On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Free Capitalist wrote:

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

Cato abhors the LP. I know; I interned there for 6 months while in
college. Ed Crane, in fact, founded Cato because he was completely fed up
with the LP. Generally speaking, the LP was (and surely is still)
regarded an embarassment by Catons.

I don't know about IHS in particular, but I know that they long described
themselves as "classical liberal" rather than libertarian in order to
distinguish themselves from the LP kooks. (When I was at Cato, "market
liberal" was the preferred term for similar reasons.) But now the term
"libertarian" isn't so associated with the LP, so I believe that both
organizations are using it.

The fact that some major donors might support both the LP and libertarian
think tanks like Cato and IHS doesn't show that the think tanks themselves
support the LP. Your conjectures, as reasonable as they might be in the
absence of information, are inconsistent with the facts.

diana.

*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
| diana mertz hsieh *--* diana@... |
| web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com |
| blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org |
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*