I'm coming in so late, that few will see this. Which is good for an irrelevant question, I guess.
I wonder a bit about Cato Institute.
As people have noted, this 2004 report is too old to build an opinion from. The arguments were less sophisticated then. It is hard to have an opinion.
From the Wikipedia page, Cato is one of the more influential think tanks in the US. The US political life is a strange animal to me, so some basic information would be nice re Cato?
(-: Mainly since I was flamed and called troll by a couple of left wingers for referencing a Cato report :-).
So... How much "work for hire" does Cato do? Or the average US think tank? Can you trust anything from a US think tank?
(Afaik there are not even attempts to answer this slaughter of 'The Shock Doctrine", which seemed to be why the "arguments" got personal. But, certainly, credible references as to why you can ignore arguments form top think tanks would be interesting?)
I'm not arguing a point, I'm just checking if some idealists might have been correct in disqualifying an argument, just because it came from someone affiliated with Cato.
From the lack of good answers, I infer they just couldn't answer the argument -- and lacked the integrity to admit that. Not exactly surprising, for people with fixed political world views.
(Being called "troll" by a favorite author hurt. :-)
I wonder a bit about Cato Institute.
As people have noted, this 2004 report is too old to build an opinion from. The arguments were less sophisticated then. It is hard to have an opinion.
From the Wikipedia page, Cato is one of the more influential think tanks in the US. The US political life is a strange animal to me, so some basic information would be nice re Cato?
(-: Mainly since I was flamed and called troll by a couple of left wingers for referencing a Cato report :-).
So... How much "work for hire" does Cato do? Or the average US think tank? Can you trust anything from a US think tank?
Appendix: The report I was flamed for: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626
(Afaik there are not even attempts to answer this slaughter of 'The Shock Doctrine", which seemed to be why the "arguments" got personal. But, certainly, credible references as to why you can ignore arguments form top think tanks would be interesting?)