Diana, thanks for information. Why is it that none of the classical
liberal/libertarian think tanks officially disassociate themselves
with LP? Or maybe I missed it, but I doubt it. I'd think that if
Objectivism formally disassociated itself from LP, that groups
with 'libertarian' in their title would be even more earnest in such
a task.

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Diana M Hsieh <diana@d...>
wrote:
> 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@d... |
> | web *--* http://www.dianahsieh.com |
> | blog *--* http://www.noodlefood.org |
> *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*