Frankly I always thought Cato was, if not exclusively an LP think
tank, at least not condemning of the Party.

Same with IHS (Institute of Humane Studies). They talk about
libertarianism and offer courses on free market, so one COULD think
that they were just a small l think tank, but one of their
scholarships is named after billionaire Charle Koch!

Charles Koch is one of the links that ties LP, Cato, IHS in my mind.
He is one of the main financial contributors to the think tanks
(earning 4 billion dollars a year from the oil business inherited
from his father), and he was on the board of LP in 1970s, writing
its revised (and currently used) constitution!

So you see, one could very easily conjecture that all these small l
think tanks really don't mind LP at all, and in fact share many
things. There's no condemnation, no formal disassociation. It is
safe to say that there's a "libertarian front" out there, a foggy
conglomeration that consists of LP, Cato, IHS, and many more. It
seems that TOC endorses and is friends with this front, and makes
the same mistake that Cato and IHS make - not distinguishing the
small l from big L.

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Diana M Hsieh <diana@d...>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:
>
> > In fact, until you write today that you didn't agree with the LP
I was
> > firmly convinced you did agree. I mean hey, TOC and LP are good
> > buddies, and you endorse TOC and give lectures there. Then
there's
> > your essay with a provocative title. It really leaves little to
the
> > imagination.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, TOC is friendly with small-l
libertarian
> think tanks like Cato, but has never been anything like "buddies"
with the
> LP. Where did you get that idea?
>
> diana.
>
> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
> | diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@d... |
> | web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com |
> | blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org |
> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*