What’s the difference? What are the similarities? Aren’t they both libertarian?
They are both libertarian, but that is about as far as the similarities go.
Mises is very strictly rooted in Austrian Economics. Cato adheres more to the Chicago School, with a bit of Austrian leanings among a few of their scholars.
Mises is minarchist/anarchist. Cato is more pragmatic and policy oriented, seeking ways to reduce the current state.
I think both Institutes serve a good purpose, although many here regard Cato with contempt. I think the main problem with Cato is that they are too rooted in the flawed Chicago School. I was, however, pleased to see some recent signs that this may be changing.
Well at the most basic level the Cato institute is generally Minarchist while the Mises Institute is Anarcho Capitalist on average. The Cato institute is overwhelmingly for mass immigration and legalizing it while the Mises institute is not so favorable to that opinion and is more divided on the issue. Lastly, the Cato Institute is pro Substantive due process from the United States Supreme Court which has earned them the derogatory name “Libertarian Centralists” because the Mises institute believes strongly in decentralization of all government and that the competition amongst the smaller plural governments will achieve more liberty than relying on a judicial hierarchy to nullify laws. Personally I love decentralization AND Substantive Due process.
I met someone that was at Cato. He thought the gold standard was not feasible, and that the value of the dollar should be tied to GDP. I see what you mean by being more pragmatic and policy oriented.
I think much of the contempt comes from the support of interventionist policies by many at Cato and their support of monetarist policies as mentioned above. There are exceptions in Cato. I think Jim Powell would be one.
There’s also a personal feud between Tom Palmer and Hans Hoppe, and their friends, over immigration and homosexuality. A good bit of it seems to be overblown misunderstandings.
It comes down to one core value: political power. Cato is part of the original wing of libertarians (french anarchists) that sought to overturn traditional society and “liberate” the individual by forcing the state to provide protectionism to morally reprehensible lifestyles. They are in no way opposed to the Iraq war and imperialism in general, as that brings the benefit of social revolution to other countries.
Mises is about the resistance to political power and the preservation of traditional society against the threat of political lobbies like Cato, hence the lead role of intellectuals like Hoppe who drives libertarians crazy.
For Mises, the very fact that the state could control something so essential as money is an abomination. However, to Cato, for whom political power is no problem, it is a matter of debate as to what would serve its members best.
Why does Cato need to be in Washington while Mises does not? Because Cato is in a fight to control political power for the interests of its class.
Well and the Cato Institute is a political think tank, and the LvMI isn’t.
Probably I shouldn’t post on this thread, the title of which sort of made me laugh. So i’ll try to stay out completely except answering any question. But let me just say this: there is a completely difference emphasis, which is obvious from the books published by each institution. There it is revealed, in my view.
In my opinion, the important thing is that both institutions both fight for more freedom than we have now.
The animus that some here seem to have towards CATO truly baffles me. If they are incorrect on a few points by-all-means point that out but they are NOT the enemy.
Why is the Mises institute mostly anarcho-capitalist when Mises himself was wasn’t?
I’d argue that, while Mises certainly did not consider himself an an-cap, his ideas logically lead to anarcho-capitalism. Mises describes an ideal state as recognizing a universal right to secession down to the individual level - can something with this property even be properly called a state?
I don’t have any particular animus toward CATO. In general, I don’t think they are as consistent on principle as the Mises Institute is and this sometimes leads them to do things that don’t serve the cause of liberty, but they do a lot of good work too. Keep in mind that there are some people at CATO who have a strong animus against the Mises Institute as well. It’s not a one-way street. As I mentioned earlier, part of it is personal. Part of it also seems to be based in differences over principles and strategy. I’m not sure who started it. While there’s nothing wrong with chiding our fellow libertarians once in a while, I think the conflct has risen to the point of being unconstructive and counterproductive. The recent attacks on Ron Paul were particularly embarrassing for the D.C. crowd.
They came out in support of the imperial state and wars of aggression. They are the definition of the enemy, and they are even worse enemies in that they claim to be like us.
I will let them answer this charge. Check out these links:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8020
If you want to talk about people masquerading as libertarians, I think the name Neal Boortz comes to mind. At best he is a neo-lib, bordering on full neo-conservatism. And yet he claims to speak in the name of libertarianism.
CATO is far from perfect, nobody would even challenge that assertion. I have seen improvements from them lately, particularly on the economics front. If they could jettison the neo-libs, they would be a much better institution.
Of course, I encountered and studied through Cato for several years before I discovered the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics. While what I have learned at Mises as mostly supplanted my earlier views, I still have to credit Cato for bringing into the libertarian movement to begin with.
Hard to believe Machan is that soft on Lincoln.
“Moreover, the Iraq war may have undermined the global war on terrorism.”
They are against the war in Iraq because it may hinder the US’s ability to kill indiscrimately across the globe, and thats your defense?
Cato is pro democratic imperialism. End of story.