Koch Bros. vs. Libertarians (Cato takeover?)

[Synthaholic]

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

That's the kind of thing I would expect out of the mouth of the mindless teabaggers who stormed town hall meetings in 2010: know-nothings who make statements like "keep your government hands off my Medicare".

I think Cato has done good work on behalf of their mission, over the years. I don't usually agree with them, but they have always seemed more honest and sincere than a tank like Heritage, who is just an arm of the RNC these days.

 

[Listening]

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

That is saying quite a lot.

First, you must have a poll of libertarians. I'd like to see it.

Next, you'll need to make the case it is a special interest group.

And who decided what GOOD ONES do/don't do/put faith in/don't put faith in ?

The D.C. statement while tempting, would need to be vetted on a singular level. That of Cato itself. What do you have that shows they should not be trusted ?

Just asking.

 

[Listening]

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

That's the kind of thing I would expect out of the mouth of the mindless teabaggers who stormed town hall meetings in 2010: know-nothings who make statements like "keep your government hands off my Medicare".

I think Cato has done good work on behalf of their mission, over the years. I don't usually agree with them, but they have always seemed more honest and sincere than a tank like Heritage, who is just an arm of the RNC these days.

I would agree that their postions tend to be rather dispassionate.

They certainly come from a particular point of view, but you know that going in.

 

[Paulie]

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

That is saying quite a lot.

First, you must have a poll of libertarians. I'd like to see it.

Next, you'll need to make the case it is a special interest group.

And who decided what GOOD ONES do/don't do/put faith in/don't put faith in ?

The D.C. statement while tempting, would need to be vetted on a singular level. That of Cato itself. What do you have that shows they should not be trusted ?

Just asking.

My reasoning is admittedly anecdotal and not scientific, but there are just some things that I go with my gut on. When it comes to DC, my gut says don't trust anything. I don't see Cato as the same kind of special interest group as AARP for instance, but they're a group nonetheless and as a libertarian I don't like groups. I don't like the LP either. Groups lead to herd mentality and groupthink, and they become extremely vulnerable to being co-opted, like the tea party movement did. The LP nominated Bob fucking Barr in 2008, what does that tell you about their ability to actually be libertarians? As for the Tea party, what started out as a great idea and a great start towards fiscal change, led to the same old social conservative bullshit where somehow Rick Santorum is considered a tea party favorite

 

[Synthaholic]

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

That is saying quite a lot.

First, you must have a poll of libertarians. I'd like to see it.

Next, you'll need to make the case it is a special interest group.

And who decided what GOOD ONES do/don't do/put faith in/don't put faith in ?

The D.C. statement while tempting, would need to be vetted on a singular level. That of Cato itself. What do you have that shows they should not be trusted ?

Just asking.

My reasoning is admittedly anecdotal and not scientific, but there are just some things that I go with my gut on. When it comes to DC, my gut says don't trust anything. I don't see Cato as the same kind of special interest group as AARP for instance, but they're a group nonetheless and as a libertarian I don't like groups. I don't like the LP either. Groups lead to herd mentality and groupthink, and they become extremely vulnerable to being co-opted, like the tea party movement did. The LP nominated Bob fucking Barr in 2008, what does that tell you about their ability to actually be libertarians? As for the Tea party, what started out as a great idea and a great start towards fiscal change, led to the same old social conservative bullshit where somehow Rick Santorum is considered a tea party favorite

So if millions and millions voted for Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or whomever the Libertarian flavor of the year is, you would not vote for that person because that person is now favored by a group? That doesn't make sense.

But you are correct about the co-opting of the Earl Greys. But I feel that half of that was due to Koch/Armey/Rove doing what they do, i.e. astroturfing, and half of that was the general ignorance of the teabaggers themselves. They were totally willing to be co-opted by the first person who came along and yelled "gummint BAD! Obama BAD!". You don't see anyone on the far Left getting suckered like that, so easily.

 

[Paulie]

That is saying quite a lot.

First, you must have a poll of libertarians. I'd like to see it.

Next, you'll need to make the case it is a special interest group.

And who decided what GOOD ONES do/don't do/put faith in/don't put faith in ?

The D.C. statement while tempting, would need to be vetted on a singular level. That of Cato itself. What do you have that shows they should not be trusted ?

Just asking.

My reasoning is admittedly anecdotal and not scientific, but there are just some things that I go with my gut on. When it comes to DC, my gut says don't trust anything. I don't see Cato as the same kind of special interest group as AARP for instance, but they're a group nonetheless and as a libertarian I don't like groups. I don't like the LP either. Groups lead to herd mentality and groupthink, and they become extremely vulnerable to being co-opted, like the tea party movement did. The LP nominated Bob fucking Barr in 2008, what does that tell you about their ability to actually be libertarians? As for the Tea party, what started out as a great idea and a great start towards fiscal change, led to the same old social conservative bullshit where somehow Rick Santorum is considered a tea party favorite

So if millions and millions voted for Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or whomever the Libertarian flavor of the year is, you would not vote for that person because that person is now favored by a group? That doesn't make sense.

But you are correct about the co-opting of the Earl Greys. But I feel that half of that was due to Koch/Armey/Rove doing what they do, i.e. astroturfing, and half of that was the general ignorance of the teabaggers themselves. They were totally willing to be co-opted by the first person who came along and yelled "gummint BAD! Obama BAD!". You don't see anyone on the far Left getting suckered like that, so easily.

The millions voting for Ron Paul are not being guided by groupthink and herd mentality. We're interested in the fact that there's one politician who seems to be different than all the rest and we're going to vote for him no matter what. Not because everyone else is, or because the media is guiding us, but because we believe in him and the message.

I'm not voting for Johnson, even though I do like almost all of his platform. If I somehow were to though, it wouldn't be because he's the LP candidate. In fact I'd prefer he wasn't. I don't identify with a party, although I'm a registered republican. I am because it's the only way I can vote for the kind of libertarian leaning conservatives that I like that run in my local and state primaries.

 

[Synthaholic]

My reasoning is admittedly anecdotal and not scientific, but there are just some things that I go with my gut on. When it comes to DC, my gut says don't trust anything. I don't see Cato as the same kind of special interest group as AARP for instance, but they're a group nonetheless and as a libertarian I don't like groups. I don't like the LP either. Groups lead to herd mentality and groupthink, and they become extremely vulnerable to being co-opted, like the tea party movement did. The LP nominated Bob fucking Barr in 2008, what does that tell you about their ability to actually be libertarians? As for the Tea party, what started out as a great idea and a great start towards fiscal change, led to the same old social conservative bullshit where somehow Rick Santorum is considered a tea party favorite

So if millions and millions voted for Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or whomever the Libertarian flavor of the year is, you would not vote for that person because that person is now favored by a group? That doesn't make sense.

But you are correct about the co-opting of the Earl Greys. But I feel that half of that was due to Koch/Armey/Rove doing what they do, i.e. astroturfing, and half of that was the general ignorance of the teabaggers themselves. They were totally willing to be co-opted by the first person who came along and yelled "gummint BAD! Obama BAD!". You don't see anyone on the far Left getting suckered like that, so easily.

The millions voting for Ron Paul are not being guided by groupthink and herd mentality. We're interested in the fact that there's one politician who seems to be different than all the rest and we're going to vote for him no matter what. Not because everyone else is, or because the media is guiding us, but because we believe in him and the message.

I'm not voting for Johnson, even though I do like almost all of his platform. If I somehow were to though, it wouldn't be because he's the LP candidate. In fact I'd prefer he wasn't. I don't identify with a party, although I'm a registered republican. I am because it's the only way I can vote for the kind of libertarian leaning conservatives that I like that run in my local and state primaries.

Why are positions that Democrats believe in as a group, or positions that Republicans believe in as a group considered 'groupthink', but all the people following Paul who want to end the Fed, etc. not engaging in groupthink? I seriously doubt that all of Paul's fans came to their conclusion about the Fed on their lonesome. They listened to him, found him persuasive, and signed on to his complaints about the Fed. What's the dif?