They have members that are skeptical of global warming, they aren't "big oil/big tobacco" so much as they are for "free markets," and they are a grassroots organization no different than any other.
Ah, yes. The classic Libertarian argument. I have a friend who is a libertarian, and despite the fact that I don't agree with many of his arguments, but if most libertarians are like my friend, I have to respect their adherence to their beliefs. That said, I would like to point a few things out:
1) They are skeptical of global warming in the face of mounting evidence and nearly unanimous scientific opinion. That tells me that they have a specific agenda to forward and it is not compatible with trying to stop global warming. Typically, it has been oil companies that have helped advance the argument that there is no global warming. Think of the oil companies as creationists in that, like creationists, they choose to believe something else other than the scientific-community accepted hypothesis of global warming despite the evidence being gathered that supports global warming. Being skeptical is fine, but there is a point when skepticism is just plain stubbornness when the evidence continues to support a particular hypothesis or theory.
So what is their reason for promoting such skepticism? Because if they didn't promote skepticism of global warming, people might begin to drive less, carpool more, take public transportation more, use heat less, switch to alternative energy sources, buy cars that consume less gas, etc all of which has the net effect of lowering the profits of those oil companies. If money is the game, they will do whatever they can to make sure they make more of it except, apparently, adapt to the situation.
2) I like the free market because it works so much better than a command economy; it's good that I can buy whatever I want when I want and how much I want. I believe most societies that experience the free market (the good one, not the crony one) would agree with me on this point. The problem is that the free market is not cure-all some people make it out to seem. Monopolies, for instance, can hamper any kind of reform that could be done through the free market (think Microsoft). Collusion between companies in an industry can occur despite the economy being a free market (OPEC). Start-ups can be brought out if there is a danger to an established company. That's not to say that the free market can't bring about reform (massive boycotting is often a good tactic to use against companies, although sometimes boycotting doesn't actually do anything, especially if it's not sustained in large number throughout the general populace) but it would take time to bring about that reform without government intervention as the companies are not going to sit on their hands. And unfortunately, humanity doesn't have the time to use the free market to bring about reform in this scenario.
Also remember, that our free market is not so free. I agree with libertarians that have said this, but I think the government should stop giving what amounts to corporate welfare to the oil companies and all big companies in general. By subsidizing the big companies, the government is distorting the free market preventing potentially better companies from entering the market earlier. Government subsidies to big corporations also diminish competitiveness in a sector as the big corporations have an edge that stacks newer companies trying to compete. Once those oil companies give back those subsidies they keep taking, then they can start arguing free market.
3) Ever heard of Behavioral Economics. The basic idea is that people are not as rational as economists once thought and that people make sub-optimal choices that do not maximize utility. This is because there are other factors that come into play that informs a person's choice. Once again, this is a critique of the free market as a reform mechanism.
Bounded Rationality, one of the building ideas behind Behavioral Economics, states that people are limited by the information at hand, their minds, and time. Because of this, people simply make a satisfactory choice rather than the optimal one.
That's why the skepticism by the CATO Institute and the debate over global warming is so important. Without that debate, people would accept global warming and make their choices accordingly, but as long as there is a debate and skepticism, then people may not be certain. The CATO Institute serves to confuse the issue which influences the decisions people make in the free market. As long as people are not always able to make the optimal choice, the free market is not the best forum for reform.
No, they are for reducing the government which if you read the Constitution was the stated aim. They simply think that government is too large. When you have government run institutions for art work like the National Endowment for Arts, it is no wonder why the United States is this in debt. More government programs means more taxes. That's simple economics.
The question is how much of a reduction do they want? Should we get rid of free public education because the Constitution makes no mention of Congresses power to supply education? How about the police or firefighters? Or the emergency rooms? None of those are mentioned in the Constitution as part of Congress' power. Would the CATO Institute argue for the dismantling of the corporate welfare structure?
If ever there were a non-partisan group, it would be Cato since they never align themselves completely with either democrats or republicans. On any debate you won't see them politically align themselves towards any party.
But that's just smart business. The sad fact of American politics is that many politicians, especially the more powerful ones, regardless of party receive money from corporations. It's rare to find any corporation that supplies funds to only one party (tech sectors are generally more Democrat friendly as Dems want more money for education). Does that mean they are bipartisan? I don't know if I would make that argument, but I would probably say that the politicians are more corporate friendly because of the help of those corporations.
And that's why it's smart business. If you supply money to both parties, both parties are friendlier to your cause and no matter which party is in power, your agenda will be easier to get through.
It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
™ Version 4.2
