Whoa, A. Reader -- it appears you're reading a lot into my post here, and into what I said at the Freedom Summit. I'll try to briefly address all your points, although not necessarily in the order you've made them.

First, some background: I've worked extensively with policy institutes in various capacities while at Free-Market.Net. I've also done some volunteer work of varying sorts at a few. There's a wide range of activities that policy institutes conduct, even libertarian ones, but even so, I am familiar with the basics. One of the things I bolluxed in my presentation was clearly elucidating my difficulties with some libertarian think tanks. One individual spoke to me about it afterward -- he disagreed with what I said in my talk, too -- and after a few minutes' conversation, we found that we agree much more than we disagree.

Nowhere have I claimed that Cato is one of the public policy busybodies, telling people what's best for them. A libertarian think tank that I do see as doing this is the Reason Foundation. On the transportation issue main page, Bob Poole is quoted as saying, "It's time to rethink America's overemphasis on carpooling and revisit the advantages of buses." Why? If people liked riding buses better than using their own cars, they'd already be doing it -- they wouldn't need persuading or bribes -- er, "incentives". His endorsement of a "trusted flyer" ID program is highly problematic too. Some think tanks endorse what amounts to faux privatization -- for details see Kevin Carson's excellent Mutualist blog for numerous entries on the subject.

Now, to the Cato Institute specifically: I am not a regular reader of their material. I don't know what their writers are saying now, and how it compares with what they said when I did cover them for FMN. I have seen, however, other folks saying that Cato material has, umm, stepped back from a hard libertarian line. Sorry I can't provide any links -- I visit a lot of web sites and can't keep track of everything I see. That said, it's very often true that individuals see what they want to see -- so perhaps that explains your perception of no shift, and others' perceptions of a pro-Bush shift.

I have no great love -- nor enmity -- for the Cato Institute. I have no dog in this fight. Based on your comments after reading my post, it would appear that you've interpreted my words to mean that I want to complain about Cato's leaders' actions, irrespective of what they are. That isn't true. I used the adverb "predictably" because it is predictable that the Cato leadership would react as they have to news of Bandow's actions. I think that action was proper, as I think hiding a payola arrangement is ethically dodgy.

The main point of this entry is that even pro-freedom individuals, whom some among us like to hold up as being more ethical and principled than everyone else, are not immune to lapses of judgment, or the insidious allure of power and/or prestige. I know I've made mistakes, and I'm sure I'll make more. Yep, I've been wrong, too. Libertarians are just as human as everyone else, and to pretend otherwise is grave folly. That's why, in a nutshell, I'm anti-state, and a voluntaryist.

You seem to have chosen to interpret my comments as an attack on the Cato Institute. That's an error, which I hope I've made clear in the above. If you like them and support them, great! There are certainly worse pro-freedom causes to support.