Do the Koch Brothers Promote the Teachings of Ludwig von Mises?

[FrankRep]

Yet you forget to include they also donated to Mitt Romney who is far worse than Obama. Do you think we would not be in Syria or not negotiating with Iran had Mittens been elected?

Mitt Romney is more Oil and Coal friendly than Obama. Strategically, it more sense to side with Romney vs. Obama.

Even Rand Paul endorsed Romney.

 

[Ender]

Mitt Romney is more Oil and Coal friendly than Obama. Strategically, it more sense to side with Romney vs. Obama.

Even Rand Paul endorsed Romney.

But how is Romney "Oil and Coal" friendly? That is the question.

Developing our own?

Stealing it from ME countries?

Is he hemp friendly?

 

[FrankRep]

But how is Romney "Oil and Coal" friendly? That is the question.

Mitt Romney says plan will achieve North American energy independence by 2020


Washington Post
Aug. 23, 2012


Mitt Romney morphed into a traveling salesman here Thursday as he gave his best pitch for an energy plan that’s big on loosening environmental regulations and expanding domestic oil drilling and coal production.

To those who might doubt Romney’s projection that his plan would make North America energy independent by 2020, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a simple message: “It is achievable.”

“This is not some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing,” Romney told a modest crowd outside a truck warehouse in New Mexico. “This is a real, achievable objective, and I have a chart that’s still, despite the wind, still holding up up here.”
...

Looking to U.S. neighbors, Romney said, “Canada has oil sands, we’re going to take advantage of those and build the Keystone Pipeline,” adding, “that last little bar that I have there is Mexico.
...

His plan would also open new areas for offshore drilling, starting off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas, and empower the states to lease federal lands for oil, coal and natural gas development.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm glad the feud is over, an agreement was reached.
-----


A rift between the Cato Institute and two of its leaders, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, ended Monday with an agreement to revamp the research group’s leadership in a way that Cato officials said should maintain its political independence.

As part of the agreement, the Koch brothers will drop two lawsuits they had brought to gain greater control over the institute’s board. In exchange, the Cato Institute said that its longtime chief executive, Ed Crane, who had been at odds with Charles G. Koch, would retire.
...
Charles Koch helped found Cato in 1977, and his family has donated more than $30 million to it over the years. But he and Mr. Crane had a bitter falling-out over management and philosophical differences, and the Kochs had been angling for Mr. Crane’s removal for years.
....
Through groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs have fought many of President Obama’s key policies, including business regulation and health care reform. But some of Cato’s libertarian positions supporting liberal causes like same-sex marriage and drug decriminalization have angered conservatives.

And the settlement hardly favors Cato as Koch gets to handpick board members (including themselves) which is why this feud began in the first place.

 

[FrankRep]

And the settlement hardly favors Cato as Koch gets to handpick board members (including themselves) which is why this feud began in the first place.

Well, lets look the Cato Institute articles and see how bad they are.


On Spending: No Sacred Cows
http://www.cato.org/no-sacred-cows

Wow. They attack Corporate Spending, Military Overreach, the Drug War, Federal Subsidies, Social Security, and more!​

The End of Overkill? Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/end-overkill-reassessing-us-nuclear-weapons-policy

US security does not require nearly 1,600 nuclear weapons deployed on a triad of systems—bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)—to deliver them. A smaller arsenal deployed entirely on submarines would save roughly $20 billion annually while deterring attacks on the United States and its allies. A missile dyad is more politically feasible but saves less.​

November 2013: The Federal Reserve at 100
http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/november-2013/federal-reserve-100

Wow. Cato attacks the Federal Reserve and central banking. They're promoting decentralized banking?​

Solving Egypt’s Subsidy Problem
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/solving-egypts-subsidy-problem

Wow. They analyze Egypt's debt problem and offer solutions to eliminate public spending and subsidies.​

Conclusion: I don't see a problem with the Cato Institute.