I was eeking common ground not asking for an admission of any culpabilty of anything.
They don't need to mislead, they put all their cards on the table and try to convince people to advance civil society instead of government intervention. People agree or not.
Now I think it is clear to anyone who visits their web site the do try to mislead and they do not put all their cards on the table. I in other words think your opinion not clearly labeled as such is unsupported by a a visit to their web site.
Now you favor low uniform tariffs. I presume you have a reason. Can you show how low uniform tariffs provide a quantifiable net benefit or is based upon your person philosphical beliefes . If the later I will forego further discussion of the quantifiable arguments. If the former I will ask for some hard numbers that support a net benefit from that policy. At least one case looking at both sides of the issue would be sufficient to continue a rational discussion. If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.
Like I said, no reputable, knowledgeable respected person has ever accused them of using false numbers. Your charge is not backed by anything except your personal opinion. If you want to cite the articles listed there and dispute the footnotes let me know. Until then your opinions are irrelevant to me.
If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.
And now you are getting personal again. It gets you in trouble everytime. Try not asking personal questions and just stick to the facts and you will be more adult in your approach. Further, freedom is good public policy.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power. I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree.
It's like saying that if the question is theft you don't want to talk about the morality of it, only the question of who benefits from the plunder.