[Arne]: Not to mention that comments boards are prolly the absolute worst place to -- ummm, "discuss" -- political "theories", in particular those of an absolutist bent.<<

Very true, although I suppose any "discussion" is better than none? How many people on this board would be able to empty out the drawers of others' ideas and assumptions without the Internet?

The main drawback of comments is that they tend to be short and quick, not long, well thought out, and detailed, with all the nuances and caveats appropriate for a difficult subject.

Glenn's blog is far better than most, not only in the quality of the commentators and the breadth of their knowledge (excepting, of course, thugs like "shooter" and such), but also in the length and detail of both posts and comments. The Pauls, LWM, sysprog, et al regularly do pages worth of stuff, and our libertarian leaners here (and there's a fair number) respond in kind. We've got conservative here, liberals here, radicals here, and just good plain folk of common sense. And when such are arrayed against one another, I think we do get a bit more light than heat.

But my general experience with the dogmatic libertarians is that, just as with religion, there's a hard wall you reach after which all has been said that will be said, and knocking things around further won't add anything....

Cheers,

Karen, I'm glad I touched a nerve. I remember reading something about this issue on Salon some time ago, but it was covered in such a dismissive way that I hardly paid attention. There's no excuse for this, as Palast is a tried and tested investigative reporter who always has mountains of meticulously researched evidence to back up his work.

The refusal of the MSM to give him any air time or print space on the issues he covers, which are so essential to our crumbling democracy, just makes me angry enough to spit. It goes back to the point Glenn hammers at again and again: how are we to fight for our democracy if we aren't even being given the information as to how it's being stolen? When Palast showed how the 2000 Florida vote had been "rigged," the news barely made a whisper here, and that only months after we could have done anything about it. Same with Ohio in 2004.

I'm very lucky to have an active public radio station that goes further than Salon even to bring forth people like Palast and Scott Ritter who are mocked or suppressed by the MSM. It's an NPR outlet, but is critical of NPR for kowtowing as the rest of the MSM does. (Palast's main NPR interview was canceled when they couldn't find a Republican to sit opposite him and provide "balance." He pointed out that at the BBC they would have just shown an empty chair, which would speak volumes, even on radio.)

Ondelette, the interview I was talking about was one the producer of my public radio station did recently. The link I provided was to his website, where you can listen to piles of interviews--really good ones--he's done with all sorts of people, including an older one with Palast about the 2004 election. But thanks for the link you provided; I look forward to hearing more!

>>there's a hard wall you reach after which all has been said that will be said, and knocking things around further won't add anything<<

Yes, I think I finally learned that the hard way, trying to get somewhere with a discussion.

This has been an unusually active week for me posting here. Most of the time I try to find time just to read all the letters because I learn so much from the people you mention (and I make a special point of looking for bebop-o, he makes my day)--Paul and LWM and William T and several others. Not just about ideas in politics, but boggling amounts about history and thought. Good for the old mind, eh?

Speaking of bebop-o, I hope things went okay today. I've been worrying about him.

Must go to bed and unplug from this virtual Viennese coffeehouse. My head feels full.

Any "libertarian", i.e. anyone who is opposed to "authoritarianism" in all its manifestations and guises, would have to be incredibly ignorant, incredibly stupid, or incredibly disingenuous not to recognize that the modern centralized corporation is as essentially authoritarian, corrupt, and dangerous as any government you can name. If anything, a large corporation is even worse than a centralized government in terms of the harm it can do to people, including its own employees.

Thank you for making this clear. It frequently seems as if libertarians do not believe in regulating business, but want government to have very limited power. It's good to know that you believe corporations shouldn't have this power either.

I second Ondolette Re: your clarification. As you may have noticed, Mona has a difficult time understanding how I can support Cato's stance on individual civil liberties but be concerned about Cato's support for privatization of certain government functions, Social Security in particular, and other corporate interests. Cato helped the tobacco industry skate on billions of dollars they owed the states. That's corporate welfare. As right wing tanks go, it's far from the worst. I have not read either of those books on corporations. Perhaps this one may interest you, it's more recent. You can read it on-line. Nace made his millions as a CEO in desk top publishing a few years back.

http://www.gangsofamerica.com/

The Cato Institute has been a long-time advocate of Social Security privatization. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005: "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization -- 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' -- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'"

By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political groups like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. It is worth noting that the website SocialSecurity.org is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading Project on Social Security Choice...

Like most think tanks, Cato receives support from a variety of corporations, but corporations are a relatively minor source of support for the Institute. In 2005, for example, corporate donations accounted for only two percent of its budget.

The relative paucity of corporate funding may be one reason the Institute has struck an independent stance in its policy research. In 2004, the Institute angered the pharmaceutical industry by published a paper arguing in favor of "drug re-importation." A 2006 study attacked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that is widely viewed as benefiting large media companies at the expense of ordinary consumers. Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "corporate welfare," the practice of funneling taxpayer money to politically connected corporate interests. For example, in 2002, Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope teamed up to write an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington lobbyists. And in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.

Known corporate funders include ExxonMobil, who gave $30,000 during 2002—about a fifth of a percent of the Institute's revenues that year. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato, which has numerous ties to the Republican Party. Despite these connections, the Cato's scholars regularly and vigorously criticize Republican officeholders—especially President Bush. Cato scholars have criticized such the 2003 decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq, prosecution of the war on drugs, giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and the decision of President George H.W. Bush to fight the first Gulf war. Cato has also criticized the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry. The Cato Institute has argued repeatedly against the Republican party on spending issues.

In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. Cato's main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch, Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato "receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."

Financial firms now contributing generously to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute