Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth

Posted 1 year ago on April 26, 2012, 11:10 a.m. EST by GirlFriday (21785)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It began as a fairly straight-forward story about a shareholder lawsuit [1]: The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who together own 50 percent of the libertarian Cato Institute, filed suit to recover a 25 percent stake held by longtime chairman William Niskanen, who died last autumn and whose widow has yet to relinquish those shares. Cato’s shareholder’s agreement is "pretty clear" according to legal writer Alison Frankel [2]: shareholders cannot sell or transfer their shares without first offering them back to the Institute and then to the remaining Cato shareholders. But there’s one legal ambiguity: Cato’s shareholder agreement “doesn’t specifically address what happens when a shareholder dies.” What started as a rather arcane legal dispute between the Koch brothers and their longtime lieutenant, Cato president Ed Crane, quickly transformed into a PR-manufactured Washington melodrama: The famed and revered (in some quarters) Cato Institute has turned against its Dr. Frankenstein, Charles Koch, attacking its maker with the full range of PR-weaponry that has served Cato effectively over these past four decades. The same pundits who only yesterday fell over themselves defending the billionaire Koch brothers as principled libertarians now denounce their benefactors as venal Republican Party warmongers out to crush the Cato Institute’s “nonpartisan” “independent” “scholarship” for the crime of being, yes, principled libertarians. It would all be good for a laugh, if the spin hadn’t succeeded in conning the media and confusing the public, even roping in some well-meaning progressives like Common Cause [3], who defended Cato’s “independence.” But in order for progressives and others to make an honest and practical assessment about the Cato Institute and its battle with the Kochs, we need to first set the record straight about some of the claims being spun. Read way more here

As we suspected, it is all BS.

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17685) 1 year ago

Why should any sane and progressive person give two shits for the Cato Institute or The Koch Brothers, other than in a capacity of opposition and resistance ?!!! Internecine Squabbling and furtive feuding and fisticuffs amongst Rancid, Right-Wing, Randian, Corporatists & Oligarchical Scumbags are really what concern of ours ?!! What do we really need to know about The Cato Institute, other than it was actually inintially established in 1974 as "The Charles Koch Foundation" ?!

Most folk know that 'Libertarian' is code for 'Corporate Laissez-Faire' and Pseudo-Free-Market and Neo-Liberal Economics that is actually anti-human, anti-sustainability, pro 'infinite growth from finite resources' crap. Any of Cato's 'socially liberal' positions are merely a small concession to reason and common sense and a fig leaf for nefarious 'Pro-Big Business & Anti-Human Poison' !!

The Cato Institute ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute ) is what it is : yet another cultic American Corporatist 'Think Tank' feeding "'Corporate Laissez-Faire' and Pseudo-Free-Market and Neo-Liberal Economic" ideas and propagandising for them behind the scenes within the very limited confines of the demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy which unfortunately currently continues to prevail in The U$A !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The light can dawn in eye's that had been blinded to truth.

Anything is possible no matter how improbable.

It is so funny when a creation of the corrupt turns around and bites em.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

This doesn't surprise me, as I've been saying all along that libe(R)tarians, unable to sell their tenets to the public, infested the former Republican party, and sold them on the profitization of everything.

There's nothing good to be said about these people.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Nope.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Just for a bump. Why hasn't our cadre of covert neolibe(R)tarians proffered a comment?

Could it be that are afraid to admit that libe(R)tarians and (R)epelican'ts are one in the same?

That they are the biggest lie in the country?

Just like their beloved Mr. P?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I don't expect much from the anyhoos group.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I expect them to ignore this thread as much as possible.

Lot's of informative, telling info in the link.

They don't like that sort of thing.......................:(

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Of course, it's might fuck with their faux moral superiority.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

That is funny.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Use right.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

You missed one. Please replace "Republican" in the above response with "(R)epelican't."

You're starting to slip...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Republicans are what they once were. Shooz has it right.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

None of the parties are... The democrats of the 1800s and even into the earlier 1900s should probably be referred to as Democ(R)ats, with their preference for limited federal government.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Spoken like a closeted libe(R)tarian, in complete denial.

Step into the light, it won't hurt you.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to reveal my true colors while referencing history.

I'm not sure where the hostility from you of GirlFriday is coming from. I am not making value judgements, saying who is right or who is wrong. My pointing out that through history, the political parties have changed - and even swapped perspectives in some cases - doesn't in any way challenge with whom you affiliate yourselves. Is this in dispute? Are either of you claiming that since the Democratic party was formed almost 200 years ago, that its values have been completely consistent? The same can be said for any party that has been around for a while, times change - people change...but then, I guess that is just the denial of my libe(R)ta(R)ian beliefs speaking.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I am still waiting for you to reveal your true colors.

The Republican party was able to bring a well pointed debate to the table that would often provide the necessary balance. That is over. The Republican Party has been taken over by the extreme Religious Right. Then there is the Tea Party and the Libertarians. This has led to those that push for a theocracy or those that represent corporations. This is why he calls them Republicant's. Can't get shit else done.

So, where did all those old time Republicans go? Many of them became Democrats.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I believe the Republicans went farther right, because the Democrats went farther left. Or maybe it was the other way around... We can debate the chicken and egg another time.

My colors? I don't think I have hidden my beliefs - but if you feel the need to put a label me, find one that matches fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Label-shmabel.

I'm waiting to see what you are going to try to sell me. Waiting for the shoe really.

Although, thus far you strike me as possibly sane.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

All that typing, to not say very much?

OK. Stay in the dark then.

What I know for a fact, is that every time a (R)epelican't became governor of my State, things went backwards rather quickly.

It's happening now.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Please, take a moment and enlighten me. Let me copy and paste my comments from this thread below - and you take a look at them and let me know where I am in the dark. Up to the challenge?

"You missed one. Please replace "Republican" in the above response with "(R)epelican't." You're starting to slip..." "None of the parties are... The democrats of the 1800s and even into the earlier 1900s should probably be referred to as Democ(R)ats, with their preference for limited federal government." "Sorry, I didn't mean to reveal my true colors while referencing history. I'm not sure where the hostility from you of GirlFriday is coming from. I am not making value judgements, saying who is right or who is wrong. My pointing out that through history, the political parties have changed - and even swapped perspectives in some cases - doesn't in any way challenge with whom you affiliate yourselves. Is this in dispute? Are either of you claiming that since the Democratic party was formed almost 200 years ago, that its values have been completely consistent? The same can be said for any party that has been around for a while, times change - people change...but then, I guess that is just the denial of my libe(R)ta(R)ian beliefs speaking." "Its ok. I didn't really expect you to. I was just making a point that over time, all of the parties change and evolve..." "So(R)(R)y, I get dist(R)acted by you(R) obsession with putting (R) into wo(R)ds." "I have now risen to LEGENDARY status. Thanks. But, shouldn't that be legenda(R)y?"

Maybe I'm not the one with concentration problems.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I suppose it's because your "opposition" hasn't proven to be all that friendly.

Mostly just confused and wandering.

As GF asked. Just what are your true colors?

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Nice try. But, you should try to stay more focused on the current discussion. You wouldn't want someone to accuse you of being confused and wandering, now would you?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

You're the one not talking about CATO.

So what are your true colors?

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Red, White and Blue

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

More like chartreuse, mauve and puce.

Honesty would be a bit more friendly.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

That is an odd statement.

What can you say that I have been dishonest about in any of my posts, on any of these threads?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Surprise, my "actual" color isn't red white or blue either.

To be honest, I only scanned the OP. This person died and someone is suing someone else, blah blah blah. I mean who really cares. What do you want me to say, the Koch Brothers are pricks? Ok. The Koch Brothers are pricks. So what?

This whole mess of a thread started because I made a comment about your (R). And it went off in many strange directions from there.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I guess you were confused by the question.

It's not about actual color. It's about your political position.

Now, go ahead and try for a little honesty. Like how do you feel about CATO?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

No. Still not getting it.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Its ok. I didn't really expect you to. I was just making a point that over time, all of the parties change and evolve...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I understood you perfectly. You are still not getting it.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Not slipping at all, there actually used to be a Republican party.

I'm not slipping, you need to pay more attention.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

So(R)(R)y, I get dist(R)acted by you(R) obsession with putting (R) into wo(R)ds.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Your inability to concentrate is legendary anyway.

It show's in your posts.........................:)

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I have now risen to LEGENDARY status. Thanks. But, shouldn't that be legenda(R)y?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

No. That's your "choice".

Be careful. "Choice" is a many edged sword and few of them are in your best interest.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Then my "choice" (not sure why you put it in quotes) is to be LEGENDARY!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

OK, just be wary of becoming notorious.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 1 year ago

the Koch brothers are Corporatists and loathe Ron Paul who is an Austrian school of economics supporter. I wish the masses would understand the difference. One is pretending and reigning in free market supporters, while the other is based on Nobel Peace prize winner in economics Friedrich Hayeks work and that of Ludwig Von Mises.....

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Sorry. They fund Mr. P too. He just doesn't admit it.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

The Koch have their ways. It's rarely done directly, when they want to appear separated.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Fuck the Austrian school of economics. Fuck the Koch brothers. Fuck Ron Paul.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

so the kotch's want to capture controlling interest of Cato

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Why capture something that they already had control of? Poor Cato.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

It makes for good PR, since their aim is to legitimatize the party they founded, own and operate.

Their ability do this is about to hit critical mass.

Be afraid

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Honestly, Shooz, FUCK 'EM.

They can go experience Libertopia someplace else. They can pack it up and GTFO.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I've asked them. I've begged them I've pleaded with them.

To go "right" ahead and found their beloved gulch.

I want to see them all get together and self destruct, and leave us the hell out of it.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I'm waiting to see how many of them decide to jump on those floating ocean cities. Not enough of them want to go. Pity. They want all of the benefits and comforts of home and none of the responsibilities.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

The ROI ain't lookin' good....:)

Besides, They'd have to pay the maids $2,500 an hour, as they have proven themselves unable to clean up after themselves.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Not looking good from here.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I like DKAs analogy too!...................:)

Let's keep kickin' that ALEC and CATO anthill!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thank you - I just thought it fit so well all of this furious running around. It makes me so happy to see that the fortresses of the corrupt are under attack - "and" they are fighting with themselves as well.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Keep an eye on them, as that "fight" is likely nothing more than a PR stunt.

Illusion, is their bread and butter, and they're good at it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You ARE CORRECT Sir. Yes this is not a stupid game being played by children in a sand box. Do not drop your guard. And obviously we do not stop what we are doing as it is working. Instead take heart and rededicate to the cause. We move forward - Together.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Amen!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good morning. Yes the fight and the opponent gets clearer every day. The mask is torn on the face of the corrupt manipulators and they are acting like an ant hill that has been kicked over - lots of furious activity trying to rebuild their structure. I love to see it. Why? Some might ask. As they are so visible in their activity as they rush around.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Hey, DKA, Ant hill is a great analogy.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thank you. Always nice to hear that my struggling synapses managed to get out another relevant thought. {:-])

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

We like your thoughts. :D

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are a kind and loving person. Thanks for being here.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

thought they only had 50%