I'll agree with you that if all one read was Ms. MacLean's closing and the essay written by your esteemed colleague Mr. Cowen, one might wonder how she could jump to the conclusions she makes.

Mr. Cowen's essay is rather dry, discussing different instances when a series of events led to economic end results he finds preferable. But then that's the problem. Libertarian free market theory can sound so innocuous.

You criticize Ms. MacLean for quoting out of context, but later admit that you haven't read the whole book. (Have you read it yet?) What you missed is that she sets the stage for her conclusions and makes the case that this kind of economic theory is destructive and undemocratic.

But I'm not sure you are defending Mr. Cowen. I think, perhaps, you're defending yourself. You state, without irony, that you worked for the Mercatus Center for 9 years and that it receives funding from the Kochs.

Additionally, you're now research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, which if not directly funded by the Koch's is funded by likes of the Scaife Foundation and the Bradley Foundation, who are frequently part of the Koch donor network.

(A better book on this subject, Dark Money by Jane Mayer, outlines the oversized influence of the Koch donor network in supporting think tanks where you have worked.)

But let's get back to your defense of Buchanan-Friedman-Hayek economics. You speak of the tyranny of the majority and you say;

"They wanted power to be less concentrated so that no one’s hands are decisive in how we live our lives. They want more bottom-up and less top-down control. They want decisions made by the many and not by the few."

That statement would be laughable, except that free market libertarians believe it. Government represents the many, not the few. It protects the environment, ensures worker safety, and collects taxes to pay for the infrastructure of enterprise.

What we have instead is the tyranny of the minority via the out sized influence of a very few wealthy individuals propped up by think tanks like the Mercatus Center and dubious political non-profits advocating for unbridled self-interest masquerading as 'economic liberty.'

What is always missing in this libertarian view point is how wealth impacts liberty for the vast majority of us. Do you think, for a minute, a person who makes $50,000 has the same rights as someone who makes $5,000,000? Can they afford the same quality legal defense? Hell no. To quote Sister Helen Prejean: "Those in poverty ride a greased rail to death row."

No, libertarian ideology has indeed rolled back American institutions for the benefit of the tiniest minority aided and assisted by people who work for the various think tanks and organizations that Charles Koch and his network fund.

In closing, Mr. Cowen might be a nice guy and you might be too. Except what you argue for through policy isn't nice at all. No matter how polite your theory is, it threatens the liberty of the vast majority of people for the unfettered profit of the very few.

So, your objections are noted and rejected.