Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you misunderstood Kevin's post. He's saying that NON-libertarians see Cato as the most respected libertarian think tank. REAL libertarians recognize that it's just another establishment tool to manipulate the libertarian cause.
I think you misunderstood Kevin's post. He's saying that NON-libertarians see Cato as the most respected libertarian think tank. REAL libertarians recognize that it's just another establishment tool to manipulate the libertarian cause.
Cato has mainstream appeal and respect. There are fringe elements in the Libertarian movement that fear legitimacy, since they realize that they are whackjobs and mainstream success means they will be relegated to the back of the bus.
Cato and American Thinker have done more to advance the cause of Libertarian thought and acceptance than any other groups I know of.
You might not agree, but I'd say Ron Paul and the movement that has grown around him did WAY more than any of those think tanks could ever claim.
You might not agree, but I'd say Ron Paul and the movement that has grown around him did WAY more than any of those think tanks could ever claim.
You're right, I don't agree.
I think Ron Paul followers severely damage the cause of Libertarianism. Until the Nazis and other unsavory elements are eliminated from the Paul flock, the Libertarian name will be soiled by their presence.
You might not agree, but I'd say Ron Paul and the movement that has grown around him did WAY more than any of those think tanks could ever claim.
You're right, I don't agree.
I think Ron Paul followers severely damage the cause of Libertarianism. Until the Nazis and other unsavory elements are eliminated from the Paul flock, the Libertarian name will be soiled by their presence.
It's not Ron Paul AT ALL that's been the reason for the mass awakening.
I read a Ron Paul article back in 2004 that started to get me thinking; however, CATO was a website that really helped me to dig into the meat and bones of libertarian issues.You might not agree, but I'd say Ron Paul and the movement that has grown around him did WAY more than any of those think tanks could ever claim.
You're right, I don't agree.
I think Ron Paul followers severely damage the cause of Libertarianism. Until the Nazis and other unsavory elements are eliminated from the Paul flock, the Libertarian name will be soiled by their presence.
Yeah, you're right. Cato definitely can claim WAY more of the new libertarians in the 18-30 age range...because these kids are all logging onto Cato.org just TRYING to find out why they've always had this feeling in them that they oppose authoritarianism but JUST can't put their fingers on it
There's bad elements to all political ideologies. Racists, rednecks, bible thumpers that only care about social wedge issues...they all inhabit the republican party and the conservative base, and yet somehow that ideology and that party remain viable and strong.
I read a Ron Paul article back in 2004 that started to get me thinking; however, CATO was a website that really helped me to dig into the meat and bones of libertarian issues.You're right, I don't agree.
I think Ron Paul followers severely damage the cause of Libertarianism. Until the Nazis and other unsavory elements are eliminated from the Paul flock, the Libertarian name will be soiled by their presence.
Yeah, you're right. Cato definitely can claim WAY more of the new libertarians in the 18-30 age range...because these kids are all logging onto Cato.org just TRYING to find out why they've always had this feeling in them that they oppose authoritarianism but JUST can't put their fingers on it
There's bad elements to all political ideologies. Racists, rednecks, bible thumpers that only care about social wedge issues...they all inhabit the republican party and the conservative base, and yet somehow that ideology and that party remain viable and strong.
Do they have their faults? Sure they do. But overall, are they a top-notch institution?! You bet they are!
When you're 2 or 3 years old, and your parents start showing you basic phonics cards and basic words, that's the beginning of your path to reading. But you can't stop at phonics cards and basic words. You have to start reading actual books too if you want to actually read and nurture your brain.I read a Ron Paul article back in 2004 that started to get me thinking; however, CATO was a website that really helped me to dig into the meat and bones of libertarian issues.Yeah, you're right. Cato definitely can claim WAY more of the new libertarians in the 18-30 age range...because these kids are all logging onto Cato.org just TRYING to find out why they've always had this feeling in them that they oppose authoritarianism but JUST can't put their fingers on it
There's bad elements to all political ideologies. Racists, rednecks, bible thumpers that only care about social wedge issues...they all inhabit the republican party and the conservative base, and yet somehow that ideology and that party remain viable and strong.
Do they have their faults? Sure they do. But overall, are they a top-notch institution?! You bet they are!
What came first, chicken or egg?
What came first for you, Paul or Cato?
When you're 2 or 3 years old, and your parents start showing you basic phonics cards and basic words, that's the beginning of your path to reading. But you can't stop at phonics cards and basic words. You have to start reading actual books too if you want to actually read and nurture your brain.I read a Ron Paul article back in 2004 that started to get me thinking; however, CATO was a website that really helped me to dig into the meat and bones of libertarian issues.
Do they have their faults? Sure they do. But overall, are they a top-notch institution?! You bet they are!
What came first, chicken or egg?
What came first for you, Paul or Cato?
So, in comparison, the Ron Paul article was the phonics cards and basic words, but CATO was picking up a book.
Well, actually, the Ron Paul paper got me thinking on the anti-war stuff. The first time I read CATO was to read an economics article.When you're 2 or 3 years old, and your parents start showing you basic phonics cards and basic words, that's the beginning of your path to reading. But you can't stop at phonics cards and basic words. You have to start reading actual books too if you want to actually read and nurture your brain.What came first, chicken or egg?
What came first for you, Paul or Cato?
So, in comparison, the Ron Paul article was the phonics cards and basic words, but CATO was picking up a book.
My point is, Ron Paul is what got you reading Cato to begin with.
Well, actually, the Ron Paul paper got me thinking on the anti-war stuff. The first time I read CATO was to read an economics article.When you're 2 or 3 years old, and your parents start showing you basic phonics cards and basic words, that's the beginning of your path to reading. But you can't stop at phonics cards and basic words. You have to start reading actual books too if you want to actually read and nurture your brain.
So, in comparison, the Ron Paul article was the phonics cards and basic words, but CATO was picking up a book.
My point is, Ron Paul is what got you reading Cato to begin with.
But it's all libertarianism in the end, just different issues.
There's been plenty of anti-war literature over the course of time. The reason Paul's got you interested is because it's DIFFERENT. It's not just "no war because war is just bad and people die". It's comprehensive on exactly why foolish war mongering is bad policy. It ain't exactly code pink.
The Kochs don't even fund 10% of CATO. It's like a drop in a bucket.I find it interesting how some Libertarians are upset about this but don't see a problem when the Koch Brothers are doing their thing in Wisconsin among other places. Also fairly interesting is how unaware many of them were about the Koch Brothers involvement in CATO already.
Also, while I suppose Paul may be the closest thing to a Libertarian in the GOP left, he's more of a Paleoconservative.
There's been plenty of anti-war literature over the course of time. The reason Paul's got you interested is because it's DIFFERENT. It's not just "no war because war is just bad and people die". It's comprehensive on exactly why foolish war mongering is bad policy. It ain't exactly code pink.
It's not like what Paul has been advocating for is radically new. In fact, it's the exact opposite.
There's idiots in every party, racists, jerks, whatever.
Frankly, politically I'd rather side with a racist or nutjob if the end result is less gov't for everyone. The 2 parties we currently have, and how they operate, to me is as nutty and insane as the human mind can think up.
The Kochs don't even fund 10% of CATO. It's like a drop in a bucket.
There's idiots in every party, racists, jerks, whatever.
Problem is, the Nazis are either more than half of Paul's supporters, or have been allowed to coopt the entire thing.
Frankly, politically I'd rather side with a racist or nutjob if the end result is less gov't for everyone. The 2 parties we currently have, and how they operate, to me is as nutty and insane as the human mind can think up.
Maybe, but IF we want to ever get more than 1% of the population to support us, the Nazi's and Anarchists have to be subdued. The Libertarian party does a lot to purge Nazis, the Paul camp does nothing, even seems to encourage them.
Right, and what we want to prevent is FURTHER Koch ownership. We don't want the CATO Institute to go the way of the Tea Party, which is to become a GOP 2.0.The Kochs don't even fund 10% of CATO. It's like a drop in a bucket.
You do understand that Charles and David Koch each own 25% of the CATO Institute, correct?
Right, and what we want to prevent is FURTHER Koch ownership. We don't want the CATO Institute to go the way of the Tea Party, which is to become a GOP 2.0.
