They are both libertarian, but that is about as far as the similarities go.
Mises is very strictly rooted in Austrian Economics. Cato adheres more to the Chicago School, with a bit of Austrian leanings among a few of their scholars.
Mises is minarchist/anarchist. Cato is more pragmatic and policy oriented, seeking ways to reduce the current state.
I think both Institutes serve a good purpose, although many here regard Cato with contempt. I think the main problem with Cato is that they are too rooted in the flawed Chicago School. I was, however, pleased to see some recent signs that this may be changing.
Well at the most basic level the Cato institute is generally Minarchist while the Mises Institute is Anarcho Capitalist on average. The Cato institute is overwhelmingly for mass immigration and legalizing it while the Mises institute is not so favorable to that opinion and is more divided on the issue. Lastly, the Cato Institute is pro Substantive due process from the United States Supreme Court which has earned them the derogatory name "Libertarian Centralists" because the Mises institute believes strongly in decentralization of all government and that the competition amongst the smaller plural governments will achieve more liberty than relying on a judicial hierarchy to nullify laws. Personally I love decentralization AND Substantive Due process.
I think much of the contempt comes from the support of interventionist policies by many at Cato and their support of monetarist policies as mentioned above. There are exceptions in Cato. I think Jim Powell would be one.
There's also a personal feud between Tom Palmer and Hans Hoppe, and their friends, over immigration and homosexuality. A good bit of it seems to be overblown misunderstandings.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
It comes down to one core value: political power. Cato is part of the original wing of libertarians (french anarchists) that sought to overturn traditional society and "liberate" the individual by forcing the state to provide protectionism to morally reprehensible lifestyles. They are in no way opposed to the Iraq war and imperialism in general, as that brings the benefit of social revolution to other countries.
Mises is about the resistance to political power and the preservation of traditional society against the threat of political lobbies like Cato, hence the lead role of intellectuals like Hoppe who drives libertarians crazy.
For Mises, the very fact that the state could control something so essential as money is an abomination. However, to Cato, for whom political power is no problem, it is a matter of debate as to what would serve its members best.
Why does Cato need to be in Washington while Mises does not? Because Cato is in a fight to control political power for the interests of its class.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Well and the Cato Institute is a political think tank, and the LvMI isn't.
Probably I shouldn't post on this thread, the title of which sort of made me laugh. So i'll try to stay out completely except answering any question. But let me just say this: there is a completely difference emphasis, which is obvious from the books published by each institution. There it is revealed, in my view.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
In my opinion, the important thing is that both institutions both fight for more freedom than we have now.
Mark B.: I think both Institutes serve a good purpose, although many here regard Cato with contempt.
The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Why is the Mises institute mostly anarcho-capitalist when Mises himself was wasn't?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
I'd argue that, while Mises certainly did not consider himself an an-cap, his ideas logically lead to anarcho-capitalism. Mises describes an ideal state as recognizing a universal right to secession down to the individual level - can something with this property even be properly called a state?
ryanpatgray: Mark B.: I think both Institutes serve a good purpose, although many here regard Cato with contempt. The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy.
ryanpatgray:The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy.
They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us.
Stranger: ryanpatgray:The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy. They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us.
I will let them answer this charge. Check out these links:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8020
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3223
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2656
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487
If you want to talk about people masquerading as libertarians, I think the name Neal Boortz comes to mind. At best he is a neo-lib, bordering on full neo-conservatism. And yet he claims to speak in the name of libertarianism.
CATO is far from perfect, nobody would even challenge that assertion. I have seen improvements from them lately, particularly on the economics front. If they could jettison the neo-libs, they would be a much better institution.
Of course, I encountered and studied through Cato for several years before I discovered the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics. While what I have learned at Mises as mostly supplanted my earlier views, I still have to credit Cato for bringing into the libertarian movement to begin with.
Stranger: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487
ryanpatgray: Stranger: ryanpatgray:The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy. They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us. I will let them answer this charge. Check out these links: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8020 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3223 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2656
"Moreover, the Iraq war may have undermined the global war on terrorism."
They are against the war in Iraq because it may hinder the US's ability to kill indiscrimately across the globe, and thats your defense?
Cato is pro democratic imperialism. End of story.
Peace
All three of those articles are by the same author. And I don't think CATO has a single monolithic view of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror, though I could be wrong.
I've never really checked out Cato before, mainly due to being informed Cato weren't really Libertarian, but this thread has made it apparent that this is a generalization. As of late, I've been noticing the types of divisions the Libertarian movement seems to have. I can't help but think that this is partially why we aren't making more inroads to mainstream politics. Divide and conquer, comes to mind. While I don't think Libertarians should compromise on their principles, I also think that Libertarians should try to find common ground to get behind with. The two Statist parties do it, why not us? I might be a little new to all of this, but I think it's a valid point nonetheless.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
In the two evils of war and slavery Machan apparently believes war to be the lesser of the two. You are certainly free to disagree. I have heard the very valid arguments that the War Between the States was unnecessary and that slavery was on the wane etc. But this does not validate your earlier claim: “They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us.”
Machan's error is one of fact, not morality. He probably has a high-school-history-textbook version of history. But then so do most Americans. Your statement “They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression.” is plural in nature and universal in tone. I have shone you articles indicating instances in which they did not.
Again, just in case you missed them the first time:
JonBostwick:"Moreover, the Iraq war may have undermined the global war on terrorism."They are against the war in Iraq because it may hinder the US's ability to kill indiscrimately across the globe, and thats your defense?Cato is pro democratic imperialism. End of story.
You pulled one sentence out of three articles out of context..
Nitroadict: I've never really checked out Cato before, mainly due to being informed Cato weren't really Libertarian, but this thread has made it apparent that this is a generalization. As of late, I've been noticing the types of divisions the Libertarian movement seems to have. I can't help but think that this is partially why we aren't making more inroads to mainstream politics. Divide and conquer, comes to mind. While I don't think Libertarians should compromise on their principles, I also think that Libertarians should try to find common ground to get behind with. The two Statist parties do it, why not us? I might be a little new to all of this, but I think it's a valid point nonetheless.
I quite agree with you. Libertarians of all stripes have far more in common than any of them do with either the Conservatives or the modern-so-called-liberals. The libertarian movement today often reminds me of the Monty Python film Life of Brian in which the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front are at each others throat.
ryanpatgray: Stranger: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487 In the two evils of war and slavery Machan apparently believes war to be the lesser of the two. You are certainly free to disagree. I have heard the very valid arguments that the War Between the States was unnecessary and that slavery was on the wane etc. But this does not validate your earlier claim: “They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us.” Machan's error is one of fact, not morality. He probably has a high-school-history-textbook version of history. But then so do most Americans. Your statement “They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression.” is plural in nature and universal in tone. I have shone you articles indicating instances in which they did not. Again, just in case you missed them the first time: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8020 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3223 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2656
Again, all three of those article are from the same author. Is he the only foreign policy writer at CATO? And what about the personal views on the war of the other scholars and staff? I'm not attacking. I'm just pointing out that one author isn't necessarily representative of the entire Institute.
gplauche: Again, all three of those article are from the same author. Is he the only foreign policy writer at CATO? And what about the personal views on the war of the other scholars and staff? I'm not attacking. I'm just pointing out that one author isn't necessarily representative of the entire Institute.
Here are some others:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6656
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa503.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp98.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9012
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa539.pdf
gplauche:Again, all three of those article are from the same author. Is he the only foreign policy writer at CATO? And what about the personal views on the war of the other scholars and staff? I'm not attacking. I'm just pointing out that one author isn't necessarily representative of the entire Institute.
Using their own search box this is the page that comes up:
http://find.cato.org/search?restrict=Cato&q=war&site=cato_all&filter=p&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cato_all&access=p&btnG=Search&btnG.y=10&lr=lang_en&btnG.x=54&ip=68.56.110.197&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt&getfields=summary&oe=UTF-8&start=0
The Cato Institute is not monolithic, just like the Mises Institute. It's funny, Mises gets attacked by the beltway crowd all the time for being anti-immigrant when Walter Block, one of the most veteran members of Mises, is explicitly open borders. Brink Lindsey of Cato was for the Iraq War, but he wasn't and isn't part of the foreign policy department, who was against the war. Roger Pilon is the main Constitutional scholar there, and he is pretty bad as shown by his recent endorsement of the "Protect America" Act. I saw him at a talk this past summer and he called anyone who thought that the Second Amendment barred the federal government from passing any regulations on weapons whatsoever was a "nutjob." He's also unapolegitcally for the incorporation doctrine, which is a terrible tool of centralization. Gene Healy, however, is great on these issues. Unfortunately he is not as high ranking as Pilon, so his views get less of a hearing. David Boaz is very anti-Ron Paul, irrationally so. He is instumental in fanning the flames of the personal feud, because Dr. Paul is personal friends with the Mises crowd. As for Tom Palmer--I don't want to take sides too explicitly here--I can definately see his personality as being conducive to feuds.
Personally, I think that Cato as a whole puts out a decent amount of work that is useful. Like Mr. Tucker alluded to, Mises is much more dedicated to high theory and principle, which is more useful in the end because it is universally applicable. But sometimes a work like Leviathan on the Right is great ammo for attacking the current forces of big government. Yet I think the Cato people in general lack a sence of proportion. For example, in my conversations with them they express absolute distain for Pat Buchanan. Now, it is true that Buchanan is horrible on trade and immigration, but he is great on empire. And he has stature on the right--he's a great counter balance to the neocons, I think. This same attitude leaks through with their attitude towards Dr. Paul. Sure, there are things that you can nitpick with him--you can do this to anyone. But many of them refuse to go out on a limb and support him despite his many many good points.
ryanpatgray: JonBostwick:"Moreover, the Iraq war may have undermined the global war on terrorism."They are against the war in Iraq because it may hinder the US's ability to kill indiscrimately across the globe, and thats your defense?Cato is pro democratic imperialism. End of story. You pulled one sentence out of three articles out of context..
And you used three articles to try to prove a point about the institute. But even your hand picked articles proved that Cato is not anti-war.
Cato is about as Libertarian as is Rudolf Giuliani, or should I say, Fred Thompson, whom they endorsed.
I used to subscribe to the email list for the Cato Institute. I started to notice a definite pro-war tilt to the articles. As such, I have discontinued my subscription. I have found the articles from the Mises Institute to be much better.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
The difference in how CATO treated Pilon and Armentano in light of respective articles they published in newspapers is interesting.
Check this out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019794.html
J.H. Huebert: If Cato doesn't want to make it a priority, that's their business
J.H. Huebert: while retaining Pilon as director of constitutional studies
ryanpatgray: J.H. Huebert: If Cato doesn't want to make it a priority, that's their business It is their business in any case.
Okay. So what?
ryanpatgray: J.H. Huebert: while retaining Pilon as director of constitutional studies Notice the title of his position: CONSTITUTIONAL studies. Whether an action is constitutional is quite a different question from whether that action is just or advisable.
Yeah, and Pilon was wrong on all counts and he's still at CATO. Armentano, on the other hand, was fired for something that had nothing to do with his position at CATO.
MVPT:I think it is fair to point out that Ed Crane came out about a week later with an Op-Ed which he basically stated that Pilon didn't speak for Cato on that issue. Cato just like Mises Institute doesn't have "offical" positions on policy policy issues.
Right. But then why fire Armentano for his unrelated op-ed? It's hypocritical.
Dom Armentano: If true, why the extreme secrecy and deception?
Dom Armentano: Ultimately, they may have lied because it was determined that UFOs may represent a serious threat, perhaps even a military threat, to the nation. This last reason seems the most reasonable and the most ominous.
Dom Armentano: Yet systemic public deception for decades poses a grave long-term threat for any constitutional republic. In the final analysis, the existence of legitimate government depends upon an intelligent, well-informed citizenry.
ryanpatgray:Perhaps it was not because of Armentano's chosen topic or point of view that he was canned but that this work was not well thought out.
Like the arguments Pilon was criticized even by fellow Catoites for?