Talk:Cato Institute

Gay Bars Edit War
I think there is some merit to discussing what the gay bars reference has to do with the content. It seems arbitrary, even as an attempt at snark?--Barryjon (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty funny, I'd keep it. Zero (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your reply earlier. What makes it funny?  Is it just a "haha that's so gay" or is there some in joke that I am missing?  Is haha that's so gay really good enough to qualify as snark?  I have no problem with the rest being rolled back but this is one point that I think is valid. Unless I am missing something (more than possible).--Barryjon (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a little more looking on Cato. Apparently they're more Pro-Gay than I thought (as typically rightish think tanks can be bundled with similar viewpoints). The joke seems to be falling flat now. Now if Cato was anti-gay, then a reasonable joke could be construed into "They're anti-gay, but why did they move in between two gay bars?" Support for either explanation or removal from me. Zero (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree (obv).--Barryjon (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

fuck you
Okay, so by the logic of the dumbass korea comment, those who thought the Iraq war wasn't a good idea apparently support denying human rights to Iraqis? And conservatives using the "human rights" malarkey to justify invasion (in addition to other things) is well known. Do the good people at rationalwiki now support a second korean war? Burkean (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think we are? The Cato institute? Also, try being more coherent in your talking points since your sentences are very hard to read. Zero (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think this is, a school lesson on punctuation? Again, are we to say that those who opposed Iraq were by default in favor of denying rights to Iraqi citizens? Total strawman right? Thought so. And since they're criticizing Cato for saying another Korean war would be a bad idea, does the (LOL) rational community think another Korean war might be a good idea? Basically, rationalwiki is so obsessed with criticizing libertarians that they now attack their stance on foreign policy from the right and using the dishonest neo-conservative rhetoric of "human rights". Pssshh. Ridiculous NSA behavior that makes the patriot act look like mickey mouse, libya, stupid ideas about mali and syria, Afghanistan now America's third longest war (I'm counting the war on drugs and poverty as number one and two, which aren't really stellar achievements), people jumping for joy for the "arab spring" (as if Iraq wasn't destabilizing enough), now we apparently have to go half way around the world to save hostages in nigeria when people have been murdered by the hundreds of thousands in places like the Sudan and "Mugabwe". Makes a whole lotta fuckin' sense. But hey, with closing guantanamo and not targeting civilians and not using drones, Obama the humanitarian, just wants to "help those kids". And hey, Putin's a fascist and world war III is just around the corner, apparently. What do you expect from an administration whose secretary of state compared israel to a a group of white nationalists who faught with the nazis in world war 2? But this isn't the real issue. The real crazies are those libertarians for saying one Korean war (tens of thousands of US servicemen and god knows how many Koreans) was enough. What's next? Rationalwiki going to try to make the case that libertarians supported the right of North Vietnam to invade the south? Because after all, if you opposed the Vietnam war, that means you defend the Viet Cong's right to terrorize their neighbors. If the bullshit assertion works for Korea, why not? Burkean (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you jump from "opposes US involvement in NK/SK conflict" straight to "opposes another Korean war"? One includes the other, but the scale of the statement is different (subsets within a superset). There are other means of involvement other than the military, you know. Maybe I'm missing something here. Nullahnung (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are many degrees of intervention. What seems so pathetic to me is this is the same argument used by the pro war right. People who opposed intervention were "appeasers" or "fellow travelers" or "fascist" or whatever. But now, because of their irrational hatred for libertarians, the rationalwikians employ the same tactic. Incidentally, we have a history of smaller interventions being a debacle too. Sure, you don't have to have direct military intervention. But as many have pointed out before, foreign aid doesn't really help a country build up the institutions it needs to be healthy and prosperous and many of the glorius UN make poverty history type programs merely reward the corrupt governments. Direct charity through private donors is better than ineffecient transfers which deal with corrupt government, but it still doesn't go to the root of the problem. Prominent thinkers from Africa such as George Ayittey and Dambisa Moyo have said much the same thing. Call me crazy, but I think they have a better idea of what's going on where they grew up than, say, Bono and the international cadre of make poverty history. And in any case, the article wasn't even referencing that kind of aid. It was talking about intervening in a potential conflict between north and south. People learning about self-ownership, allowing to keep what they earn and being free to trade with neighbors; that has what's at least had some sucess in Africa. Not socialism, not pan-African nationalism and not international welfare. In other words, property rights and individual rights and fighting for it themselves is the key. People being freed by others doesn't have a particularly good track record, either. The point about what Africa needs (more rights, less UN boondoggles and grandiose projects which benefit central governments) kind of goes to the ridiculous nonsense on rationalwiki about how Somalia is supposedly the ideal libertarian society. Massive amounts of force? People taking from the desperate and depriving them of their lives? Yeah, that's what Rothbard was all about. Rationalwiki always criticizes libertarians (usually on pretty dubious grounds) and yet they're so fundamentally dishonest. Burkean (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Check the differences, Nullahnung -Burkean should calm down, but yeah, "Supports the right of North Korea to invade the South" sounds like bullshit to me, too. Teenage Wasteland changed it already, and I agree with the change (not that my opinion carries any weight!).--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

He may have "changed" it but the change just resulted in a statement which is even more idiotic. We already know that liberals have expressed the rather dubious view that talk of welfare queens by Reagan was somehow just code speech for wanting to go back to jim crow. We can have a disagreement on that, but the idea that this issue is comparable is ridiculous. The national security state using taxpayer money to support a foreign government is the true welfare queen. That was Bandow's point. You also failed to mention Bandow, in other articles, citing centrist and left leaning foreign policy experts who say an attack by the US is much more of a concern then a Northern invasion. Maybe this teenage wasteland is just a wasted teenager. North Korea is a belaguered nation utterly crippled by its totalitarian system.

The idea that american money and american power should be used to help support a nation when we've done so much of it to devastating effect makes no sense. Money used would obviously go to resources that would intensify and exacerbate the situation. It's a much safer idea to encourage giving among our citizens to those who might be in need (if it can even get through). What's more, North Korea can't even feed its own people, let alone mount a full frontal attack against the south. The idea that it poses a genuine national security threat is laughable. South Korea is one of the most propserous nations on earth and can fund its own military. I suppose teenage wasteland thinks that all the bases and troops we have around the world make sense too. Sounds like teenage wasteland is a general fighting the last war (they never die, just fade away...unfortunately). Of course, all of this was thought to be true by many a liberal...until the day before yesterday when they found out they could use it to bash libertarians. Acting like we should shell out millions maintaining bases that originate from an unjust war we fought over half a century ago? Yeah, rationalwiki went there. Burkean (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That latest diff was by Osaka Sun, btw, not TeenageWasteland. The insults were inappropriate. Nullahnung (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering the kind of irresponsible garbage that was being thrown around about "oh, he went there" when Doug Bandow was trying to point out how irresponsible south korea is being with their own security, and how the military industrial complex being their sugar daddy just makes it worse, the insults were very much warranted. He provided detailed information about the senselessness of the Japan situation, and how this funding we have going actually ends up helping the North Korean state. This is a position that liberals, who are sick of the trouble making and waste from such things, should fully embrace. These are the true welfare queens. Rationalwiki treating like it was some loaded crazy statement is actually worse and more idiotic than the original posting. I'm not surprised Osaka Sun had a hand in this; borderline psychotic. Banned me for pointing out something that conservatives ignore, that other conservatives like mormons practice "deviant behavior" just like liberals do. Instead of saying "good point", ban. Then when I said libertarians and true conservatives were not supporting the idea of helping radical muslim groups in the syrian conflict, banned. I'm sick and tired of rationalwiki writing lies and caricatures about genuine arguments made by thoughtful people, then insulting me, then they say "I don't appreciate the insults". Grow the fuck up. If people want to play rough, expect the same. You're not a fucking child. Burkean (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is you're treating RationalWiki as one person, when it is really many different people with different opinions. I, for example, prefer to not discuss this issue because I don't have an opinion yet. TeenageWasteland wrote pretty much just that the Cato Institute opposes intervention, which it looks like you agree with, so you were wrong to insult him/her. Then Osaka Sun changed the article to include something about Welfare Queens, so actually your insults should have been intended for Osaka Sun, not TeenageWasteland. Check the damn revision history to know who you're trying to address!
 * (Also, I should probably stay out of this, since I have no opinion.) Nullahnung (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a very short memory. BEFORE it said welfare queens, it claimed cato defended the right of the north to invade the south in korea. Who said what is irrelevant at this point, because many if not most most people DO agree on most everything here, with a broad left consensus. The idea that ANY other vantage point is allowed to have any sway is a joke. According to someone one here, the ORIGINAL idiotic statement was CHANGED by teenage wasteland, but perhaps not written by teenage wasteland. My mistake. I don't think it's as important as the ridiculous bullshit about korea; but golly gee, thanks for pointing it out. Burkean (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "How this funding we have going actually ends up helping the North Korean state." Osaka Sun (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article by Doug Bandow which was cited in your idiotic statement, showed repeated examples of south korea using money given to it by the US for the purpose of essentially bribing the North Korean government, instead of for their defense. I'm sure the quote is meant to demonstrate my "idiocy", but just remember, I'm not the one who cited an article showcasing south korea's irresponsible behavior, and then decided to flip a tit because someone rightly referred to the whole defense department mess with south korea as a true welfare queen situation. You're a fucking moron. Burkean (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault Bandow used a loaded term -I've altered the cite to accurately reflect the (attention-seeking) title. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's a false equivocation here. The debacle of the South Korea situation is way more important. And the folks at rationalwiki can't just turn welfare queen automatically into a racist term, as conservative blacks have also railed against white trailer trash moms who have too many children and go on the dole. Trying to turn welfare queen into a de facto racial epithet like the N word is fundamentally dishonest. And Bandow's point was that the real welfare queen is our defense spending monstrosity. So, getting in a hissy fit about loaded terms is a major distraction. Kind of like on the rationalwiki Michael Jackson page, where they pontificate on his religious beliefs, and (before I edited the article), failed to mention the fact that he is an industrial strength pedophile. I don't really understand rationalwikis priorities or emphasis.

Person A: "Sir, our massive defense spending is contributing to an unsustainable empire, is a waste of money, encourages misbehavior by supposed allies, and could exacerbate conflicts".

Person B: "Yeah we'll look into it. Right now, we're investigating a statement about welfare queens."

There's something wrong there in what's emphasized, you know what I mean? And I'm surprised at your attitude of "Well it's his fault for using the wrong phrase". Come on. Burkean (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bandow wanted attention, he used a phrase that grabbed people's attention. I'd imagine he's satisfied with the result.
 * I agree that the implication Cato wants South Koreans to be slaughtered and oppressed is Bullshit. We have an article about the MIC. A more detailed explanation of Bandow's point would fit nicely there.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

He wanted to make people pay attention. And they should. He wasn't trying to use welfare queens as a substitute for blacks. The only reasons the phrase should be considered loaded is if someone is so left wing and paranoid that they think criticism of such welfare is de facto racism. It's clever, because people who might talk about how bad welfare is (and rightly so), may not admit to themselves, that the real welfare queens are somewhere else. Its about using a phrase in a different context. That's the point. Burkean (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The baseless attack on the Cato institute was removed, I thank you for bringing it up. The low opinion of Libertarians on this site is a different discussion. To be perfectly frank, I find US Libertarians seem easily coaxed into any authoritarian nonsense once tax cuts are involved. That there's more at stake here than Doug Bandow's tax returns should be in MIC--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"There's more at stake than taxes". Doug Bandow would agree with you. I think that's pretty clear from the article. He's talking about the risk of destabilization as regards taiwan, mainland china, and japan if things keep going this way. He's talking about the risks of war, future foreign policy, the liability that this entails for the US. "What about my tax dollars" (which, in any case is still relevant) occupies a very small part of the article. Your other point goes to the whole issue of people who call themselves libertarians versus people who actually are. The libertarian label is claimed by people such as william safire, who was really a beltway thinker, for example. Another is Alex Jones, who's more of a Jesse Ventura/David Icke conspiracy loon (and yes, some libertarians go for that). Then of course there are people who may go for some free market principles but who in fact don't have any interest in fundamentally changing the relationship between the individual and the state. Many republicans would fall into this category, including Milton Friedman and many of the Chicago school. Yes, and many libertarians have said that free market principles should be based on rights, not just the consequentialism we hear. George H. Smith made this point, saying that utility may not be the best way to defend markets, because when liberals turned against capitalism, they justified it on the basis of utility. Murray Rothbard, to avoid ignoring other key libertarian issues, fused economics with radical individualism, anarchism, and an old right sensibility. He thought that if one were to truly embrace markets, they must also be an anarchist, so that they weren't just paying lip service to some free market principles while ignoring individual rights. So while I certainly respect you more than the others I've met on this site, it still seems that people on this site have a selective, knee jerk, caricatured and inaccurate view of libertarians. At least, actual libertarians. Burkean (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Bogus racism accusations
"Deny blacks the right to vote." Uh-huh. Actually, section 5 of the voting rights act is about forcing states to ask permission as to where they place voting booths. Pseudo-justifiable at the time it was written under the pretext that by forcing the state to comply with federal guidelines as to where they put booths, discrimination would decrease and black voting would increase. Nowadays, basically just used to exercise control over a state because the way they vote (and which candidates ultimately are elected) must be part of some racist, voter suppression conspiracy. If they opposed section 2, rationalwikians might have a point. In today's world voter suppression is the left wing equivalent of some of the right wing hysteria about voter fraud. Probably a stretch to say it's non-existent, but a red herring nonetheless. Incidentally, being in favor of the repeal of section 5 puts cato in the same company as Justice Kennedy, who sides with the left on a number of issues and is considered really the only centrist left on the court. ARE WE SCARED YET, PARANOIDWIKI? Burkean (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "In today's world voter suppression is the left wing equivalent of some of the right wing hysteria about voter fraud"
 * Having now seen the results of the weakening of federal protections, vis a vis elections such as North Carolina, you willing to retract some of that?50.194.115.156 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

New Thinktank Front and DropTheT
Came across this while checking links on the gamergate time line, and while a number of figures are endorsing the Drop The T petition, Cato seem to have members part of a new think-tank called IGF Culturewatch; http://igfculturewatch.com/about this may be of interest, for more sources or sections. This isn't the first time I've found a group that has ties to Cato, but do we have a term for how think-tanks like to bulk up with more think-tanks? I feel it's been a recurring theme. 81.155.246.86 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Dorkling