
Klausner first became interested in political ideas while an undergraduate at UCLA in the late 1950s. His outlook turned in a classical liberal/libertarian direction when he went to law school at New York University (NYU) in the early 1960s, under the influence of Sylvester Petro, then teaching labor law at NYU.
Petro also introduced Klausner to the ideas of Ludwig von Mises, then giving his famous series of seminars at the university. Klausner attended Mises' seminars and would often ride on the subway with the great Austrian economist and advocate of free markets and classical liberalism, learning more. Klausner also met and was influenced by Mises' student Murray Rothbard during his NYU law school years.
After getting his law degree from NYU, Klausner studied at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark in 1963–64, with support from Ford Foundation and Fulbright grants. There he did his first work with a small political party that he found had decent, if not perfect, classical liberal principles called the Independent Party, which held five seats in parliament at the time. "I used to speak to them, before Denmark decriminalized porn, and talking about why they should favor that and be a basically laissez-faire party opposed to the welfare state," Klausner recalled in a 1999 interview for my 2007 history of the American libertarian movement, Radicals for Capitalism.
On returning to America, he taught at the University of Chicago Law School in 1964–65, where he also did editing work for the early libertarian student magazine New Individualist Review and The Journal of Law and Economics. "Chicago was an exciting place to be because of the quality of faculty, the intellectual atmosphere, and a serious tradition of liberty among people there," Klausner said in that 1999 interview. "It turned out to be an extraordinary experience for me to be part of that community of scholars and the rich intellectual tradition at Chicago, both law and economics and philosophy and history—there were many great scholars there who take liberty seriously." He credited Aaron Director and Ronald Coase as particularly rich influences in his Chicago time.
Klausner began practicing law in the mid-'60s in Los Angeles with Kindel & Anderson, where he worked over the next three decades extensively in cases ranging over business law to constitutional, election, and media law. He grew to enjoy public speaking to spread libertarian ideas. Enthusiasm, Klausner told me, was key to his personality, and key, he believed, to success in any endeavor. By the end of the 1960s he "was doing a lot of speaking, I was very interested in achieving positive social change using the political system and print media, so it was a natural for me."
His enthusiasm for spreading libertarian ideas led to him connecting with a local libertarian philosopher he heard on the radio, Tibor Machan; the two men eventually allied with local engineer Robert Poole and took over Reason in 1971, which had been foundering under its founding editor Lanny Friedlander. Klausner played many roles with the magazine through the 1970s, including editor and publisher, and in 1978 was a co-founder of Reason Foundation, which took on the publishing of Reason, as well as other public policy work pushing libertarian ideas in the real world.
Klausner appreciated California's citizen initiative process and had been active in trying to use that process for libertarian causes, though not all of his efforts ended up on the ballot. He worked to push a very early marijuana legalization initiative in 1972 (that did not make the ballot, though he was ahead of the curve as the state, and many other states, have since legalized marijuana possession and use), as well as efforts to eliminate the sales tax in California. He played a role in California's successful Proposition 209 in 1996, which tried to end discrimination or disparate treatment based on racial classifications in California government.
He was an early supporter of the Libertarian Party, and was the only other candidate running for federal office outside the John Hospers/Tonie Nathan presidential ticket in the Party's first active year, 1972. Klausner ran a unique write-in campaign for Congress in two different districts. His slogan was "the candidate of principle for the thinking person." He chose not to pay a filing fee which would have had his write-in votes counted, so enjoyed saying a "countless number of people voted for me for Congress in 1972." He was proud that Rothbard told him that he, Klausner, was the only politician he knew who became more radical while running for office, when Klausner realized from confronting libertarian audiences that he could no longer defend coercive taxation for any reason.
Klausner founded his own law practice in 1996. He was also the longtime chair of the Libertarian Law Council and of the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group, and a founding director of the Institute for Justice. For the past decades he led Reason Foundation's program providing pro-liberty amicus briefs in important Supreme Court cases. Among his honors were the 1982 Lawyer of the Year Award from the Constitutional Rights Foundation and the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the Lawyer of the Year Award from the Federalist Society's Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter in 2013.
He was also a theater enthusiast, and worked as a producer on various stage shows over the years, including Hadestown and Maybe Happy Ending. His wife Willette Murphy Klausner, who he married in 1969, is herself a longtime producer for film and theater with her WMK Productions.
A generous bon vivant and gourmet, and a man dedicated to the importance of economic thinking, Klausner provided a little anecdote I've been retelling for decades. He was dining with me and some other young Reason staffers, at a time when those staffers were all still in our 20s, if I recall correctly. It was the type of masterful upscale restaurant he doted on and loved exposing people to. He casually informed us before the meal that he'd pick up half the tab. This, of course, made us mindful of the cost of what we were ordering on a menu that had some high-ticket items indeed. At the end of the meal, he quietly picked up the entire tab, teaching an indelibly stylish lesson in both generosity and prudent economic thinking, something that was always Manuel—Manny to his friends—Klausner's way.
Klausner studied tai chi for decades under Nzazi Malonga (Master Zi) at his Dharma Health Institute in Playa Del Rey. When he first heard Klausner propounding his political views, which he always liked to do, Zi says "I thought he was trying to provoke me" but soon realized that though Klausner stood behind his libertarian views, he would happily listen to disputants in any social situation and if they got upset just remain poker-faced and advise them to "read this book by Milton Friedman."
Even if political disagreements threatened to get heated in social situations, such as the many meals Klausner hosted at L.A. restaurants from the most "hoity-toity" to trailers on the side of the road serving burritos (and many people at both types of places would know and love Klausner, Zi recalls), Klausner was happy to just move on to the next course or round after having his say. Zi recalls he could sometimes get Klausner to change his mind on a point—"but only if you came at him with the data."
Beneath Klausner's politics, and central to his personality, Zi found, was "a genuine concern for the well being of other people." Klausner would happily support Zi's business financially through hard times, insisting that, as Zi remembered him saying, "This is the free market. I like your product and support it and support you and this is how the free market works."
"Imagine us together," Zi says, Klausner a man "who grew up in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles," and Zi a refugee "kid from the Congo," and "he became an extension of my family, such a big brother to me. He was a genuinely good man" and "a good man when nobody was looking."
Klausner told me in 1999 that "on my death bed I'll be proud and happy—I'm positive by nature. We have a free country here in that we can accumulate capital and invest in building frameworks to circulate ideas," which Klausner did, successfully and enthusiastically.
The post Manuel Klausner, RIP appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
US Citizens in Qatar Given 'Shelter in Place' Warning
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Embassy in Qatar warned American citizens to "shelter in place until further notice." The embassy said in its alert that it was acting "out of an abundance of caution" but gave no other details. It follows a worldwide security alert issued by the State Department as the conflict with Iran escalates after U.S. strikes on the country's nuclear facilities. "The conflict between Israel and Iran has resulted in disruptions to travel and periodic closure of airspace across the Middle East," the alert said. "There is the potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The Department of State advises U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dan Tully: I trust my fellow service members will abide by the Constitution
Having served as a captain and judge advocate in the Army Reserve, graduated from Stanford Law School and deployed overseas in Iraq, I have thought deeply about military command and the obligations incurred by swearing an oath to the Constitution. These concerns weigh especially heavily as President Donald Trump deploys active-duty military members as a show of force against peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles and potentially here in Chicago. I want my fellow citizens to know something important. I trust the common sense and decency of my fellow American service members. I have served alongside them, some who consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans. I know they understand how grave and serious it would be to use force against their countrymen and countrywomen. Let me explain why. All service members swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Enlisted service members continue swearing to 'obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,' expressly conditioned by, 'according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).' With that condition, the enlisted oath is not absolute; if an order is unlawful, an enlisted service member is responsible not to obey. The obedience language is absent from the officer oath. Instead, officers swear to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.' In short, while all members of the military must act in accordance with the UCMJ, each officer must exercise an even higher level of responsibility, remaining loyal not to a president but to the Constitution. No service member should ever follow a clearly unlawful command, especially when that command is to harm unarmed, peaceful citizens of their own country. It is infuriating that we are even in this situation. Trump doesn't care about members of the military, referring to fallen soldiers as 'suckers' and 'losers' for not escaping their obligations as he did during the Vietnam War. He denigrates the records of patriots such as the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, degrading his war hero status. He has saddled them with an incompetent secretary of defense in Pete Hegseth. Most dangerously, Trump intentionally disregards centuries of the military's most essential tradition of nonpartisanship, eroding American faith in our most trusted institution. What troubles many of us in the military — something I would advise my fellow soldiers and commanders to consider — is the terrifying prospect of an unlawful order coming down from this reckless president. Trump has openly mused about service members using lethal force to control protesters, portraying them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. In fact, it's the opposite: The protesters are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly in support of the 14th Amendment rights of people being kidnapped and deported without due process. To the extent that there have been acts of violence and vandalism in the vicinity of the protests, those acts are unlawful. Police in our cities are fully capable of addressing the situation. Protests — even ones that include civil disobedience — should not be met with violence unless there is no other option available. But this president believes violence against our citizens is an acceptable first choice because he doesn't value the rule of law or, by his own admission, his duty to uphold our Constitution. American military members are trained and proficient at understanding the conditions under which it is lawful to use force in the heat and exercise of war. They are taught to obey the chain of command, especially on a battlefield. Unit cohesion and effectiveness depend on the obedience of orders. But a service member is not a robot, blindly obligated to fulfill a command received from a superior with no application of context or thought. Especially if that command is given outside the theater of war, with no imminent danger to personnel, and even more so when present on the streets of an American city where the people those soldiers swore to defend are petitioning the actions of their government. American soldiers have misused lethal force in the past, and they have faced consequences. Second Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was convicted by court martial of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese in the famous My Lai massacre. He was convicted because the threshold for disobeying an order is, according to the Manual for Military Courts-Martial and case law, 'a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.' With a president so intent on sowing chaos every day, it must be a difficult position for the American troops who have deployed to Los Angeles and are rumored to be on their way to other cities. But Americans stand up to do what's right in difficult moments all the time. We must not forget that there are numerous institutions available to us all to safeguard our rights. Our military, state and federal criminal justice systems are populated with true patriots who believe in the rule of law. This is, ultimately, why I trust that our service members will do the right thing when the time comes. They have been trained well, and they know their obligations to their country. I have sworn an oath to the Constitution three times — as a lawyer, an Army officer and a federal civil servant. The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law of the land. Even if our president won't abide by it, I trust my fellow service members will.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: How could anyone describe Donald Trump's presidency as successful?
Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk stated that a major split among MAGA could 'disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' I do not know what world he lives in. I don't know of anyone who would describe Donald Trump's presidency in those terms. Rather, I see and hear all but the few who are still trying to rally around this divisive, corrupt, inept, lying, felonious, cruel, finger-pointing, bigoted, sloppy man, to name only a few characteristics. I am feeling truly frightened and agitated. He has embarrassed and disappointed us time and again. He has created a nation and, yes, a world, of people who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid but don't realize it. Some of us cling to the thought of righting things again in the future — truly making American values a source of pride and leadership that bring respect and calm to ourselves and each other. Albeit, hope is waning. Projection abounds as some people point fingers and assign blame to others when in reality the blame belongs to those projectors. And they know it. They just dig in their heels hoping our existing president will actually deliver on something, anything, of which to be proud. Supplying Israel with more money and arms ain't it, and under our watch, we contribute to wars and even more division among us. When are the followers going to recognize and admit to having backed the wrong horse?China relishes an Iran with nuclear weapons so they both can intimidate and dominate the Gulf States and the West to allow oil to freely flow to energy-dependent China. The U.S. with Israel's help must forcibly neutralize Iran's Fordo underground nuclear site, thereby removing Iranian intimidation goals and starving China's oil hunger while giving the Iranian opposition courage to accomplish a regime change from within. The world must not be threatened by the duplicitous and diabolical tyrants with nuclear weapons and a ballistic missile voters backed Donald Trump in 2024 because he pledged to put 'America First,' believing he would bring peace through strength to the Middle East. Thus, it's hardly surprising that the incipient conflict with Iran has caused a rift within President Trump's base. Already many of the leading lights of the MAGA movement, both in and out of government, have broken openly with the president. Never before has MAGA looked so close to fragmenting altogether. Iran is not currently in active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which Trump's own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, reaffirmed barely three months ago. As such, the Iranian nuclear 'threat' should be seen for what it is: an almost comically flimsy pretext for military intervention. In this perilous hour, our nation faces two vital questions: Will the perceived threat of a nuclear Iran really push Trump to war? If yes, will the American public go along with it? There are many factors standing in the way of war at this time. For starters, the administration simply has not done the preliminary work needed to build support for it. When the George W. Bush administration decided to test conclusions with Iraq in 2003, it didn't simply announce plans to invade. It took months of convincing Congress and the public of the need for intervention, laying out the case and presenting intelligence and analysis (some of it, admittedly, inaccurate). No such effort is being made with Iran, despite the overwhelmingly negative public reaction. The idea of sending thousands of soldiers into a country of 90 million people on the slim pretext of destroying a (mostly imagined) nuclear weapons program would be a tough sell even under favorable political and strategic conditions. In this particular case — with no clear war aims, no credible casus belli, and none of the preplanning and operational preparation required to mount an invasion — it's unlikely to fly with a war-weary (and war-wary) American public. The political will for such an undertaking simply is not there. Should the Trump administration actually go through with a quixotic invasion effort, the cost in blood and treasure would doubtless drive a permanent wedge within the MAGA movement. The president must decide whether a war of choice is really worth the price of fragmenting both the movement he built and the support base on which he that time President Donald Trump shared highly sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office? You can bet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remembers. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Netanyahu hid their plans for their recent successful military strikes against their adversaries from the U.S. president. Smart cookies. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are 'smart cookies,' according to our kowtowing president. Now all the smart cookies will keep their plans of attack to themselves while our incompetent boobs share sensitive military strike details on Signal chat texts with their family members and a surprised Atlantic reporter. Our president no longer wants the United States to be the world's leader in defending democracy. He's too busy dismantling ours (and golfing).I have worked for 50 years in rural Honduras, getting to know those whom President Donald Trump calls 'animals,' 'rapists' and 'murderers.' I fear that the president does not understand who these people are or why they come to our country. Most would rather stay home among family and friends. They cannot do so because American CEOs and politicians have together created trade policies that impoverished their country. When I started working in Honduras in the 1970s, many rural people grew their own food, especially corn, selling surpluses to buy necessities. They were poor but relatively self-sufficient. There were few signs of malnutrition. In 2004, Honduras signed on to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which promised expanded opportunities to sell Honduran exports in the U.S. Instead, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. government-subsidized agricultural products. Imported crops, including corn, were now cheaper than locally grown equivalents. Unable to compete, farmers lost their lands. The jobs available in multinational factories paid little and were too few to meet the needs of the growing number of displaced people. Currently, 63% of Hondurans live in poverty; 1 in 4 children younger than 5 are malnourished. Unable to feed themselves or find work at home, Hondurans seek employment in the country whose trade policies impoverished them. Traveling north is dangerous. Since 1998, at least 8,000 migrants died on the U.S. southern border; more perished on the journey to that crossing. Those who made it live in the shadows, working low-paid jobs harvesting our crops, landscaping our yards and building our homes. Immigrants who are undocumented also commit crimes at much lower rates than citizens. One powerful reason is that they come here to earn money, most of which is sent home to support their families and keep their children in school. Committing crimes would only draw attention to them, speed their deportation and ruin their families. Some immigrants do commit crimes. The great crime, however, is perpetrated by politicians and business leaders who created a system that greatly advantages corporations over people. That system drives immigrants northward not to cause us harm, but because they have no choice. Blaming these new arrivals for risking all for the families is cruel and media should be focusing on why Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcers are being attacked. Could it be that the majority of Americans don't want inhumane treatment of those who are being apprehended? ICE agents can mistreat those they arrest, but those who interfere with such type of treatment are subject to arrest?U.S. Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' García could not be more wrong in his stance on the remittance tax ('Trump's remittance tax is a cruel double-tax on immigrant's dignity,' June 19). If you earn the money in the United States, it should stay here and benefit our economy and our companies. Without this money, other countries would be forced to do better by their people. We're not talking about a small sum. Remittances to just Mexico were more than $64 billion in 2024. Workers who come here need to come here because they yearn to be Americans, not just for using us as their piggybank. I believe it's one of the primary reasons we have so many immigrants who do not assimilate. They see the U.S. as a temporary fix for their financial troubles and never plan to stay in the first place. The tax should be is in response to the letter from Dick DeForte ('Show soldiers respect,' June 20) in which he takes exception to the Tribune providing front-page coverage of the 'un-American' protesters on June 14 and Section 2 coverage of the Army parade of the same day. I was one of those 'un-American' protesters exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner. I am an Army veteran, and I took great offense to President Donald Trump staging an Army parade that was nothing more than an ego trip for someone who avoided military service and who has nothing but contempt for the political climate encourages extremism, both to the far right and to the far left, and neither functions well in our system of democracy. Our nation was founded on compromise. It took until 1789 to adopt an acceptable compromise solution among the original states and then to build and adopt our Constitution. The only way it got done was through reasonable compromise between reasonable people. Both our far right and our far left today regard their views as the only 'correct' ones for our nation, and they are so different that any compromise is unacceptable to them. This has developed into continuous swings and the attendant turmoil we have today. Neither side is doing any favors for our democracy. What both parties need is moderate leaders and candidates who can work across the aisle and can compromise to come up with reasonable solutions to our issues. Ideally, both sides would experience equal discomfort with any resolution, but the majority of us would find it acceptable. Hopefully, we would also be more stable than today. It's time for moderation. It's time to abandon the idea that your ideas are the only acceptable ones. It's time to recognize the foundation of an effective democracy and begin working together to find reasonable-compromise solutions. Our democracy depends upon my opinion, America was always . Our new directive should be 'Make America .' When you think about the majority of people in the United States as being middle class and lower class, our goal should be to make life for the ones who are part of the growth we've already experienced. This group is the reason why we can produce what we do already. Part of this success has been global trade and immigrants who bring their own talents and personalities to the American table. America is like a mural in which each piece creates a mosaic that is unique in the world. Keeping that mural from disintegrating means affordable housing for all, sustainable wages, and global empathy and compassion, and keeping the world safe through research, communication and environmental security. Everything will fall into place, and all those pieces will become even more beautiful and .
