Comment by logjam | Hacker News Reader

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by logjam | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Oh my. Two minutes of web search:

http://www.accuracy.org/article.php?articleId=51

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/12/matthew-yglesias/poli...

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/cato-hypocrisy.html

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=325

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.498/pub_detail.asp

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/catoinstitute.pdf

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1409

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/CATORIB.PDF

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/...

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/01/im_friends_with....

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf200512...

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vdh56a00

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-fonte050902.as...

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

http://web.archive.org/web/20011122034255/http://www.tnea.or...

http://www.pkarchive.org/global/swedenomics.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/EG12Dk01.html

Trying to pretend that Cato in practice is anything but a shill for big business (including, in particular, the fucking tobacco industry) and the greedy is moronic.

Their defense of the tobacco industry has always been centered around the rights of the individual. Just because Phillip Morris pays a few dollars to keep the institute running does not mean Cato's arguments are unfounded. All think tanks have financial backing from some faction or another, and (surprise!) it's usually the people who agree with the think tank's point of view.

Just because a think tank accepts money does not make their arguments wrong. As an individual, it's up to you to research both sides and decide on which makes the more compelling case.

"Just because Phillip Morris pays a few dollars to keep the institute running does not mean Cato's arguments are unfounded."

lol

"As an individual, it's up to you to research both sides and decide on which makes the more compelling case."

Yup. If you don't give equal time to paid shills you're not being Fair and Balanced.

What source is not a paid shill? Everybody has to pay the bills. Sure there are organizations that don't pay or pay very little, but they don't get the best and the brightest and they can't spend money to keep their people informed.

How does opposing the automotive bailout and the financial bailout constitute being a shill for big business? I'd say it's quite the opposite!

The right is inherently anti-union (hence not supporting automakers in this case) and pro-corporate. And all of Cato's positions about "personal responsibility" vs. government regulation (of tobacco, or oil, or whomever else pays them) is obviously a tactic to influence public opinion against regulation under the guise of being pro-individual. It's total bullshit. They're about as libertarian as my left nut.

What would an actual libertarian position be? How would it be argued? What regulation (and what bailout(s)) would it favor?

Do you think people should be allowed to smoke? Should they be allowed to eat Doritos? Should they be allowed to skydive?

Do I think people should be able to have a burning stick in their mouth that increases their risk of getting cancer (which will drive my insurance costs up as well, potentially) and even more so to people who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in an enclosed area with them (e.g. waiter/waitress in a non-smoke-free resturant/club)? No, not at all. If governments didn't make so much money off the cigarette taxes, I'm sure they would be illegal by now.

Eat Doritos? Until they're shown to be poisonous or something, sure.

Skydive? Sure, just not over houses or heavily populated areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com