Shared publicly  - 
What is libertarianism? David Boaz suggests "it is the presumption of liberty in human affairs," arguing that libertarians broadly hold the view that "it is the exercise of power, not the exercise of freedom, that requires justification."
John Walker's profile photoJay Weixelbaum's profile photoLevi Ramsey's profile photoAdam W's profile photo
I'm reading "Libertarianism: A Primer" right now and it's a phenomenal book.  I previously read Michael Tanner's "Leviathan on the Right" and loved it. I have 2 more Cato books on the way and joined as a sponsor today. I can't thank Cato enough for the articles, videos, and audio podcasts.

I'm also listening to the Cato home study course which I would recommend to everyone. 
Nice try, but Cato has maintained their independent nonpartisan status.
That's a non statement that tells people who don't know about Cato nothing about it's internal workings, or the powerful individuals and the corporate interests they represent. 
And that's a lie that tells people you disagree with their policies but can't debate them on their merit so you must resort to FUD.
Can't talk sense to a conspiracy theorist. Not hiding, but shouldn't you be looking out for the black helicopters?
You're basically just making blanket denials. You realize that, right, John?
It's simple really: There are three questions anyone who cares to listen to what Cato says should ask -

Who are the Koch brothers?
What corporations do they represent?
How might this affect Cato's policy proscriptions?
There's no conspiracy. The Koch brothers just fought a legal battle to maintain their influence on Cato's board.
+John Walker Reverting to strawmen already? You can call me a conspiracy theorist or any other name you want. Your fallacious arguments only further reveal your desire to cover up the facts.
And it's that 3rd one that's the most important.  It doesn't affect their policy papers. That why they fought to keep the Kochs influence out and won.

They wouldn't let the Kochs influence them even if they had complete control of the board. What they were worried about would be the appearance of influence.  But people like you that have an agenda will push the lies anyway. SO go ahead.
You don't understand how the board works and apparently you don't want to. The board has always been hands off and Cato fought to keep it that way.  If the Kochs had influence then Cato wouldn't disagree with their positions so much.

I see enough wannabe Michael Moore around. Don't need to waste time with another. Have a nice day.
You just admitted the Koch brothers fought a legal battle to maintain control of the board. What does that tell you about the organization's past?

You're hiding again.
Also, that's strawman number two. More evidence you can't back up your assertions without utilizing logical fallacies.
So many questions...

Response: Whiny name calling. "You're Michael Moore! Nyaeh Nyeah!"
Add a comment...