> I've had numerous dealings with a number
> of Cato folks. I've yet to meet one that
> would hurt a fly.
That's nice to hear. I've had my doubts about some of their supporters.
> Their philosophy is libertarian. They
> oppose most any sort of state incursion
> on individual life.
Well, that's the problem. That's very disingenuous of them, to pretend that government policies don't have an effect on individual lives. What they would really do is use the power of the state to penalize a poor woman who wanted to raise her children herself (by abolishing welfare payments) while simultaneously using the power of the state to subsidize a rich man who wanted to make his living through speculation rather than through working (by abolishing income taxes on capital gains). (Hey, what other parties does this sound like??) Yet they would claim that they're merely following the dictates of nature.
> Now you could say
> the harm to people resulting from the
> lack of a public sector is violence,
> but that's a far cry from 'terrorism.'
Agreed. I also agree with you that they're a lot more consistent than many other right-wing think tanks. At the same time, at least on welfare policy, they've been known to be a bit fast and loose with the facts. On the whole, I think "respectable" is a bit too strong a word for them, though they're certainly respected in some quarters, at least when they appear useful.
> Moral of the story: save your condemnations
> of personal character for people you really
> know. Newt is a good place to start.
I already have a full-time job, Max ;-).
Best, Peter
> Cheers,
>
> MBS