Random Thoughts on the Cato Dispute
by Mike Kimel
Random Thoughts on the Cato Dispute
Recently there’s a bit of a to-do about the battle for the soul of Cato, one of the big Washington policy think-tanks. I’m at best a disinterested observer – unlike most people weighing in, I have no conceivable stake in the outcome. I can’t see any away in which I or any members of my family or friends are or have been in any way compensated by any of the parties involved, nor can I envision any way in which anyone I personally know would gain or lose from whatever happens.* From that perspective, a few random thoughts….
1. Both sides in the dispute have a philosophy that the best measure of an idea is the free market. But it doesn’t seem like Cato, as an organization, is operating as if that is true. They are in the business of giving away philosophical policy points, and providing analytic support (much of which is not in accordance with the data if you ask me) for free. All of that is paid for as a charity, but the philosophy they are promoting is that the market knows best. And yet, the market doesn’t seem willing to pay for that philosophy. Note that the market is quite willing to pay for philosophy, including some similar philosophy: whatever one thinks of Ayn Rand, people still buy Atlas Shrugs and the Fountainhead. Ditto much of Heinlein’s oeuvre. But how many of the Cato people would have kept body and soul together this far counting on the free market alone? It seems odd that people would spend their careers to advance an idea when they have taken such extraordinary steps to minimize the effect of that idea on the way they earn their livelihood.
2. Cato-leaning types of all stripes tend to be against government social programs. They typically advance a number of arguments against such programs, but one that frequently comes up is dependence: the existence of these programs teach their recipients to be dependent on the government rather than going out and making a living on the free market, and this process is self-perpetuating. And yet, this seems to be exactly what the donors to Cato are doing. They are encouraging those who work at Cato to continue engaging in behavior that is not self-supporting. If they didn’t, the folks at Cato might hone their craft sufficiently to produce something which the market would actually buy, which their philosophy says would make everyone better off.
3. Whatever happens, I suspect just about everyone involved in any way with Cato, whether as a donor, employee, or reader of their material, will continue try their best to avoid anything that can remotely be construed as a free market outcome.
* After writing this, I took a quick inventory around the house and realized that the toilet paper (“Quilted Northern” brand) we recently purchased was made by Georgia Pacific which is owned by Koch Industries. Nevertheless, I still believe my association with any of the parties in the Cato flap is de minimus.
I really don’t see this argument. The donors are the buyers in the “free” market in this instance. How is Cato different from hiring a PR firm? [Other than the nice tax deduction because the evil government recognizes it as a charity]. It seems that a much stronger argument is that the Koch bros. really love oligopoly rather than the mythical “free” market and actually love a government that enables them to perpetuate their privileged status.
Kimel
selling your soul is a free market transaction.
Zane,
Sure, what they do is, in fact, PR. But that’s not what they say they’re doing… you won’t find “PR” or “public relations” on the page that describes what Cato is about: http://www.cato.org/about.php You won’t find “advertising” or “marketing” either. I’m trying to evaluate them on what they seem to be claiming is their business, nothing more.
Interestingly, in the latest entry on their blog (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/save-the-cato-institute/) this is stated: “This misguided attempt at corporate control of an independent, nonpartisan think tank is bad for the Cato Institute and bad for the libertarian movement.”
It is interesting that an organization can call itself libertarian and non-partisan in a country where there is a libertarian party. I guess one can say one follows the same principles as the Democrats or the Republicans and still call oneself non-partisan by that definition.
“All of that is paid for as a charity, but the philosophy they are promoting is that the market knows best. And yet, the market doesn’t seem willing to pay for that philosophy.”
Giving away product and openly sharing innovation are not anti-free market activities. For-profit companies often disclose their new technology to potential competitors. Cato could charge a fee for what they now distribute for free, but they decided on a different business plan and organizational structure.
“They are encouraging those who work at Cato to continue engaging in behavior that is not self-supporting. If they didn’t, the folks at Cato might hone their craft sufficiently to produce something which the market would actually buy, which their philosophy says would make everyone better off.”
Non-profits are part of the free market and compete for funding against other organizations seeking capital. The fact that Cato operates well in the black is proof that it is self-supporting. Libertarianism is against inefficient bureaucracies and if someone believed Cato to be one, donating to it would be contrary to their belief. However, donating to non-profits or charities is a self-interested activity and allocates capital towards activities the market deems worthwhile.
“Whatever happens, I suspect just about everyone involved… will continue try their best to avoid anything that can remotely be construed as a free market outcome.”
You expect them to start accepting funds from the government? Cato competes for donations against competing libertarian organizations and the current struggle is about how it should be run going forward. If this dispute results in a broken organization, individuals and companies can stop contributing to Cato. It can fail or its directors can dissolve it, a consequence of operating in a free market.
“Of course we’re non political. The real power always is.”
[C.S.Lewis, That Hideous Strength. 1943]
Kevin,
So the only criterion by which to judge whether something is free market is whether the government is involved or not? That’s it?
From their web site:
“The Cato Institute is a 501(c)(3) educational institute. Contributions are tax deductible. Donations may be eligible for corporate matching gifts.”
From the IRS web site:
Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
Me thinks there may be some contradictions between the Cato as a genuine 501(c)(3) its private ownership by etremely partisan individuals seeking to control the organization’s activities and the IRS rules. Let’s hope someone at the Justice Department is watching.
Kimel
of course. and if it’s a charity it doesn’t pay taxes(?) so Peterson can provide free “education” to tell the kiddies SS won’t be there for them. Nice of him to warn them.
From their web site:
“The Cato Institute is a 501(c)(3) educational institute. Contributions are tax deductible. Donations may be eligible for corporate matching gifts.”
From the IRS web site:
Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
Me thinks there may be some contradictions between the Cato as a genuine 501(c)(3) its private ownership by etremely partisan individuals seeking to control the organization’s activities and the IRS rules. Let’s hope someone at the Justice Department is watching.
What always stumps me is this question: if the majority of Americans want the use their government to run a program for everyone designed to help protect older people who will in any case find it difficult to make a living at a job, then why would these so-called libertarians deny them the freedom to do that? Because the know better what’s best for those Americans? Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
What Jack said, y’all. NancyO
“So the only criterion by which to judge whether something is free market is whether the government is involved or not? That’s it? “
Governments can be involved in a free market. If market participants are able to exchange capital freely and are the sole determinants on whether a venture fails or succeeds, then you get the ideal, pie in the sky, libertarian economy. I think the post office, Fed Ex, UPS, etc could co-exist in a free market, but the government has imposed an incredible burden on the US postal system (not to mention the restrictions on the private sector competition).
Less efficient markets allow an organization to continuously exist even though it fails in serving the public. Every libertarian I know hates corporate bureaucracies and I’m sure the public at large does as well. We should let companies that place ineffective managers/leaders in charge to collapse instead of bailing them out directly or through government collusion. However, this describes many sectors of today’s economy and I’d just be shaking my fist at the sky hoping for it not to be.
Cato has always seemed to me to be in the business of saving souls. They have published extensively on how to privatize SS or if that’s not possible, to advocate private accounts as a new form of financial asset preferrable to the SS program’s benefits. As many libertarians have noted, dependence on SS discourages workers from seeking investments with superior returns. This results in even greater dependence on the state and by implication, is bad for our souls.
As it happens, any such schemes would put workers at the mercy of the bond and equity markets. In which Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers are heavily involved. But, not to worry, the free market will make you free even if you go broke seeking that freedom. So, urban legend, the best answer to why libertarians oppose voters clear preference for SS over a privatized retirement system is that they stand to gain from privatization. Follow the money. NancyO
+1
JzB
It seems that a much stronger argument is that the Koch bros. really love oligopoly rather than the mythical “free” market and actually love a government that enables them to perpetuate their privileged status.
Bingo! You really DO see this argument.
JzB
Dale –
You are on fire today!
JzB
“Me thinks there may be some contradictions between the Cato as a genuine 501(c)(3) its private ownership by etremely partisan individuals seeking to control the organization’s activities and the IRS rules. Let’s hope someone at the Justice Department is watching.”
501(c)(3) organizations do not have owners, so you have a problem there. Now, there is nothing against ‘extremely partisan’ individuals to be on the board of directors and it can even be partisan as long as it does not donate or aid a political campaign. Media Matters, Sierra Club, and MoveOn.org lean heavily to the left and are nonprofits, some receiving funds from Soros. As long as they act according to the law, we should have no problem with them, Cato or Reason.
kevin
as near as i can think of at the moment i am all in favor of free markets. but the existence of government is as legitimate to free markets as the existence of gravity and of course all the free oil someone left in the ground for us.
we need government to protect ourselves from bullies and criminals, foreign and domestic. any business that cannot obey the laws, or pay the “rent’ for the country they live in… is not expressing a preference for free enterprise, but a preference for anarchy.
and i suppose the question of whether or not we bail out an at risk enterprise is what we think the consequences to us might be. i didn’t think bailing out GM was a question of charity…
i wouldn’t mind CATO so much if they were honest in their advocacy. but at least as far as SS, which I know something about, they work very hard to conceal or distort the facts so as to lead readers to false conclusions, to their harm.
and just to prove how non partisan I am… what troubles me is the total refusal of some social insurance advocates to talk about SS as insurance, which the workers pay for themselves, and which they can continue to pay for themselves with either no change, or, by raising their own tax forty cents per week per year, keep up with their own rising standard of living. they cannot allow themselves to even think about a solution to the SS crisis (which doesn’t exist) that doesn’t tax the rich. however, unlike CATO, the social insurance folks don’t work hard to conceal the facts. they just can’t bring themselves to mention them in public.
and just so the libertarians know i care
their beef with SS is that it is non voluntary. they just know they could beat SS returns if allowed to invest their own money. some of them could. but the harm done to the great majority of the people by letting them do it outweighs the trivial cost to those who “could have done better” sufficiently to justify this small infringement on their total run around naked pffreedom.
In this post and in the comments, there seems to be some confusion regarding a libertarian understanding of coercion. There are different views on this in libertarianism, just as in any broadly defined political philosophy, but I think chapter 28 of Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/daily/2649) cleanly lays out the only defensible position. Basically, any non-physically-violent means of persuasion/advocacy is kosher, but the state crosses that line by definition.
“we need government to protect ourselves from bullies and criminals”
Looking around, it kinda seems like government is a really effective tool for bullies and criminals. Added benefit: their own victims will advocate for their advantageous system.
As Nancy notes above and coberly notes below, Cato is indeed pretty dishonest in their advocacy, but the robust argument against SS is simply that it requires physical violence. Libertarians have no issue with any group designing and contracting with an insurance/mutual assistance program. The balking arises when engaging with that program becomes a violence-upheld requirement for everyone. Labeling such balking as authoritarian, or based in misguided soul-saving, is akin to saying we should welcome all muggers lest we deprive them of their freedom to confiscate our wallets.
coberly, how exactly does one qualify to make a righteous judgment on whether any given level of violence is trivial or not? Did interpersonal values become comparable when I wasn’t looking?
Poppies even granting the idea that taxation is theft not all theft is violent.
You are just piling hyperbole on top of doubtful rhetoric.
A young boy taking a fallen apple out of a walled garden when no one is watching is not the same as we demanding “Your wallet or your life” and then shooting you anyway after you passed it over. Yet in England in years on both sides of our Revolution in the late eighteenth century each was under the so-called Black Laws capital offenses. With the lucky lads just shipped off as ‘convicts’ to Georgia or later Australia rather than being hanged as the law provided for such heinous crimes. Because theft is theft and the law is the law.
Your argument is just as logically reductionist and draws from the same well of Fetishizing property rights over all else.
You are entitled to your own moral code but expecting everyone else to bow down to the “apple stealing means death” ethos on your say-so while chiding us for not making distinctions between violence and violence (as seen through your particular moral lens) is not convincing.
Particularly since I don’t grant even the initial premise that taxation in the interests of ‘promoting the General Welfare’ is theft to begin with.
Try starting from the beginning and explaining why democratic states should not trade off absolute property rights (not explicitly referenced in our Constitution BTW) in favor of General Welfare ends achieved through taxation.
Now there is a case to be made here but like most Glibertarians you just jump five or six steps in the logic chain before asserting your conclusion. Why not make it clearer and just start “Assume Ron Paul is right. About everything” and at least make your implied premises explicit.
How do you get that enforcement of the tax code is ipso facto “physical violence” in any way that enforecement of the traffic code isn’t? Or maybe you are a Sovereign Citizen. Whatever, bring it on. But for God sakes don’t don the mantle of Judge and Jury of “interpersonal values” a priori just because Glibertarian arguments seem right to you. It is not like it is settled fact, law, and logic.
No matter what the smart boys at the Mercatus Center at GMU might believe.
Much shorter poppies: “I found Murray R convincing, therefore the rest of you are poopy-heads. By definition. Of Rothbard.”
Get circular much? Really?: “only defensible”? That is a catechism and not an argument.
Poppies–I don’t understand how SS requires violence to exist or achieve its purpose. Sending benefits by direct deposit to peoples’ checking accounts is a purely electronic process. To be plain, SS does not require violence on anyone’s part to function. Period. NancyO
Bruce–Poppy needs to get real fast. I would not encourage anyone who comments on AB to engage in sheer mindless bull****. I would dare say that people here know what violence is and may have experienced it close up and personallly. SS, taxes, laws, and the like are not violent. Not. NancyO
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/03/kochtopus-vs-cato-blogging-jonathan-adlers-legal-dog-wont-hunt-his-bird-wont-fly-his-fish-wont-swim-his-snake-wont.html#comments
Brad DeLong had some thoughts about the inability of the Koch’s dawgs to hunt etc and gathered these comments from readers. FYI. NancyO
poppies
this is true. government is always in danger of being taken over by the bullies and criminals. but since you can never have NO government, the best we can do is try to keep the bullies under control
now it happens the bullies will always tell you they are for freedom and small government.
poppies
does it take violence to make you drive the speed limit. if so, then you are the kind of criminal the law, and law enforcement, had to be invented to control.
poppies
you better damn betcha. i am qualified to know trivial from terrible. and so is any other human being who is not a sociopath.
poppies
you are full of s…
violence is a fact of life. if we did not defend ourselves by violent means from violent men, we would become their slaves, or their dinner.
anyone who thinks any society can be run without at least a threat of violence against thugs and other criminals is living in a fairy tale.
the problem is, has always been, how much violence, and against what “crimes”?
i am pretty low on the scale of tolerance for government threat of violence. but i can’t stand stupid people who think their goddam money is the most important goddam thing in the universes.
we live in a country, founded on violence, in case you never heard of the American Revolution, l and finally made to work after the Articles of Confederatioin… your idea of the Constitution… failed.. amid violence.
after 75 years most people undrstand SS and would pay it without violence… except for certain people who have damaged their own brains by self stimulation. and of course the people who have been fooled by those people.
“501(c)(3) organizations do not have owners, so you have a problem there. Now, there is nothing against ‘extremely partisan’ individuals to be on the board of directors and it can even be partisan as long as it does not donate or aid a political campaign.” Kevin
Yglesias gives this explanation: “
Something that was confusing me about the lawsuit between the Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute that Dave Weigel’s excellent backgrounder didn’t really explain was how is it that a 501(c)3 nonprofit like the Cato Institute has “shares” for people to be arguing over in the first place? After all, one of the rules of the game is that nobody owns nonprofits. The answer seems to be that Cato is formally organized as a membership institution that just happens to have a very small number of members. A more standard form of 501(c) organization seen in most DC think tanks is that you have no members and the board is a self-perpetuating governance body. But if you think of the “shares” at issue in the Koch/Cato lawsuit as memberships, then you can see why the legal issue arises about whether the late William Niskanen’s shares can be inhereted by his wife. If those were shares in a standard for-profit business corporation then of course his widow could inherit his shares.”
It seems that six people have held shares in Cato Institute since its morphology from the Charles Koch Foundation about forty years ago. Those share holders have controlled the make up of the Bd of Ds. David Koch was not an original share holder, but has been for abouot 20 years. Now both Koch brothers hold a share each and the Pres. of the Institute, Crane, holds one share. The fight is over the right to inherit the fourth share which had been held by the deceased Wm Niskanen. The Kochs are insisting that the Niskasen share return to the Insitute, resulting in the brother’s holding two of three remaining ownership/membership(?) shares and as a result firm control over the Bd of Ds.
poppies
in case you are wondering where my violence comes from. it comes from human history…
in any society prior to capitalism…about three hundred years out of 2 million
someone like you would have been run out of the village, shunned, or simply killed. humans survived by cooperation. at planting and harvest everyone works so everyone eats. the lucky hunter shares his catch.
the idea that you could live by “your money” alone is quite recent in history and is mostly bad.. except for the plastic toys that your money economy creates so efficiently for you.
but even capitalist, money economies have found it necessary to “tax” money… allows you to do your share. since you are too dumb to understand that SS is insurance that enables a money economy to do what humans used to do by “honor your father and your mother”… you might as well think of it as a tax. and then if the tax man asks for “your” money and you refuse “non violently” expect the police to insist.. as violently as you force them. then, of course, when you are old and rich and don’t need your steenkin social security check, you can always donate it to charity, as i know you will.
but meanwhile undersand that most sane humans despise a shirker.
Even granting qualification, which you have just asserted on no evidence beyond the weird claim that everyone but sociopaths are qualified (perhaps you like Bryan Caplan, GMU Prof who wrote ‘Myth of the Rational Voter’ you agree that people who don’t immediately concede to the libertarian project should literally be denied the right to vote), that doesn’t translate “Because I said so” or “As is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer” into a well reasoned argument.
Or is all of this a clever snarkish spoof of Glibertarianism? Because you are doing a fine job presenting yourself as a cartoon figure of fun. Because that faint sound of giggling is NOT people laughing WITH you.
“…six people have held shares in Cato Institute since…”
Correction: Each actually holds 16 shares with a par value of $1.00 per share.
Which brings up the question concerning what the original intent was regardiing transfer of share ownership. If truly intended not to be transferable without the organizations prior consent why not one share each which would then be non-divisible. Multiple shares would seem to imply the recognition that a shar holder may at some point want to share his/her ownership block.
“….but I think chapter 28 of Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/daily/2649) cleanly lays out the only defensible position.”
That’s the problem with your understanding of libertarian ideology. You decide for yourself hat you like and that’s what you think is right. Only a reference to ann “authority” supports your position. Who gives a rat’s ass what Rothbard thinks or says. The libertarians at the Cato Institute didn’t even care for his ideas, though that may be one scored in his favor.
Bruce
it looks like you are arguing with ME here. but i’ll stand by what i said anyway. it is the business of men to judge justice. i left sociopaths out of the category of “men” in this case because i think to the extent they refuse to honor the “tribe” they are not men.
actually i have seen this in lions also. lions hunt in prides. there are sociopathic lions, who are shunned if not eventually killed.
just in case
while it is a man’s business to judge right from wrong, that does not mean he will always be right in his judgments, or that men will not differ in their judgments.
if i were to agree with you that “i have no right to judge…” i would be saying, actually, that i do not judge that what you have done is wrong, or sufficiently wrong to take notice of.
“judge not, lest ye be judged” might better be said “condemn not…” we can’t help judging, even when we agree not to judge in some case.
a refusal to judge between right and wrong, is to “not care” about what is wrong. and that is wrong.
Well I screwed up a little. But given the thrust of my attack on Poppy that kind of a response seemed more natural if it had come from him.
I was just going to let it go, rather than point out that “I call them as I see ’em and everyone else is a sociopath” just replicates the style of the Glibs. In practice you just undercut me. But the actual failure to note who the comment really came from was mine. As you say to me often in e-mail “Let’s not argue in front of the children”.
But for their sake I would note that there is a difference between the logical failures of the Glibs and their moral failure even if the latter ultimately motivate the former.
Maybe we could just embrace our inner geek and declare me Spock (all dry logic), you big-hearted ‘just a country doctor’ McCoy, which I guess leaves Dan in the role of Kirk, both captain and occasional mediator.
And speaking of which if Captain Dan is listening a little deeper nesting of comments would go some way to keeping these back and forths straight.
Jack–What you said. I think the Koch’s want the whole wonderful government supported nonprofit for themselves to pump up their deductions. The deductions on the billion or so dollars Peterson has dumped into this nonprofits must be enormous. A billion plus, perhaps. So, this dispute is an illustration of how Libertarians will use the courts to coerce each other into giving up a valuable asset and will take government help to do it. This is noncoercive coercion, I guess. NancyO
Bruce
all is forgiven. i am aware my take is not quite the same as yours, but i am willing to bet that when all is said and done we are on the same side.
i think it is not too difficult to tell who the sociopaths are… though of course the good ones all pretend to be caring, loving people. but i would never claim to be the one who is always right and has the right to condemn those i don’t like. i merely claim that “‘oo are we to judge” turns out to be dangerous nonsense… the sort of rationalization i would expect to hear from a sociopath with his hand in the cookie jar.
jack
because Bruce points it out, I seem to be one who “decides for myself .. what I think is right.”
i don’t see any way to avoid that. and I see much harm in pretending it is illegitimate. of course what i think is right is not the same as what poppies thinks is right. but you may remember this particular subthread started with his assertion that i had no right to decide the difference between “trivial” harm and “serious” harm. as far as i can tell if we abandon that “right” from the beginning we throw ourselves at the mercy of any criminal who wants to harm us while claiming that we… and the bystanders… “have no right to judge.
but, as i said, my “idea of right” includes the willingness, importance of, backing off from “judging” where it seems to me the other persons privacy, or own perception of “right” has a right to prevail. and of course i need to remember “who art thou, oh man, to judge…seeing as how thou dost the same thing”
maybe that’s too complicated. but it comes down to we HAVE to judge. but most of the time we may be better not to. but we have to judge which times those are.
i certainly feel qualified to judge that the “harm” of a social security “tax” is trivial, if not entirely imaginary. but the harm of destroying social security is great. certainly worth saying hard things to those who would destroy it… even those who would destroy it under cover of “who are you to judge..”
All interesting. But Mike – Does CATO gain credibility from all this without having to do one credible thing at all to earn it?
There is no basis for judging Cato Institute to be a credible non-partisan organization. They call themselves libertarians, but they are in fact little different from hard right conservatives. They want less government, but to what end? Less taxation and less quality of life for everyone below the 5% at the top of the heap. That’s the One Percent and their sychophants who work in fealty to their employers. They promote opinion rather than facts. They suppoprt ideology rather than good ideas. Call the Cato Institute what you like, they are no less than a public relations agent for the Koch brothers and their ilk. The end result of that non-profit is top promote an atmosphere of greater profitability for their directors.
Governments buy toilet paper
Property is theft, or did God donate that apple to you personally?
There are a total of 1000 shares, with the balance in the treasury of the CI. Watch for interesting dealing of cards on that issue