3 ms·

And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-interest-no-

by webXL 16y ago

And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-interest-no-bid-deals-opens-new-lobby-shop http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere... What's your point?

spenrose 16y ago
My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.
- webXL 16y ago
  How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?
  - spenrose 16y ago
    "Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.
    - webXL 16y ago
      "Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power" So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you site me an example where they haven't been? What supernatural power do you have to know the true motives of the Kochs and Cato? Just because their interests are aligned with AT&T's in this instance do not mean they work for AT&T. But I'm pretty confident if Net Neutrality wins, AT&T will still win. They have so many protections (laws and sympathetic politicians) in the government that they can only lose if the government loses power. The consumer and citizen who has benefited so much from an unregulated Internet will suffer with more regulation. Big companies don't mind regulation, because compliance and lobbying are so much more costly for their smaller competitors, mostly due to economies of scale.
      - spenrose 16y ago
        Evaluating regulations by count is like evaluating software by lines of code. Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-commons/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-...
        webXL 16y ago
        So Kochs = Cato, now? I think they have more than two people: http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html And if you're going to make a wild accusation like Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language, please use a little more brain power than just posting a link to someone else's stretch that not buying into man-made climate catastrophe means you don't care about property rights as a whole.

by webXL 16y ago

spenrose 16y ago

My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.

webXL 16y ago
How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?
- spenrose 16y ago
  "Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.
  - webXL 16y ago
    "Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power" So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you site me an example where they haven't been? What supernatural power do you have to know the true motives of the Kochs and Cato? Just because their interests are aligned with AT&T's in this instance do not mean they work for AT&T. But I'm pretty confident if Net Neutrality wins, AT&T will still win. They have so many protections (laws and sympathetic politicians) in the government that they can only lose if the government loses power. The consumer and citizen who has benefited so much from an unregulated Internet will suffer with more regulation. Big companies don't mind regulation, because compliance and lobbying are so much more costly for their smaller competitors, mostly due to economies of scale.
    - spenrose 16y ago
      Evaluating regulations by count is like evaluating software by lines of code. Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-commons/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-...
      - webXL 16y ago
        So Kochs = Cato, now? I think they have more than two people: http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html And if you're going to make a wild accusation like Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language, please use a little more brain power than just posting a link to someone else's stretch that not buying into man-made climate catastrophe means you don't care about property rights as a whole.