3 ms·

To be fair, their "About" page says as much: "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — or think tank — that creates a presence for and prom

To be fair, their "About" page says as much: "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — or think tank — that creates a presence for and promotes libertarian ideas in policy debates. Our mission is to originate, disseminate, and advance solutions based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace."

wredue 3y ago
Imagine being alive in 2024 and still not understanding that “Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace” Can demonstrably not all coexist. If we were pre-internet, pre global information exchange with excessively easy ways to tell if a source is good or bad, understandable. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. At this point, this is malicious.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Whenever there are multiple metrics, it is true that it is impossible to fully maximize all of them at once. But it is not true that it is not possible to value all of them. These are not "binaries" that either can/cannot coexist together. They are a suite of priorities that must, at some frontier, be traded-off. However, it is also possible to not be at the pareto fronteir, and if one is not, then it is possible to increase all at once. I'm certainly of the opinion that we are not at the frontier for these and that all of them have room for improvement that does not necessarily sacrifice the others. But if we were, I (and almost certainly CATO) would be capable of making a decision as to which of the priorities was more important in a given situation and trading off against the others. You are arguing against a straw man. Your claim that these priorities are all fully incompatible with each other, is, in my opinion, much hotter of a take and less well supported than the idea that anyone could have a reasonable preference for the combination.
  - wredue 3y ago
    I am not the one arguing that, the libertarians (Cato) are. I fully acknowledge that these ideals must play some semblance of a role in creating laws where reasonable, with the possible exception of a “free market”, but that’s only because even regulated markets are horrible, evil institutions, so letting it be even more free is fundamentally idiotic. You can call it a “strawman” all you like. Grafton demonstrates that it’s not a strawman at all. Libertarians actually believe this, and they actually argue that the issue is that grafton wasn’t libertarian enough (narrator: that wasn’t the problem).
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      I can't tell if you are arguing that there are literally no situations where one or more of these can be improved without sacrificing the others or if you think that libertarians and/or CATO believe that it is possible to fully maximize all of them at once. I also can't decide which claim I think is the more ridiculous.
      - wredue 3y ago
        Right-libertarians believe in the absolute minimalist of government and otherwise everything is free from interference. They believe this even to the point of believing that basic services, such as garbage collection, should be eradicated and completely privatized, stupidly believing that the “market will take care of it”. Right-libertarians have unquestioning faith in the belief that “the market and competition will handle (it)”. This belief is held despite the literal millennium of evidence that states this is false, and every single attempt at such failing miserably. Left-libertarians believe in strong personal freedom and somewhat strong regulatory bodies on the market. I don’t know why you don’t believe that this is what libertarians believe, as it’s what libertarians themselves claim to believe (despite their being easily trapped to state things counter to their own beliefs).
        MostlyStable 3y ago
        I'm not really interested in getting into an argument about what amorphous groups believe since it's basically impossible to decide and we are both going to be basing it on our own personal experiences and definitions of who belongs in tha group (although if you think that "all" libertarians agree on literally anything, I can only imagine you haven't actually talked to very many). But the CATO institute is a particular organization with relatively consistent views. If you can point to it clearly and plainly espousing the views you are talking about, I will be surprised.
        wredue 3y ago
        >cato is relatively consistent. The article you are currently commenting on is a demonstration of their inconsistent views and they were only a few days ago complaining about the exact opposite issue. Libertarianism has no consistency. It cannot be consistent by definition because libertarian pillars cannot be reconciled. Left libertarianism is a bit better, but even the individual pillars on their own are irreconcilable. Free market cannot be reconciled with itself. Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with itself.
ajross 3y ago
Sure sure, to be clear: I know exactly what Cato is and does, and what to expect. And I even agree with a lot of it. But I also know that Cato at least pretents to be high brow and considered, they certainly aren't Heritage. Which is why I was so disappointed to see that throwaway spin in there seemingly blaming the covid pandemic on the Jones Act shipping regulation. That's just bad form.

wredue 3y ago

Imagine being alive in 2024 and still not understanding that “Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace” Can demonstrably not all coexist. If we were pre-internet, pre global information exchange with excessively easy ways to tell if a source is good or bad, understandable. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. At this point, this is malicious.

MostlyStable 3y ago
Whenever there are multiple metrics, it is true that it is impossible to fully maximize all of them at once. But it is not true that it is not possible to value all of them. These are not "binaries" that either can/cannot coexist together. They are a suite of priorities that must, at some frontier, be traded-off. However, it is also possible to not be at the pareto fronteir, and if one is not, then it is possible to increase all at once. I'm certainly of the opinion that we are not at the frontier for these and that all of them have room for improvement that does not necessarily sacrifice the others. But if we were, I (and almost certainly CATO) would be capable of making a decision as to which of the priorities was more important in a given situation and trading off against the others. You are arguing against a straw man. Your claim that these priorities are all fully incompatible with each other, is, in my opinion, much hotter of a take and less well supported than the idea that anyone could have a reasonable preference for the combination.
- wredue 3y ago
  I am not the one arguing that, the libertarians (Cato) are. I fully acknowledge that these ideals must play some semblance of a role in creating laws where reasonable, with the possible exception of a “free market”, but that’s only because even regulated markets are horrible, evil institutions, so letting it be even more free is fundamentally idiotic. You can call it a “strawman” all you like. Grafton demonstrates that it’s not a strawman at all. Libertarians actually believe this, and they actually argue that the issue is that grafton wasn’t libertarian enough (narrator: that wasn’t the problem).
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    I can't tell if you are arguing that there are literally no situations where one or more of these can be improved without sacrificing the others or if you think that libertarians and/or CATO believe that it is possible to fully maximize all of them at once. I also can't decide which claim I think is the more ridiculous.
    - wredue 3y ago
      Right-libertarians believe in the absolute minimalist of government and otherwise everything is free from interference. They believe this even to the point of believing that basic services, such as garbage collection, should be eradicated and completely privatized, stupidly believing that the “market will take care of it”. Right-libertarians have unquestioning faith in the belief that “the market and competition will handle (it)”. This belief is held despite the literal millennium of evidence that states this is false, and every single attempt at such failing miserably. Left-libertarians believe in strong personal freedom and somewhat strong regulatory bodies on the market. I don’t know why you don’t believe that this is what libertarians believe, as it’s what libertarians themselves claim to believe (despite their being easily trapped to state things counter to their own beliefs).
      - MostlyStable 3y ago
        I'm not really interested in getting into an argument about what amorphous groups believe since it's basically impossible to decide and we are both going to be basing it on our own personal experiences and definitions of who belongs in tha group (although if you think that "all" libertarians agree on literally anything, I can only imagine you haven't actually talked to very many). But the CATO institute is a particular organization with relatively consistent views. If you can point to it clearly and plainly espousing the views you are talking about, I will be surprised.
        wredue 3y ago
        >cato is relatively consistent. The article you are currently commenting on is a demonstration of their inconsistent views and they were only a few days ago complaining about the exact opposite issue. Libertarianism has no consistency. It cannot be consistent by definition because libertarian pillars cannot be reconciled. Left libertarianism is a bit better, but even the individual pillars on their own are irreconcilable. Free market cannot be reconciled with itself. Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with itself.

ajross 3y ago

Sure sure, to be clear: I know exactly what Cato is and does, and what to expect. And I even agree with a lot of it. But I also know that Cato at least pretents to be high brow and considered, they certainly aren't Heritage. Which is why I was so disappointed to see that throwaway spin in there seemingly blaming the covid pandemic on the Jones Act shipping regulation. That's just bad form.