To the contrary:

They criticize Paul Ryan and current ACA proposals: https://mises.org/blog/ryancare-failing-%E2%80%94-what-shoul...

Criticize Trump for problematic policies: https://mises.org/blog/donald-trumps-whig-showing

Criticize Rockefeller and are generally anti-war: https://mises.org/library/rockefeller-morgan-and-war

Critical of the CIA historically and today: https://mises.org/blog/when-cia-partied-lsd-taxpayers-dime

and these are just articles published in the last two weeks.

In general, Mises is pro individual liberty, pro-immigration, anti-war, and generally critical of both the Left and the Right. I fail to see how they are "ultra-conservative".

Besides. This comment is just an ad-hominem and fails to address that actual argument of the article.

They are critical of the Right because they believe the Right isn't "right" enough.

>I fail to see how they are "ultra-conservative".

Well let's go through it then, from your first link:

>Yet we can’t be blind to the realities of modern politics — Washington is dominated by progressive ideology in both parties.

Following that link, we get some real beauties.

>•Progressives overwhelmingly control both major political parties in the US;

>•Progressives control the federal judiciary, along with all federal departments and agencies;

>•Major corporations, both global and domestic, are run by progressives. Their boards are progressives. Their corporate branding and messaging is progressive;

>•Wall Street is progressive;

>Of course progressivism virtually always means left progressivism. While there are right-wing progressives (neoconservatives) with grandiose ideas about government and human nature, most of them came from and will comfortably return to the Left when it suits them.

>Let’s be clear about supposed conservatives like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, & company: they're all progressives. Sheldon Adelson, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are progressive.

>Every realistic, potential, or actual threat to liberty in the western world today results directly from progressives policies.

This took me all of two clicks. Let's not pretend the Mises institute is something it's not.

It's interesting that you use the term "fair warning," which may dissuade someone from reading the article and coming to their own conclusions. As someone who values hearing the perspectives of all sides, I find it useful to hear pro-market arguments in something like health care. It helps me challenge my assumptions, especially since health care does seem to be increasingly costly and complex...as the amount of government oversight increases every year.

I don't interpret "fair warning" as meaning "this person is a wrongthinker, stay away!" I interpret it as "you may find this article interesting, but be aware that its source is outside the mainstream and maybe even outside the Overton window."

I guess we just have a difference in interpretations of the term. My recent (admittedly amateur) interest in behavioral economics and persuasion leads me to believe that even sophisticated people are susceptible to the effects of framing. If you prime someone to read something with a bias towards skepticism, they will either avoid it due to confirmation bias, or potentially read it differently than they would have without the prime. That may not even be your intent, but in reality it happens. And as for "outside the mainstream" - whose mainstream or Overton window? My "mainstream" actually takes Mises very seriously. It sounds like yours does not. I suppose under a broad definition, a warning could be warranted for nearly every article depending on the audience.

I read that as simply a warning about potential bias. If anything, I find that being on the lookout for potential bias actually helps be come to my own conclusions.

Very possible. But a warning about potential bias may induce an (un?)intended bias of its own!

Hearing the perspectives of all sides is only useful when they're honest. Any article which talks about Nixon's effects on healthcare and laws passed in 1972 and 1974 but skips right over the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 is not being honest.

The article never claimed to provide an exhaustive list of all healthcare related laws and their affects. In exactly what way does omitting that law weaken their argument?

I don't expect an exhaustive list, but saying that Nixon's laws in 72 and 74 made our current state of healthcare while ignoring the 73 law is a glaring omission. Considering it allowed the rise of for-profit HMOs I would expect a decent article to at least address/dismiss the concern that maybe this law is part of the reason our prices have gone up so much.

The Mises Institute eschews the term "think tank" and does not lobby for any government policy. Its founders purposefully put its headquarters far away from Washington DC because they did not want to be viewed as a lobbying organization or a "think tank". They view their mission as an educational organization, and offer tons of ebooks, audio and video lectures free of cost on their website. Whether you agree or disagree with some of the positions espoused, that's another issue.

In summary, rather than going for the ad hominem, debate the actual arguments made in the article.