3 ms·

Where far right actually means libertarian. Saying Cato is a "Koch Bros. group" makes it sound like a corporate subsidiary; it was founded by Charles Koch (and

by dfc 14y ago

Where far right actually means libertarian. Saying Cato is a "Koch Bros. group" makes it sound like a corporate subsidiary; it was founded by Charles Koch (and two others). I do not always agree--in fact I rarely agree--with the Cato Institute but I think they deserve a little more credit than your comment. If you think your ideology is superior to the Cato Institute you should be eating this stuff up. Instead of ad hominems you should respond with intellectual vigor and lay down the gauntlet...

Karunamon 14y ago
>Where far right actually means libertarian. That's an increasingly muddy line nowadays. For instance, the US Tea Party platform is very very close, except the tea party trends socially conservative. (The pejorative is that the TP types are fine with small government, until it comes to gays or medicare) The "smaller government, lower taxes" bit is something we've all heard. But, fair enough, I was perhaps hasty in calling them far right - I'd edit or kill my OP if I still could. There's still nothing fallacious about pointing out who backs a group, however. Group X which has ties to Y, given Z, even if Z is proven by every bit of valid and reviewed data out there, it's still valid and worth knowing that X has ties to Y. Not all bias is malicious or even willful.
- othermaciej 14y ago
  Julian Sanchez, the author of this particular piece, threatened to quit the Cato Institute if the Koch brothers took control: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a-presignation-letter/ http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a... So yes, it is completely 100% fallacious to try to associate his piece with them and imply that this has any bearing on its worthiness.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Regardless of who the author is, the post is made on a Cato website (and Cato is founded by Koch), with their branding on all sides. It's a little disingenous to suggest that this piece was posted without approval.

by dfc 14y ago

Karunamon 14y ago

>Where far right actually means libertarian. That's an increasingly muddy line nowadays. For instance, the US Tea Party platform is very very close, except the tea party trends socially conservative. (The pejorative is that the TP types are fine with small government, until it comes to gays or medicare) The "smaller government, lower taxes" bit is something we've all heard. But, fair enough, I was perhaps hasty in calling them far right - I'd edit or kill my OP if I still could. There's still nothing fallacious about pointing out who backs a group, however. Group X which has ties to Y, given Z, even if Z is proven by every bit of valid and reviewed data out there, it's still valid and worth knowing that X has ties to Y. Not all bias is malicious or even willful.

othermaciej 14y ago
Julian Sanchez, the author of this particular piece, threatened to quit the Cato Institute if the Koch brothers took control: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a-presignation-letter/ http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a... So yes, it is completely 100% fallacious to try to associate his piece with them and imply that this has any bearing on its worthiness.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Regardless of who the author is, the post is made on a Cato website (and Cato is founded by Koch), with their branding on all sides. It's a little disingenous to suggest that this piece was posted without approval.