Cato Paper Says Libertarians Should Oppose War

By -
I'm glad they're on board (.pdf), though I wish it had been earlier. Like, before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

UPDATE: Prompted by a comment, I did some checking and found, to my pleasant surprise, that Cato scholars had officially opposed the invasion. Sorry Cato!

Comments

  1. Jim10:07 AM

    Man, what?

    Cato's official position WAS antiwar in the runup to Iraq. So were the personal positions of all the foreign-policy staff, and those positions were very strongly held. So was the position of Cato's single most visible executive, David Boaz.

    Outside the foreign-policy staff, there were a couple high-profile officers, most famously Brink Lindsay, whose personal positions were hawkish. They were allowed to publish pro-war statements in unofficial venues and keep their jobs, per Cato policy. But as an institution, Cato's conduct during 2002-3 in re war in Iraq compares favorably with just about any Washington institution, libertarian or otherwise.

    This isn't just me sticking up for my friends, either. The guys at reason are my friends too, but I'll readily admit that, as an institution, reason during the period of 2002-2006 has a lot to answer for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy1:13 PM

    I am prepared to retract my sarcastic statement. However, can you point me to actual Cato publications (could even just be an op ed) where Cato people said, "Going into Iraq would be a bad idea"?

    My general recollection is that some DC libertarian think tanks were outright hawkish, while the others were quiet and waited to see what happened.

    But if you can prove otherwise, I will be pleasantly surprised and will amend my sarcastic post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim1:35 PM

    Bob, I appreciate the opportunity to research the post you SHOULD have written for you. You can start with William Niskanen's op-ed from December 2001, Gene Healy's definitive contra from January 2003 (which also ran in LIBERTY that month) and this from March, also by Gene. You can also find contemporaneous Cato writings on the topic in the vicinity of page 29 of the date-sorted Google site-search results for "Iraq."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim1:40 PM

    Note: Google Reader is so slow, my last comment was made in ignorance of your gracious updates. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy6:08 PM

    Oh, no problem. And like I said, thanks. Obviously I feel foolish for my ignorant crack, but I'm glad I was wrong. I guess I was too boozing with my studies or something back then (I was in grad school) to notice the other voices of opposition!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy6:08 PM

    Ha ha what a Freudian slip!! I meant to say "too busy with my studies" and you can all read how it came out. Interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:13 PM

    Gene,

    Isn't this where you come in and write that the reason Bob made the mistake about Cato is becasue he has been drinking the LRC Kool_Aid, where LRC certainly gives the impression that Cato is all pro-war?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob Murphy6:53 PM

    Sidney,

    I had been bracing for just such a comment for Gene. Either he is merciful or the time zone is to my advantage.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more