At one time the CATO institute actually provided intellectually honest analyses from a consistent Libertarian perspective. At some point back in the early 90s they started being a sound-bite factory for TEAM Republican and stopped producing anything of value as Libertarians. Now the Koch brothers are asserting their ownership and the entire anthill is stirred up with contradictory reasons they should not be allowed to exercise control over their own property.
Should anyone care?
The Koch brothers never cared about principled Libertarianism anyway. They just wanted more of that sweet sweet welfare for the rich that BushCo was pouring out on them.
http://volokh.com/2012/03/08/koch-v-cat ... nt-1404480
yrs,
rubato
The CATO inst., brain-dead for a decade, now the body rots ?
Re: The CATO inst., brain-dead for a decade, now the body ro
rubato wrote:
Should anyone care?
yrs,
rubato
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: The CATO inst., brain-dead for a decade, now the body ro
Slightly off-topic ....
I was always a fan of Cato.
I was always a fan of Cato.
Bah!
Re: The CATO inst., brain-dead for a decade, now the body ro
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/03/t ... rians.html
___________________________
The Righward Drift of American Libertarians
Roger at Crooked Timber:
I’m a little sympathetic to Sanchez, myself. Rights is one thing, integrity is another – to ask that Koch respect the integrity of a think tank that represents a belief system he obviously doesn’t have doesn’t strike me a contradictory.
On the other hand, let’s face it, when you compare the libertarian party platform of 1972, or of 1980 (Eugene McCarthy addressed the libertarian convention in 1979), you can see the distance that the libertarians have travelled. It hasn’t been a good thing. On issue after issue they’ve retreated or caved in pursuit of a constituency that has taken them over. Libertarians used to make the case for abolishing the government monopoly given to doctors to prescribe drugs – and now they make the case against the free use of malpractice suits to whack doctors. Regulating suing is like the end of libertarianism. And then there were the glibertarian groups that endorsed Bush’s war on terror.
I don’t find it ironic so much as sad. I think there are a lot of libertarian ideas from 1972 are still fresh – like dejailing America. The libertarians of 1972 didn’t think that the Warren court went far enough in curtailing police power. For instance, back in 1972, the libertarians believed that if the state prosecuted you for some crime and you were declared innocent, the state should pay you damages – contrast that with libertarians now. Ask them whether they think OJ Simpson, for instance, should have collected damages from the state. They’d be astonished at the very idea…
Koch’s takeover is shameful, but then again, Cato has been shameful for decades.
One key question that I don't have an answer to is whether the money of the Kochtopus has on the whole been good for or bad for libertarian thought. It has, I think, clearly been bad for America--the John Birch Society is really bad news. But on the narrow question about whether it has been good for Libertaria is one on whih I am still on the fence...
______________________________________
yrs,
rubato
___________________________
The Righward Drift of American Libertarians
Roger at Crooked Timber:
I’m a little sympathetic to Sanchez, myself. Rights is one thing, integrity is another – to ask that Koch respect the integrity of a think tank that represents a belief system he obviously doesn’t have doesn’t strike me a contradictory.
On the other hand, let’s face it, when you compare the libertarian party platform of 1972, or of 1980 (Eugene McCarthy addressed the libertarian convention in 1979), you can see the distance that the libertarians have travelled. It hasn’t been a good thing. On issue after issue they’ve retreated or caved in pursuit of a constituency that has taken them over. Libertarians used to make the case for abolishing the government monopoly given to doctors to prescribe drugs – and now they make the case against the free use of malpractice suits to whack doctors. Regulating suing is like the end of libertarianism. And then there were the glibertarian groups that endorsed Bush’s war on terror.
I don’t find it ironic so much as sad. I think there are a lot of libertarian ideas from 1972 are still fresh – like dejailing America. The libertarians of 1972 didn’t think that the Warren court went far enough in curtailing police power. For instance, back in 1972, the libertarians believed that if the state prosecuted you for some crime and you were declared innocent, the state should pay you damages – contrast that with libertarians now. Ask them whether they think OJ Simpson, for instance, should have collected damages from the state. They’d be astonished at the very idea…
Koch’s takeover is shameful, but then again, Cato has been shameful for decades.
One key question that I don't have an answer to is whether the money of the Kochtopus has on the whole been good for or bad for libertarian thought. It has, I think, clearly been bad for America--the John Birch Society is really bad news. But on the narrow question about whether it has been good for Libertaria is one on whih I am still on the fence...
______________________________________
yrs,
rubato