I was just wondering, the fans of the Mises Institute were also fans fo the Cato Institute, and vis versa. I really haven't pinned down the defining differences of the two organizations, I have an idea, but I don't know if that is the only thing or not. So if anyone wants to do a compare and contrast? It would be good for the website and helpful to any new people who come across it.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Sigh, the divisions within Austrianism... Auburn vs GMU vs Cato (the former two being closer than the latter; Cato isn't strictly Austrian.) I definitely prefer the LVMI of the three. I find it invaluable as a source of knowledge. GMU scholars do on occasion publish some very interesting papers, as do Catoites. I am somewhat of an eclectic in that I value all three, just the LVMI and GMU much more than Cato.
As far as I can tell LvMI is concerned entirely with theory and does not involve itself in politics. The Cato Institute seems to be much more practical and actually engages in policy debate and participates in politics, but is somewhat of a mix of different minarchist libertarian traditions (more neo-classical than Austrian). Also I think the guys at GMU are having more of an influence on traditional economics but LvMI is more pure in its theoretical foundations.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Mises.org - Cato.org
anti govt - pro govt, or
anarchist - (min)archist, or
capitalistic - socialistic, and
intellectual - political
But, it is better for a person to read and develop his own impression. Rothbard was there and wrote about the beginning of the Libertarian Party and Cato with its Craneacs. And of course, those writings are thoughfully provided by Mises. Their reading is recommended.
I don't see the Cato/Mises question as a split within Austrianism, there's nothing particularly Austrian about Cato. While Cato doesn't endorse candidates, it's director has endorsed Guiliani, which should tell you all you need to know. Cato in general has no interest in freeing people from government, instead, it operates on the idea that through market-based reforms (Mises called this playing market) government can perform more efficiently. It favors fascism over socialism, i.e. they would like the government to contract with private corporations to waste money on needless projects instead of doing it directly.
True, I exaggerated somewhat. As I said, Cato occasionally publishes interesting articles, but I'm not fond of the institution.
My suspicions have been confirmed. At first I didn't realize that LvMI was so anarchal. I guess I thought that there was just a sect of anachists within the LvMI. I am about 3/8th of the way through Socialism, and I haven't read a single thing that I disagree with.
Now there are a few things that need to be addressed.
LvMI seems to be pretty solid anti governmet... completely anti government, but are yall pushing for the repeal of government in a legal sense? or through a revolution, either one day violent, or in a way where every one just starts ignoring government and refuses to pay taxes? or some other way? Or again is all this just theoretical? lol.
The next question is whether or not people adhering to Mises ideals take part in politcs? do yall vote? are there mises people who run for office?
I would much rather debate with a person who wants to abolish government than with a person who wants to use the government to tell me every little thing that needs to be done, or not done. I had a dream where The Republican and Democrate parties did not exist and in their place were the Mises party and the Cato party. I don't know if that would ever really be possible for yall to do but it was just an idea.
Lastly let me repeat, I would like to debate whether or not we should abolish government. perhaps it would be possible to privitize all aspects of society. but I don't see the point in debating it now. Not now when between 1 out of 10 and 1 out of 5 people work for the government directly, and probably even more than that if you count contractors, and there are even more people who don't work but get money from the government.
When the government pays your check, or gives you benifits, or even retirement and so on, its hard for people to even consider life without gov't. We first need to shrink the government down to size. get it out of people's lives, eliminate the IRS which directly ties each man to the federal government. We must go back to the day when Federal City is out of mind and far away, and not front and center in the papers every day.
Should we not first all work together towards these ends, bring america back to a pre 1865 mindset. Lets work first to restore federalism, and then bring to debate Jeffersonian Anti Federalism, and then it might be possible to bring about... anarchy?
But I really don't see how it is even worth discussing under our current situation. Maybe by the time I am an old man. but not when near 50% of our population is preparing to vote for 1 of 3 socialists for what will be a quasi-dictatorship, we have a common enemy to defeat.
Attackdonkey: I guess I thought that there was just a sect of anachists within the LvMI.
That doesn't seem wrong, although I wouldn't use the word sect. It is the case that not everyone at LvMI is an anarchist. One of the moments I remember best from Mises University is watching Roderick Long debate with George Reisman, informally, at night, about anarchism/miniarchism.
Attackdonkey:LvMI seems to be pretty solid anti governmet... completely anti government, but are yall pushing for the repeal of government in a legal sense? or through a revolution, either one day violent, or in a way where every one just starts ignoring government and refuses to pay taxes? or some other way? Or again is all this just theoretical? lol.
I wouldn't presume to speak for LvMI, but my opinion is removal of government through 2 streams: education, and market replacement. We need to teach people about economics, about private solutions to problems, and suggest possibilities for how it would work, without making the fallacy of trying to describe what freedom would look like. Also, we need to create firms which directly perform services which now are seen as public goods, not just to demonstrate that it can be done, but because such a firm would easily outcompete the government in terms of efficiency, and this process would make government obsolete, which is how we eliminate it. I'm certainly not interested in legal repeal, which is a contradiction in terms, nor in bloody revolution. Nor is it just theoretical - we aren't describing market solutions to problems for our health, we're doing it both as a framework for the future, and as part of an educational mission.
Attackdonkey:The next question is whether or not people adhering to Mises ideals take part in politcs? do yall vote? are there mises people who run for office?
I think most of us would follow Rothbard in arguing that voting is not evil, although it may frequently be pointless. There are many anarchist who consider voting illegitimate, but I don't go down that path - I see it as an act of self-defense, when there is a reasonably better candidate. There aren't many Mises people who run for office, but there are some - one is a top candidate for President. Before someone jumps on me, I am not implying that the Mises Institute in any way, shape, or form supports, endorses, or assists Ron Paul. I am noting simply that Paul has spoken at many Mises events, has published through Mises before, and was a student of Mises.
Attackdonkey: I would much rather debate with a person who wants to abolish government than with a person who wants to use the government to tell me every little thing that needs to be done, or not done. I had a dream where The Republican and Democrate parties did not exist and in their place were the Mises party and the Cato party. I don't know if that would ever really be possible for yall to do but it was just an idea.
Let me repeat my prior point - I don't see much of anything libertarian coming from Cato. The operative philosophy there seems to be an interest in "playing market" and helping government to operate more efficiently.
Attackdonkey:When the government pays your check, or gives you benifits, or even retirement and so on, its hard for people to even consider life without gov't. We first need to shrink the government down to size. get it out of people's lives, eliminate the IRS which directly ties each man to the federal government. We must go back to the day when Federal City is out of mind and far away, and not front and center in the papers every day.
I'm not sure how this follows. If people have trouble picturing life without government, we need to help them picture it. That is, this underscores the importance of the educational approach. How would shrinking the size of government, while it still provides what most people consider "essential" services, help people to understand how to eliminate the government entirely?
That said, I certainly would be in favor of anything at all that moves in the right direction. Government actions have real victims, and eliminating the harmful actions would help those victims. If we can eliminate one bad aspect of government, we should. But anarchy as a goal is important, because if you're not 100% clear on where you want to go, sometimes it's hard to tell to know if your'e going if in the right direction or not. Furthermore, there are some policies that people insist are "libertarian" that I think are moves in the wrong direction. For example, consider vouchers. I oppose vouchers, and I'm accused by many libertarians of "making the perfect the enemy of the good." But that isn't it at all - I don't oppose vouchers because they don't go far enough, or because they aren't perfect - I oppose them because I think they would be bad, and would be a move in the wrong direction, because they'd increase government control of nominally private schools.
Attackdonkey:Should we not first all work together towards these ends, bring america back to a pre 1865 mindset. Lets work first to restore federalism, and then bring to debate Jeffersonian Anti Federalism, and then it might be possible to bring about... anarchy?
But is changing policy the same thing as changing mindset? I maintain that the mindset must come first. Is it possible to force something through, or to put it in by "stealth"? Sure, but stealth libertarianism has a downside - it can't possibly last, and is likely to produce an anti-libertarian backlash.
There will be no stealth. Stealth is the action of sneaky socialists when it comes to passing legislation. Neo cons are out in the open with what they want to do, but deceptive in regards to the reason why the legislation is passed. a Libertarian is proud of his cause, we are on principle, not issues. the issues; whether gay butt sex is wrong or not, or weed, or *** fighting or smoking is wrong doesn't matter. the point is that the individual should get to decide that for himself and not the state.
And so yes mindset is the key. all I was trying to say earlier is that its hard to get to a person's mind when their wallet is in the way. how do you even get a person to talk to you when their way of life is dependant upon the government? An accountant might not like the IRS, but he can not vote against it, if he does... it will put him out of a job. This is why our oversized govt has to be attacked a little at a time. we have to wean the public off of government. I'm tired.
from "Betrayal of the American Right" by Murray Rothbard
- - - - -The winter of 1949–50, in fact, witnessed the two most excitingand shattering intellectual events of my life: my discovery of “Austrian”economics, and my conversion to individualist anarchism....My conversion to anarchism was a simple exercise in logic. Ihad engaged continually in friendly arguments about laissez-fairewith liberal friends from graduate school. While condemning taxation,I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision ofpolice and judicial protection and for that only. One night twofriends and I had one of our usual lengthy discussions, seeminglyunprofitable; but this time when they’d left, I felt that for oncesomething vital had actually been said. As I thought back on thediscussion, I realized that my friends, as liberals, had posed the followingchallenge to my laissez-faire position:
They: What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government,for this political entity confined solely to defendingperson and property?
I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such agovernment.
They: But if “the people” can do that, why can’t they do exactlythe same thing and get together to choose a government thatwill build steel plants, dams, etc.?
I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissezfairewas logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal,or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist....Anarchism, in fact, was in the air in our little movement inthose days. My friend and fellow Mises-student, Richard Cornuelle,younger brother of Herb, was my first, and willing, convert.Anarchist ferment was also brewing at no less a place thanFEE. Ellis Lamborn, one of the staff members, was openly referringto himself as an “anarchist,” and *** smilingly reported from Leonard E. Read, "Students of Liberty" his own stay at FEE that he was “having increasing difficulty incoping with the anarchist’s arguments.” *** also delightedlyreported that, amidst a lengthy discussion about what name to callthis newly found pure-libertarian creed—“libertarian,” “voluntaryist,”“individualist,” “true liberal,” etc.—this pioneering staffmember cut in, with his Midwestern twang: “Hell, ‘anarchist’ isgood enough for me.” Another leading staff member, F.A. Harper,on one of my visits to Irvington, softly pulled a copy of Tolstoy’s"The Law of Love and the Law of Violence" from under his desk, andthereby introduced me to the absolute pacifist variant of anarchism.Indeed, it was rumored that almost the entire staff of FEEhad become anarchists by this time, with the exception of Mr. Readhimself—and that even he was teetering on the brink....The libertarian idyll at FEE came abruptly to an end in 1954,with the publication of Leonard Read’s booklet "Government—AnIdeal Concept". The book sent shockwaves reverberating throughlibertarian circles, for with this work Read moved decisively backinto the pro-government camp....But here, despite heavyand virtually unanimous staff opposition, Read had highhandedlybroken this social compact and had gone ahead and published hispraise of government under FEE’s imprimatur. It was this attitudethat launched a slow, but long and steady decline of FEE as a centerof libertarian productivity and research, as well as an exodusfrom FEE of all its best talents, led by F.A. Harper.- - - - -
So, one might say that LvMI ("Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises
(1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)...") is a continuation of this old FEE.
Its self-chosen niche seems to be supporting the Austrian School's tradition (Menger-Boehm-
Bawek-Mises-Rothbard) among the Court Intellectuals (university) and more broadly too (among
us, the People).
Attackdonkey:LvMI seems to be pretty solid anti governmet... completely anti government, but are yall pushing for the repeal of government in a legal sense? or through a revolution, either one day violent, or in a way where every one just starts ignoring government and refuses to pay taxes? or some other way? Or again is all this just theoretical? lol. The next question is whether or not people adhering to Mises ideals take part in politcs? do yall vote? are there mises people who run for office?
One thing is for sure, the government will never repeal itself. The government never acts unless there is some kind of crisis. We must create the crisis. We must make it such that the government has to give up its power. This is not the same kind of revolution as the French or Russian revolutions. It is a revolution like American revolution. It is a revolution that is philosophical. We aren't trying to seize the state. We do not need to employ violence, although violence will be employed against us.
The models for this revolution are Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They suffered to win.
A lot of people seem to believe that history can run backwards. We can roll back the clock to previous epochs and then we'll be safe once more. But history only runs forwards. Monarchy grows out of feudalism, and democracy grows out of monarchy, Federalism cannot be restored. It can only be regrown from the revolutionary seeds.
No empire has ever grown into a federation. They have collapsed under their own corruption and then were pieced apart by the barbarians. Our goal is to be better organised than the other barbarians.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Attackdonkey:I was just wondering, the fans of the Mises Institute were also fans fo the Cato Institute, and vis versa. I really haven't pinned down the defining differences of the two organizations, I have an idea, but I don't know if that is the only thing or not. So if anyone wants to do a compare and contrast? It would be good for the website and helpful to any new people who come across it.
Mises Institute: Anarchist
Cato Institute: Sane.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Attackdonkey, from the things I have read Murray Rothbard was one of the founding members of the Cato Institute (I think that it says this in the introduction to "The Ethics of Liberty"), but he was forced out for being "too radical". I don't personally have anything against the Cato Institute, and I went to see John Stossel at a Cato event in Atlanta that was very good. Also David Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer is a great book in my opinion. Rothbard's Anarco-Capitalism is the logical social organization of a completely free society (see "For a New Liberty", and "The Ethics of Liberty" -Both of which are down-loadable for free from the Institute in audio format). To see the merit of this argument it is helpful to think about how things might work in a completely free society. "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy attempts to describe some possibilities of a society free of government.
I saw that you said you were reading Socialism, I think a great place to begin your understanding of Austrian Econ. would be Man, Economy, and State, but I don't think you have to understand economics to believe in Liberty and that people should be free to interact. There are only two principles that people must follow for a society to function, they are based on old British Common Law (exposited by Richard Maybury)
1-Do all you have agreed to do. (This is the basis of contract law)
2-Do not encroach on other persons or their property (this is the basis of tort law and some criminal law)
For further elaboration on these principles see Maybury's excellent series of Uncle Eric books.
As far as Mises people who are in Politics, Ron Paul is the only politician I know of who is affiliated with the Mises Institute.
Hope this is helpful.
Cracked me up enough to log in and compliment it.
I have to say, I think I much prefer Cato in terms of political practicality.
Name one policy proposal of Cato's which came to be.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Like I would know the entire history of Cato public policy proposals and which ones were adopted into law. No one's policy proposals ever come to be exactly as they're proposed, the political process is about compromise. So while it's entirely possible that nothing Cato has ever recommended has been adopted word for word (and I can't confirm or deny that because I don't know), I think that by participating in the political process. they at least have an influence in the debate.
But of course uncompromising liberty will not be achieved through the political process and so a lot of libertarians prefer the more academic strategy one finds at LvMI because they know they won't get what they want through politics.
If you don't have uncompromising libertarians, then you don't have a libertarian movement. We're the foundation for the philosophy. That there will be compromisers is unnecessary but also unavoidable. Was it Garrison or Spooner who said, "Push for immediate abolition of slavery it will - alas! - be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery will be ended by a single blow; that it ought to be will forever be our contention"? This same scenario may play out with government, and it may be compromisers who bring it about, but just as with the movement to abolish slavery, the unbending radicals are indispensable to the movement.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
The only thing CATO has for it, IMO, is Pen and Teller.
I say we intellectually convince them to come our way so we can have some magic tricks with a potato more often.
The Mises Institute has better economic theory and less faith in Reformism than Cato. But Cato is quite a bit less ideologically crazy. Cato Unbound is, in terms of philosophy, better than what you're find at Mises.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
^Wikipedia says Penn is an anarcho-capitalist, though there is no source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_today
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
There is a source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette#cite_note-pittsburghlive-8
"I guess libertarian is a little too much government for me. I tend to be a little more anarcho-capitalist. But I will take libertarianism to get that in place, then work to get that out of place. I see libertarianism as a stepping stone.
I believe that people are really, really, really good, and that the number of people who do actual bad things is so insignificantly small, that we don't need to treat everybody as criminals just to stop them.
Yet people are so scared - a lot by the media and a lot of incorrect knowledge. They think they are some sort of one good person surrounded by all these bad people, and they're actually one good person surrounded by a lot of good people."
Maybe I am being nit-picky, but he didn't go all the way, If one wanted, you could interpret it as an extreme minarchist with short term aims. Then again it seemed like a casual interview so its hard to tell what exactly 'tend to be a little more anarcho-capitalist' means in comparison to why he didn't just say 'I am an anarcho-capitalist'
Joe,
When he says 'libertarianism', he means minarchism. His position is layed out perfectly clear: minarchism is too much government for him, and it's a stepping stone between now and the ultimate goal of anarcho-capitalism.
There is no such thing as a 'little' anarcho-capitalism. The reason he uses this language is to be nice and friendly.
His elaboration about people being generally good makes this even more clear.
There are brilliant people at the Cato institute who are doing good work, but I think I have more in common with radical leftist (chomsky, kucinich etc.) than with those moderate libertarian/free market guys. How can you possibly be a 'moderate' in the world we live in? (wouldn't that make you the actual 'radical') It's weird to see those guys discuss political decisions that involve murdering hundreds of thousands of people in a calm and civil manner. I just can't take them very serious, it seems like they don't really believe in their position. It's like the jews in the warsaw ghetto would have organised a grand debate and maybe even a little demonstration instead of actually defending themselves.
It's just strikes me as very strange, does that make sense?
+that whole converting the elite to libertarianism thing is futile. The elite is the elite not because they're super awesome but exactly because they have those terrible views on everything. If they change their views they loose corporate support and therefore their position within the system.
The rothbardian populist approach seems much more sensible.
Watching Stossel, he has a lot of Cato scholars on the program. They always seem to take a libertarian approach to issues. Though, I find Stossel to be a constitutional conservative more than a libertarian. He is libertarian in the sense that he despised government involvement, but concedes that some government is necessary.
Getting back to Cato, I like their views on what issues I heard their opinion on. Like for example, the obsurdity of tax subsidized nuclear power.
I think that the freedom movement has room for different strategy.
There's no doubt in my mind that the LVMI is much more sound on theory, principle, and truth.
The way I see the Cato Institute is an organization that sacrifice a lot of intellectual honesty in order to be respectable to statists with the hope to be able to convince them of being a bit less authoritarian.
The LVMI doesn't officially have a specific position on what is the best strategy to follow to try to promote liberty, although most of its members would see trying to reform the state as a generally futile exercise, and instead support secession and smaller political groups as a possible solution.
I see the Cato Institute as a political institution, that doesn't intellectually promote liberty, but is useful only as far as they would actually succeed to practically having an influence of reducing the power of the government.
Their lack of support for Ron Paul during the presidential campaign (the most libertarian candidate by far) and instead their support for Guiliani showed how much they prefer to be "respectable" to the political establishment rather than supporting libertarian efforts.
Personally, I wouldn't support the Cato Institute (I do support the LVMI), even do they make interesting videos on you tube, and have some good articles from time to time.
I would say there is even a difference between the minarchists here and the ones of Cato.
Ours are more mini than theirs!
Junker: Mises.org - Cato.org anti govt - pro govt, or anarchist - (min)archist, or capitalistic - socialistic, and intellectual - political
Lol.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
JAlanKatz: I don't see the Cato/Mises question as a split within Austrianism, there's nothing particularly Austrian about Cato. While Cato doesn't endorse candidates, it's director has endorsed Guiliani, which should tell you all you need to know. Cato in general has no interest in freeing people from government, instead, it operates on the idea that through market-based reforms (Mises called this playing market) government can perform more efficiently. It favors fascism over socialism, i.e. they would like the government to contract with private corporations to waste money on needless projects instead of doing it directly.
I'm impressed by this nuanced piece of judgement.
JAlanKatz: Let me repeat my prior point - I don't see much of anything libertarian coming from Cato. The operative philosophy there seems to be an interest in "playing market" and helping government to operate more efficiently.
What Mises called 'playing market' is a specific proposal, which he demolished in HA.
That's not the same as what, in general, Cato is doing.
The main difference, I think, is a difference in analysis and 'what should we do?' What Cato tries to do is to try to influence day to day politics. I'm not sure why this is so bad that they deserved to be called 'socialists' or 'fascists'. Sure; there are people associated with it, witch are basically people who support mass killing of innocent people (the wars), but it doesn't follow that a lot of what Cato does is influenced by 'the right ideas' as such and based on a philosophy of pragmatism. I'm not a pragmatist myself, but I don't see any reason to crusade against the pragmatists either.
On a related note: I don't think there is a 'better' libertarian position on the question if we should try to make government programs work 'better' or that we should oppose it no matter what - because we shouldn't forgot that they do damage right now to people and arguing against it could marginally improve some peoples live, even if you have to do it from a more pragmatic perspective (and thus sort of endorcing something else).
To clear some confusion, Cato is not an Austrian think tank. Cato is a "libertarian" think tank, that right now reaches out to conservatives who might be interested in small-government literature. However, within Cato there is everything. There are conservatives, there are minarchists, and there are anarchists. For example, Tom Palmer (even if he doesn't admit it in his literature) and David Boaz are anarchists. The scope of Cato is just much wider than the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I think both preform two separate and valuable objectives. Cato does much of the outreach, and the Mises Institute sticks to their intellectual guns. I think that for most libertarians that really get into it, the LvMI is the ending up whereas Cato may be the starting point. I attended Cato University in 2009 (but, by that time I was already a reader of the LvMI's publications).
AdrianHealey: On a related note: I don't think there is a 'better' libertarian position on the question if we should try to make government programs work 'better' or that we should oppose it no matter what - because we shouldn't forgot that they do damage right now to people and arguing against it could marginally improve some peoples live, even if you have to do it from a more pragmatic perspective (and thus sort of endorcing something else).
False dilemma?
There is a better libertarian position if one can define what a libertarian is.
I'm certainly open to someone informing me, but I am still waiting for evidence that the Cato Institute has achieved anything of signficance, other than swaying a few votes on this or that regulation. Have they been successful at spreading libertarianism? If so, how does that compare with the LvMI, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, etc?
I really don't see that they've made any significant headway. To the extent that people are talking about libertarianism these days, I think most of the credit goes to this organizational approach which targets young people and the Ron Paul movement. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea of a Ron Paul, it seems fairly evident he has - through his rhetoric - opened the door of libertarianism to far more people than the Cato Institute.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea of a Ron Paul, it seems fairly evident he has - through his rhetoric - opened the door of libertarianism to far more people than the Cato Institute.
Lewis,
I think you are right, but I think that Cato is more popular than the Ludwig von Mises Institute, if only for the fact that their literature is more approachable. I think, though, that Liberty Student's point (whether he intended this interpretation or not) should be considered. Cato presents, perhaps, a less logically consistent message of libertarian, that appeals to a much broader population. Those that pursue the subject further will find greater consistency elsewhere. It seems as if it all embodies a process of learning. Ron Paul may pique interest, and that person may then go to Cato and/or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He may, at first, find Cato's message much more appealing, but the point is to slowly educate a person so that that person himself can make the choice on what particular ideology is the most convincing. That's why I think there is, and should be, room for both think tanks, because they both pursue very different objectives.
"Name one policy proposal of Cato's which came to be."
HSA's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account
Mises has the greatest wealth of resource, I have never learned so much off one website, thanks LvMI!
They might have been partly (a very small part?) responsible for ending the draft in the U.S.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap