- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Matthew Gaylor has it ass backward
by mattd 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

http://ri.xu.org/arbalest/alembic2c.html "The Libertarian as Conservative." To me this is so obvious that I am hard put to find something to say to people who still think libertarianism has something to do with liberty. A libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs. I'd have preferred a more controversial topic like "The Myth of the Penile Orgasm." But since my attendance here is subsidized by the esteemed distributor of a veritable reference library on mayhem and dirty tricks, I can't just take the conch and go rogue. I will indeed mutilate the sacred cow which is libertarianism, as ordered, but I'll administer a few hard lefts to the right in my own way. And I don't mean the easy way. I could just point to the laissez-faire Trilateralism of the Libertarian Party, then leave and go look for a party. It doesn't take long to say that if you fight fire with fire, you'll get burned. If that were all I came up with, somebody would up and say that the LP has lapsed from the libertarian faith, just as Christians have in- sisted that their behavior over the last 1900 years or so shouldn't be held against Christianity. There are Libertarians who try to retrieve libertarianism from the Libertarian Party just as there are Christians who try to reclaim Christianity from Christendom and communists (I've tried to myself) who try to save Communism from the Communist parties and states. They (and I) meant well but we lost. Libertarianism is party-archist fringe-rightism just as socialism is what Eastern European dissidents call "real socialism," i.e., the real-life state-socialism of queues, quotas, corruption and coercion. But I choose not to knock down this libertarian strawman-qua-man who's blowing over anyway. A wing of the Reaganist Right has obviously appropriated, with suspect selectivity, such libertarian themes as deregulation and voluntarism. Ideologues indignate that Reagan has travestied their principles. Tough sh7t! I notice that it's their principles, not mine, that he found suitable to travesty. This kind of quarrel doesn't interest me. My reasons for regarding libertarianism as conservative run deeper than that. My target is what Libertarians have in common with each other, and with their ostensible enemies. Libertarians serve the state all the better because they declaim against it. At bottom, they want what it wants. But you can't want what the state wants without wanting the state, for what the state wants is the conditions in which it flourish- es. My (unfriendly) approach to modern society is to regard it as an integrated totality. Silly doctrinaire theories which regard the state as a parasitic excrescence on society cannot explain its centuries-long persistence, its ongoing encroachment upon what was previously market terrain, or its acceptance by the overwhelming majority of people including its demonstrable victims. A far more plausible theory is that the state and (at least) this form of society have a symbiotic (however sordid) interdependence, that the state and such institutions as the market and the nuclear family are, in several ways, modes of hierarchy and control. Their articulation is not always harmonious but they share a common interest in consigning their conflicts to elite or expert resolution. To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst. And yet (to quote the most vociferous of radical Libertarians, Professor Murray Rothbard) there is nothing un-libertarian about "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party." Indeed. That is why libertarianism is just conservatism with a rationalist/positivist veneer. Libertarians render a service to the state which only they can provide. For all their complaints about its illicit extensions they concede, in their lucid moments, that the state rules far more by consent than by coercion which is to say, on present-state "libertarian" terms the state doesn't rule at all, it merely carries out the tacit or explicit terms of its contracts. If it seems contradictory to say that coercion is consensual, the contradiction is in the world, not in the expression, and can't adequately be rendered except by dialectical discourse. One-dimensional syllogistics can't do justice to a world largely lacking in the virtue. If your language lacks poetry and paradox, it's unequal to the task of accounting for actuality. Otherwise anything radically new is literally unspeakable. The scholastic "A = A" logic created by the Catholic Church which the Libertarians inherited, unquestioned, from the Randites is just as constrictively conservative as the Newspeak of Orwell's 1984. The state commands, for the most part, only because it commands popular support. It is (and should be) an embarrassment to Libertarians that the state rules with mass support including, for all practical purposes, theirs. Libertarians reinforce acquiescent attitudes by diverting discontents who are generalized (or tending that way) and focusing them on particular features and functions of the state which they are the first to insist are expendable! Thus they turn potential revolutionaries into repairmen. Constructive criticism is really the subtlest sort of praise. If the Libertarians succeed in relieving the state of its exiguous activities, they just might be its salvation. No longer will reverence for authority be eroded by the prevalent official ineptitude. The more the state does, the more it does badly. Surely one reason for the common man's aversion to Communism is his reluctance to see the entire economy run like the Post Office. The state tries to turn its soldiers and policemen into objects of veneration and respect, but uniforms lose a lot of their mystique when you see them on park rangers and garbage- men. The ideals and institutions of authority tend to cluster together, both subjectively and objectively. You may recall Edward Gibbon's remark about the eternal alliance of Throne and Altar. Disaffection from received dogmas has a tendency to spread. If there is any future for freedom, it depends on this. Unless and until alienation recognizes itself, all the guns the Libertarians cherish will be useless against the state. You might object that what I've said may apply to the minarchist majority of Libertarians, but not to the self-styled anarchists among them. To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else. But this incestuous family squabble is no affair of mine. Both camps call for partial or complete privitization of state functions but neither questions the functions themselves. They don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it. This is why the people most victimized by the state display the least interest in libertarianism. Those on the receiving end of coercion don't quibble over their coercers' credentials. If you can't pay or don't want to, you don't much care if your deprivation is called larceny or taxation or restitution or rent. If you like to control your own time, you distinguish employment from enslavement only in degree and duration. An ideology which outdoes all others (with the possible exception of Marxism) in its exaltation of the work ethic can only be a brake on anti-authoritarian orientations, even if it does make the trains run on time. My second argument, related to the first, is that the libertarian phobia as to the state reflects and reproduces a profound misunderstanding of the operative forces which make for social control in the modern world. If and this is a big "if," especially where bourgeois Libertarians are concerned what you want is to maximize individual autonomy, then it is quite clear that the state is the least of the phenomena which stand in your way. Imagine that you are a Martian anthropologist specializing in Terran studies and equipped with the finest telescopes and video equipment. You have not yet deciphered any Terran language and so you can only record what earthlings do, not their shared misconceptions as to what they're doing and why. However, you can gauge roughly when they're doing what they want and when they're doing something else. Your first important discovery is that earthlings devote nearly all their time to unwelcome activities. The only important exception is a dwindling set of hunter- gatherer groups unperturbed by governments, churches and schools who devote some four hours a day to subsistence activities which so closely resemble the leisure activities of the privileged classes in industrial capitalist countries that you are uncertain whether to describe what they do as work or play. But the state and the market are eradicating these holdouts and you very properly concentrate on the almost all-inclusive world-system which, for all its evident internal antagonisms as epitomized in war, is much the same everywhere. The Terran young, you further observe, are almost wholly subject to the impositions of the family and the school, sometimes seconded by the church and occasionally the state. The adults often assemble in families too, but the place where they pass the most time and submit to the closest control is at work. Thus, without even entering into the question of the world economy's ultimate dictation of everybody's productive activity, it's apparent that the source of the greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary adult is not the state but rather the business that employs him. Your foreman or supervisor gives you more "or-else" orders in a week than the police do in a decade. If one looks at the world without prejudice but with an eye to maximizing freedom, the major coercive institution is not the state, it's work. Libertarians who with a straight face call for the abolition of the state nonetheless look on anti-work attitudes with horror. The idea of abolishing work is, of course, an affront to common sense. But then so is the idea of abolishing the state. If a referendum were held among Libertarians which posed as options the abolition of work with retention of the state, or abolition of the state with retention of work, does anyone doubt the outcome? Libertarians are into linear reasoning and quantitative analysis. If they applied these methods to test their own reasoning they'd be in for a shock. That's the point of my Martian thought experiment. This is not to say that the state isn't just as unsavory as the Libertarians say it is. But it does suggest that the state is important, not so much for the direct duress it inflicts on convicts and conscripts, for instance, as for its indirect back-up of employers who regiment employees, shopkeepers who arrest shoplifters, and parents who paternalize children. In these classrooms, the lesson of submission is learned. Of course, there are always a few freaks like anarcho-capitalists or Catholic anarchists, but they're just exceptions to the rule of rule. Unlike side issues such as unemployment, unions, and minimum-wage laws, the subject of work itself is almost entirely absent from libertarian literature. Most of what little there is consists of Randite rantings against parasites, barely distinguishable from the invective inflicted on dissidents by the Soviet press, and Sunday-school platitudinizing that there is no free lunch this from fat cats who have usually ingested a lot of them. In 1980, a rare exception appeared in a book review published in the Libertarian Review by Professor John Hospers, the Libertarian Party elder state's-man who flunked out of the Electoral College in 1972. Here was a spirited defense of work by a college professor who didn't have to do any. To demonstrate that his arguments were thoroughly conservative, it is enough to show that they agreed in all essentials with Marxism-Leninism. Hospers thought he could justify wage-labor, factory discipline and hierarchic management by noting that they're imposed in Leninist regimes as well as under capitalism. Would he accept the same argument for the necessity of repressive sex and drug laws? Like other Libertarians, Hospers is uneasy hence his gratuitous red-baiting because libertarianism and Leninism are as different as Coke and Pepsi when it comes to consecrating class society and the source of its power, work. Only upon the firm foundation of factory fascism and office oligarchy do Libertarians and Leninists dare to debate the trivial issues dividing them. Toss in the mainstream conservatives who feel just the same and we end up with a veritable trilateralism of pro-work ideology seasoned to taste. Hospers, who never has to, sees nothing demeaning in taking orders from bosses, for "how else could a large scale factory be organized?" In other words, "wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself." Hospers again? No, Frederick Engels! Marx agreed: "Go and run one of the Barcelona factories without direction, that is to say, without authority!" (Which is just what the Catalan workers did in 1936, while their anarcho- syndicalist leaders temporized and cut deals with the government.) "Someone," says Hospers, "has to make decisions and" -- here's the kicker -- "someone _else_ has to implement them." Why? His precursor Lenin likewise endorsed "individual dictatorial powers" to assure "absolute and strict unity of will. But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one." What's needed to make industrialism work is "iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the soviet leader, while at work." Arbeit macht frei! Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. Of course, as Hospers smugly observes, "one can at least change jobs," but you can't avoid having a job just as under statism one can at least change nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one nation-state or another. But freedom means more than the right to change masters. Hospers and other Libertarians are wrong to assume, with Manchester industrialist Engels, that technology imposes its division of labor "independent of social organization." Rather, the factory is an instrument of social control, the most effective ever devised to enforce the class chasm between the few who "make decisions" and the many who "implement them." Industrial technology is much more the product than the source of workplace totalitarianism. Thus the revolt against work reflected in absenteeism, sabotage, turnover, embezzlement, wildcat strikes, and goldbricking has far more liberatory promise than the machinations of "libertarian" politicos and propagandists. Most work serves the predatory purposes of commerce and coercion and can be abolished outright. The rest can be automated away and/or transformed by the experts, the workers who do it into creative, playlike pastimes whose variety and conviviality will make extrinsic inducements like the capitalist carrot and the Communist stick equally obsolete. In the hopefully impending meta-industrial revolution, libertarian communists revolting against work will settle accounts with "Libertarians" and "Communists" working against revolt. And then we can go for the gusto! Even if you think everything I've said about work, such as the possibility of its abolition, is visionary nonsense, the anti-liberty implications of its prevalence would still hold good. The time of your life is the one commodity you can sell but never buy back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else's. If you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life. Incapable of living a life of liberty, you'll settle for one of its ideological representations, like libertarianism. You can't treat values like workers, hiring and firing them at will and assigning each a place in an imposed division of labor. The taste for freedom and pleasure can't be compartmentalized. Libertarians complain that the state is parasitic, an excrescence on society. They think it's like a tumor you could cut out, leaving the patient just as he was, only healthier. They've been mystified by their own metaphors. Like the market, the state is an activity, not an entity. The only way to abolish the state is to change the way of life it forms a part of. That way of life, if you call that living, revolves around work and takes in bureaucracy, moralism, schooling, money, and more. Libertarians are conservatives because they avowedly want to maintain most of this mess and so unwittingly perpetuate the rest of the racket. But they're bad conservatives because they've forgotten the reality of institutional and ideological interconnection which was the original insight of the historical conservatives. Entirely out of touch with the real currents of contemporary resistance, they denounce practical opposition to the system as "nihilism," "Luddism," and other big words they don't understand. A glance at the world confirms that their utopian capitalism just can't compete with the state. With enemies like Libertarians, the state doesn't need friends.

1 0

Jonah Goldberg Has It Ass Backwards
by Matthew Gaylor 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Last Thursday I sent a posting titled "Cultural libertarianism the real threat to America?" See: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/message/1416> by National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg where he made the claim that good character is fostered by limiting freedom". Goldberg was quick to point out however that he personally has "done lots of things in [his] life that are "un-conservative." His hypocrisy aside, Goldberg again restates his belief on the merits of limiting freedom by writing "Without character-forming institutions which softly coerce (persuade) kids - and remind adults -...", paradoxically claiming that such "coercion" is needed to foster our "open, free, and tolerant culture over others."... Ay caramba! Here we have what is colloquially referred to as compassionate conservatism, the notion that government is a loving father and that it's citizens are it's children. Goldberg aspires to an ideology that isn't even American, an ideology antithetical to liberty, and which is the underlaying ideological underpinning of the totalitarian state. The great American author James Fenimore Cooper wrote that "Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving to the citizens as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner." Goldberg has it ass backwards, it is freedom and the respect of the rights of others that is inculcated in our institutions not the removal of freedom by our institutions that makes American culture superior. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions or as the great American libertarian writer H.L. Mencken opinioned "Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel ." So to Jonah Goldberg, I say go to hell.] <http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg121801.shtml> The Libertarian Lie By Jonah Goldberg, NRO editor Responding to Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel. Jonah Goldberg can be reached at (JonahEmail(a)aol.com) December 18, 2001 3:35 p.m. EDITOR'S NOTE: Yesterday I responded to Andrew Sullivan. Today I respond to the libertarians, primarily Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel. Virginia, whom I consider a friend, has also linked to numerous other sites taking me to task. I know that many readers are uninterested by these doctrinal squabbles. But others are, and I think they're worthwhile. Regardless, I promise this is the last you will hear from me about such things for a while. I'll be getting back to meat-and-potatoes G-Files starting tomorrow. Lighten Up, Libertarians Before we get to the heart of all this, let me address perhaps my biggest peeve about libertarians. Trust me, it's relevant. They are, without a doubt, the most defensive and thin-skinned group on the Right - far more so than Christian conservatives, gay Republicans, whoever. Maybe it's because so many of them became libertarians in the first place in order to escape criticism of any kind, or maybe it's because there's something about libertarianism that excites the region of the brain responsible for religious utopianism, or maybe it's the accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the right-wing coalition - I don't know. But I am continually amazed by how so many libertarians can maintain a tone and posture of reflexive defensiveness and moral superiority, simultaneously. Out of the hundreds of e-mails I got from angry libertarians, a sizable majority simply asserted that I didn't understand libertarianism. Not that I was wrong in the application of my analysis, or that I was being unfair or overly broad - but that I simply don't "get" it. Now, as I conceded yesterday in my response to Andrew Sullivan, last Wednesday's column was not surgical in its argumentation, so I'm open to some thoughtful criticism on that score. But I get these letters anytime I write anything critical of libertarianism. Liberty magazine runs regular squibs mocking me for my obtuseness. Harry Browne, the 2000 Libertarian Party candidate, went out of his way to lecture me - on NRO - to explain how I don't get it. Virginia Postrel suspects that my "anti-libertarian outbursts" stem from a desire to get her and other libertarians to link to my site. Well, we can put aside the suggestion that it's a web-traffic bonanza to get linked on something called "Libertarian Samizdata" (I actually lose traffic when I indulge my anti-libertarian bent). But Postrel seems to believe my arguments are so silly that they're better explained by some sort of cynical ploy. Hell, I've even got my own Greek chorus at LewRockwell.com, which can barely go a week without singing some tune about how I'm slow on the uptake (or how Abraham Lincoln tempted Eve into taking a bite of the apple). So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks. In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, "Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt all your political cares and concerns away. And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about "rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the "Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways. And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple philosophies - which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always said libertarians are very smart) - whether they're Marxists, libertarians, whatever - claim that other smart people "just don't get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious. Gillespie's Pose Which brings me, inexorably, to Nick Gillespie's response to my column last Wednesday, which Virginia Postrel tells us is "the best so far (of course)." To his credit, Nick doesn't resort to a fog of jargon, merely a typical tone of smirking self-amusement and condescension (but who am I to criticize tone?). We do actually agree on quite a bit. I've long argued that libertarianism will be the real challenger to conservatism, and I've long conceded that I'm - to use his word - "anxious" about it. Nick makes this observation sound like this is some sort of penetrating analysis of the subtext when in fact it's pretty much just the text. Let's be clear about a few other observations Nick seems eager to pass off as penetrating insights. He chuckles, "It's a funny thing, but conservatives are never so quick to call Rorschach on one of their own: For instance, when it came to light a few years ago that George Roche III, the fabled president of conservative Hillsdale College, had been carrying on with his unstable and suicidal daughter-in-law for years, that twisted scene carried no definitive ideological import." It's an even funnier thing that Nick uses this example - since it was National Review, specifically my colleague John Miller, who broke the story of George Roche III in the first place. Not only did NR make a big deal about Roche, we did it first and more than once - despite a long association with Hillsdale College and Mr. Roche. If Gillespie cannot find the "definitive ideological import" in National Review's integrity in policing the Right, that's his shortcoming, not ours. But then Nick has, I think, a much harder time "getting" National Review than I have understanding Reason. "Nothing exercises National Reviewers quite so much as the sense that despite their standing athwart history yelling stop, it still keeps on a rollin' without them," Gillespie writes. He later adds: "[I]t only makes sense that conservatives and libertarians would start to line up on different sides of the barricades that surround the battleground of individual choice and autonomy." That's all cute and fine, and I'm sure it plays well in letters to subscribers. But it's worth noting that while I am against drug legalization, Bill Buckley and the editors of National Review called for - and continue to call for - an end to the drug war, and for the legalization of drugs, when Reason was little more than an obscure pamphlet. Nick might read a bit deeper into Hayek as well. Like so many other libertarians, Nick pulls out Hayek's excellent essay "Why I am Not a Conservative" as some sort of grand trump card. I admit this is another peeve of mine, but Hayek did not call himself a "libertarian" in that essay, as Nick gamely suggests. In fact, he explicitly rejected the label, calling it "singularly unattractive." "The more I learn about the evolution of ideas," wrote Hayek, "the more I have become aware that I am an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the 'old.'" Old Whig just so happens to be the same appellation the founding father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, used for himself - as Hayek approvingly notes several times. More important, the conservatives in "Why I Am Not a Conservative" aren't even the ones Nick has so many problems with. Hayek was referring to the conservatives of the European tradition (de Maistre, Coleridge, et al), and he was a great deal more generous even to them than the folks at Reason are to the American conservatives of today. Which is a shame because, as I pointed out in my column last Wednesday, Hayek argued that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a "conservative" and be a lover of liberty - because we want to defend those institutions which preserve it. And that's why - despite a lot of propaganda from the folks at Reason - most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of Reason-libertarians. Cultural Libertarians, Again And that gets us, finally, to the meat of our disagreement. I say "cultural libertarians" are people unwilling to draw value judgments between various personally defined lifestyle choices, or "personal cultures." In response, legions of libertoids cry: "Not fair!" "You're talking about 'libertinism,'" say some. "Libertarians are just unwilling to use the state to coerce others into subscribing to our value judgments," say all. Again, fine, fine - I get it. But I'm also not talking about most of the people who read my column and refer to themselves as libertarians. Most of these folks are fairly conservative people; they want a smaller government, and, hey, so do I. That's why I put the word "cultural" in front of the phrase in the first place. I'm beginning to think we should simply call such people " anti-state conservatives" and let the Reason types have the "singularly unattractive" label of "libertarian" all to themselves. The people I am talking about are people like Nick Gillespie and the chirping sectaries on these various blog sites. These people quite proudly proclaim that maximizing individual liberty, and minimizing coercion by the state or the culture, is their mission. It's shouted from the rooftops in just about every issue of Reason. In fact, it's odd that Virginia cites Nick's rejoinder as the best so far - for a number of reasons, among them that he more or less concedes the lion's share of my argument. Nick concedes that he wants to maximize the "right to exit from systems that serve them poorly." Porn Versus Christianity Take this porn thing. Virginia is fighting mad at me for writing that she won't draw distinctions between pornography sales and Christian-bookstore sales. But she admits that she has no opinion on the issue, and concedes that many of my libertarian critics think Christianity, even in a liberal order, is a "bad thing." Meanwhile she also raves about this fellow Will Wilkinson who, according to Virginia, "makes the good (and obvious but not to Jonah) point that 'If you ask whether porn or Christian books are better, you have to ask "better in what respect?"'" "Goldberg owes us moral arguments against porn if he wants to be taken seriously." Touché, I suppose. But doesn't this make my point? Cultural libertarians are uncomfortable with, and quite defensive about, drawing distinctions between such bedrock components of Western civilization - in this case a little thing called "Christianity" - and the latest installment of On Golden Blonde. According to these guys, the burden is on me to explain why and how porn is worse than Christianity. I'd be glad to do it sometime (though I'm hardly an anti-porn zealot); it doesn't sound too tough. Meanwhile, let's stay on track. Cultural libertarians, as Nick readily concedes, don't "blindly respect 'established authority' the way conservatives tend to." The "blindly" is, of course, a cheap shot, but we'll let it go. That's my point. We're not talking about the state here; we're talking about the culture - the thousands of ingredients which, in various amounts, combine to form the recipe for Western civilization generally and American culture specifically. Virginia even faults me for not making the positive case for Western civilization in the same column - which, aside from being a fairly high standard for any argument, also seems to underscore the point that these folks don't see its superiority as a given. To the cultural libertarian, all authoritative cultural norms should be scrutinized again and again. But just to be clear, some of the ingredients for Western civilization I have in mind are such categories as Christianity and religion in general, sexual norms, individualism, patriotism, the Canon, community standards of conduct, democracy, the rule of law, fairness, modesty, self-denial, and the patriarchy. Obviously, all cultures have these things (or their equivalent). But it is the combination of ingredients - and their relative potency toward one another - that make the recipe for Western civilization unique. The Libertarian Dodge It's also obvious that - just like conservatives, liberals, and the unaligned - cultural libertarians like some of these things a great deal, and some only a little, and others not at all. We all have our own suggestions for how we should improve the culture. But when criticized on their cultural priorities, they get all defensive and claim they aren't making a subjective cultural argument. "We're just neutral. We just want the state out of things." But then they go right along mocking the cultural choices of conservatives, and of anyone who respects the established cultural authority more than they do. Nick makes it sound like it's a concession to allow cultural conservatives to make their arguments at all, though I doubt he would be so grudging about allowing a polygamist make his arguments. Because I won't brag about my past experiences with drugs or extrapolate from those experiences a pro-drug stance, Nick grandiosely says that my hypocrisy is "the vice virtue pays to tyranny" (taking, in effect, the position that current or former gluttons should always proclaim that gluttony is good for everybody). Well, if hypocrisy is such a crime, what about the persistent hypocrisy of those libertarians who say that they are "neutral" on cultural questions while they constantly make undeniably cultural arguments? Nick is on record denouncing America as a "grotesquely prohibitionist society" when it comes to drugs, and he's nigh upon orgiastic about the spread of pornography. If the anti-state conservatives who prefer the label "libertarian" want to tell me that the editor of Reason is unrepresentative of libertarianism, fine. But maybe you should consider the possibility that it's you who are unrepresentative of libertarianism. Look, the libertarian critique of the state is useful, valuable, important, and much needed. But, in my humble opinion, the libertarian critique of the culture - "established authority" - tends to be exactly what I've always said it was: a celebration of personal liberty over everything else, and in many (but certainly not all) respects indistinguishable from the more asinine prattle we hear from the Left. (The great compromise between libertarians and conservatives is, of course, federalism see " Among the Gender Benders"). Personal liberty is vitally important. But it isn't everything. If you emphasize personal liberty over all else, you undermine the development of character and citizenship - a point Hayek certainly understood. Kids are born barbarians, as Hannah Arendt noted. Without character-forming institutions which softly coerce (persuade) kids - and remind adults - to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture over others, we run the risk of having them embrace any old creed or ideology that they find most rewarding or exciting, including some value systems which take it on blind faith that America is evil and, say, Cuba or Osama bin Laden is wonderful. That's precisely why campuses today are infested with so many silly radicals, and why libertarians in their own way encourage the dismantling of the soapboxes they stand on. For cultural libertarians this is all glorious, or at least worth the risks. I just wish more libertarians had the guts to admit it. I disagree. I also wish some of them had the guts to admit it. ### __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

3 3

RE: Wired on e-gold,
by mattd 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Ive seen a good story somewhere on the e-dinar,if it was protected with world wide AP/PGP served by huge remailing networks it could be the one.Nomen RUN! The end is nigh. The other story this year (its not 2002 yet numbnuts) to raise a smile was the keystone Kops raid by the SS.Easy to see what freaks them out...Everyfuckinthing! Suckers! If anyone in that goon squads got any sense they'll put some lead in prime rib. You dont want to catch mad cow disease do you?KILLTHEPRESIDENTINUNTRACABLEENCRYPTIONITSINVISIBLE. My superintelligent rats in the W/house tell me they are getting fat on pork cracklings and gingerbread and its dead boring after El Bubba. >>Hypocrisy isn't pretty. ~Faustine. God you must be one butt ugly Hoe.

1 0

Great Deals on New and Used Phones!!
by Carlo Rodriguez 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

1 0

Fwd: Computer Experts Question National ID Schemes (fwd)
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:39:06 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Computer Experts Question National ID Schemes This just in... >> Subject: Computer Experts Question National ID Schemes >> >> For Immediate Release: December 17, 2001 >> For More Information: Susan Evoy, cpsr(a)cpsr.org, >> 650-322-3778 >> >> COMPUTER EXPERTS QUESTION NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SCHEMES >> >> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), >> a twenty year old international association of computer experts, >> released an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) explaining and >> critiquing recent proposals to create national identification >> schemes (NIDS) in the United States, Canada, and other countries. >> >> CPSR explains that a national identification scheme "could >> combine the functions of a driver's license, social security >> registration, immigration documents, and other government- >> issued identification." Individuals would be entered in a national >> data base and issued a "smart" card containing personal >> information, including, in some recent proposals, biometric >> data such as fingerprints or retina scans. >> >> CPSR president Coralee Whitcomb said, "CPSR doubts that >> national identification schemes can provide additional security >> against terrorist attacks." She added, "These ideas have been >> around for a while, but after September 11 their proponents, >> including potential suppliers, who stand to profit handsomely >> from massive ID Card programs, used the climate of fear to >> dust them off in response to the public's desire for improved >> security. National identification schemes instead would endanger >> civil liberties, allowing those with access to the data base to track >> the behavior, associations, and finances of innocent people." >> >> Moreover, a new identification system could "leave us relying >> on the wrong approach to security, and create a false sense of >> security that leaves us more vulnerable than before," Whitcomb >> said. >> >> CPSR is a public-interest alliance of computer scientists and >> others concerned about the impact of computer technology on >> society. As technical experts, CPSR members continue to >> provide the public and policymakers with realistic assessments >> of the power, promise and limitations of computer technology. >> >> CPSR representatives are available for interviews, testimony and >> other communications. >> >> Links to resources about National ID Card position statements >> and press >> coverage, ID Cards for immigrants, Smart Cards, Social >> Security Numbers, >> Biometrics (Fingerprints, >> Retina Scanning, and Face Recognition), and General Security >> Principles can be found at >> http://www.cpsr.org/program/natlID/natlIDlinks.html >> >> The FAQ is at >> http://www.cpsr.org/program/natlID/natlIDfaq.html >> >> > -- >> Susan Evoy * Managing Director >> http://www.cpsr.org/ >> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility >> P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302 >> Phone: (650) 322-3778 * >> Email: evoy(a)cpsr.org >> Join/Renew online: >> https://swww.igc.apc.org/cpsr/sec-membership-form.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I've never been a long-term planner about anything. I have lived my life with more of a short-term focus." - President George W. Bush (Texas Monthly, 5-94)

1 0

Quantum encryption close but may not be uncrackable.
by mattd 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Beryllium is valuable in the manufacture of nuclear weapons,China recently used some tipping their ICBMs.One atom of it was used in an experiment to decide the fate of Schroedinger's cat.From. . ...http://www.sciam.com/explorations/061796explorations.html The recent breakthrough of single photon emission in Britain brings quantum manipulation/encryption tantalizingly closer.The states days are almost certainly numbered but getting back to the cat.The Schroedingers cat experiment is based on the standard model of Quantum mechanics.The SMQM,if true means a universe must exist for every physical possibility.The notorious *parallel worlds* theory. This could guarantee uncrackable encryption yet its a big swallow for some,not just pussy.The double slit experiment is even cited as providing evidence for neighboring universes.(D.Deutsch.new scientist.july.01.)Its truly bizarre to see exactly what some present *concrete* beliefs are really based on.Shared hallucinations indeed,possibly even kitty litter. Is there a human Schroedinger? What of ralph Mc Gehee? Would looking to hard for his missing usenet posts kill him? Uncrackable quantum encryption will save ralph and us from the out of control rogue terror state yet if the SMQM breaks down even an higgs boson's worth then we could all be back to square one.

1 0

Non-political, so probably off-topic for CP :_)
by measl＠mfn.org 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

In case anyone has *any* interest... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:29:43 -0500 From: Franco Travostino <travos(a)nortelnetworks.com> Reply-To: anon(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu To: Anon Fwd <anon(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Anon Fwd: analysis of covert channels in draft-kung-annfwd-framework Geoff, the security protocol that you're describing---i.e., generate a symmetric key and ship it encrypted with the recipient's public key---seems very expensive for a layer 3 forwarder (or, better, for what I think that that beast is, really). I understand that a) you have limited a forwarder's scope to processing signalling data only, and b) PGP email, for one, use keys pretty much the way you said. Yet, I think one could do much better with a Diffie-Hellman cycle producing a batch of symmetric keys, which need not to be exchanged across the wire. This is what IKE (rfc2409) does. IKE has all sort of wrinkles to it in order to thwart DH vulnerabilities to men-on-the-middle attackers. A forwarder implementing such solution could attain a wide range of throughputs, possibly exceeding 1Gb/s with hardware crypto-assists (as commodity VPN boxes show today). Public key operations as you scoped will definitely lock you out of these ranges. -franco At 03:39 PM 12/15/2001, Geoffrey L Goodell wrote: >In our last meeting, we discovered that we could discard the various metadata >fields in our protocol, thus reducing the ability for attackers to discover >clients or servers by sending an exorbitant number of packets to a forwarder >and simultaneously monitoring the forwarder's output link. So, with the >stipulation that the various field types have a specified size, and each >forwarder only provides exactly one of the three anonymity options (client, >server, and bidirectional), the only means by which attackers can correlate >their packets with packets found on the output link of the forwarder is to >examine the data contained in the fields themselves. In order for a >successful >attack to be possible, it must be possible for an attacker to correlate the >fields on the packet entering the forwarder with the packets leaving the >forwarder; in other words, individual fields leaving the forwarder must be >encrypted in such a manner to not be decryptable by the attacker into a form >that the attacker can recognize. > >SUMMARY: We discover that the single-hop protocols are demonstrably free of >covert channels, provided that the cipher upon which we ultimately decide is >also demonstrably free of covert channels. We find that if we expect to get >away with packet sizes that do not grow linearly with the number of forwarders >on the path between the client and the server, multi-hop forwarding depends on >some sort of public-key infrastructure. > >THE "GOOD" NEWS: We need a public key infrastructure for our network of >forwarders. > >THE ACTUALLY-GOOD NEWS: Clients and servers need not be a part of this >network, >though forwarders must be able to verify the authenticity of their public >keys. > >DETAILS: > >---------- > >I have examined the three single-hop protocols closely, and discovered the >following: > >1. Client Anonymity > >C's certificate and the request are passed along by the forwarder on the >way to >the server, so an attacker posing as a client can find the location of a >server >by monitoring the forwarder's output link. This is acceptable, though, since >the protocol explicitly does not call for server anonymity. > >On the way back to the client, the message is encrypted in a symmetric key >chosen by the forwarder, and the symmetric key is encrypted with the client's >public key. One apparent attack on this system would be to send a certificate >for an arbitrary public key for which the attacker holds the corresponding >private key; given enough computing power, the attacker could feasibly use >this >private key to decrypt the symmetric key on packets leaving the forwarder and >verify which ones contained the reply datum the attacker sent. We can >successfully defend against this attack by requiring that the forwarder verify >the authenticity of the client's public key. > >So, to my knowledge, this protocol does not have any threatening covert >channels. > >2. Server anonymity > >En route from the client to the server, the forwarder encrypts a packet with >a symmetric key and sends that key encrypted with the server's public key. To >avoid an attack similar to the one suggested above with the client anonymity >protocol, we require that the forwarder verify the authenticity of the >server's >public key. > >On the way back, the messages can easily be correlated by an attacker. But, >symmetrically to above, the protocol explicitly does not call for client >anonymity, and thus allowing an attacker to find client locations is >acceptable. > >So, to my knowledge, this protocol does not have any threatening covert >channels. > >3. Bidirectional anonymity > >En route from the client to the server, the forwarder encrypts the fields with >a randomly generated symmetric key of its choosing, and sends the >symmetric key >encrypted with the public key of the server. Thus, we need the forwarder to >verify the authenticity of the server's public key. > >On the way back, the forwarder encrypts the fields with a randomly generated >symmetric key of its choosing, and sends the symmetric key encrypted with the >public key of the client. Thus, we need the forwarder to verify the >authenticity of the client's public key. > >So, to my knowledge, this protocol does not have any threatening covert >channels. > >---------- > >The multi-hop protocols as described in the Internet Draft are like the >single-hop protocols, with the important exception that specific fields >are passed directly between the forwarders. Here, we have two problems: > >A. Since one of the encrypted fields contains more and more information as it >gets constructed, and never gets decrypted in the construction process, it >necessarily grows in size. This in turn means that information about the >position of a particular forwarder in the path will necessarily be leaked. > >B. Since fields are passed directly between the forwarders without alteration, >they can be correlated by an attacker to find the path through the forwarding >network. One possible solution to this is for the forwarders to choose >randomly-generated symmetric keys at each hop, and then encrypt the relevant >field with this key, and then send that key along, encrypted with the client's >or server's public key. The trouble with this is that the size of the packet >becomes increasingly large, just as in (A). > >To eliminate the problem with linearly growing packets along the pathe need a >PKI for the network of forwarders so that forwarders can encrypt and >decrypt at >each hop. This reduces the packets to a constant size (whatever we agree >upon), and prevents the problems associated by the covert channels >described in >(A) and (B) above. > >Geoff > > > > >To post: mail to anon(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu >To unsubscribe: mail anon(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu > with "unsubscribe" (no quotes) in the subject line >To subscribe: mail anon(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu > with "subscribe" (no quotes) in the subject line >To visit archive: go to http://wireless.eecs.harvard.edu/anon >Comments, suggestions? Send them to > postmaster(a)wireless.eecs.harvard.edu Franco Travostino, Director Content Internetworking Lab Advanced Technology Investments Nortel Networks, Inc. 600 Technology Park Billerica, MA 01821 USA Tel: 978 288 7708 Fax: 978 288 4690 email: travos(a)nortelnetworks.com

1 0

Wired on e-gold
by Faustine 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nomen Nescio wrote: (snip) >With most people, if they have nothing to hide, they don't hide it. Why are you posting this from behind a remailer? >Only paranoids and extremists will adopt anonymity >technologies without nefarious purposes in mind. So why are you posting from behind a remailer? Which of your slurs are you willing to apply to yourself? > Anyone proposing to offer new services for privacy and anonymity should be > prepared to deal with the onslaught of criminals who will use the system for > bad ends. Why are you posting from behind a remailer? Hypocrisy isn't pretty. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB/xi/g5Tuca7bfvEQJnEwCgt0+BccWxGdBFYckrzsB58rCNPjwAn1wS SBYVZQfjmiYGH9x9TWYBWUd+ =TmJG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Everyone a remailer:Everyone a mint:Everyone an assassin predictor
by mattd 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

http://www.spammimic.com/ is a commercial example of a good use to put spam.Like steggin' pron.the hide in the herd idea.Its a shame larry ellison chose the dark side.Oracle sized remailers could be useful to speed the crypto-revolution. He used to make sense on the 'network as computer',then he must have twigged that would lead to his demise. In the developing labyrinth progress will be slower,but sure,toward distributed,P-P,encrypted,alternate OS plug ins that will accomplish all we seek to achieve. But remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie. We can neither live nor pity, nor forgive, If you make a slip in handling us you die! --The Secret of the Machines-- Rudyard Kipling

1 0

Re: MY APPOLOGIES TO ALL CYPHERPUNKS - WAS Re: Returned mail:
by Eric Murray 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:04:46AM -0500, baptista(a)pccf.net wrote: > All nite long i've been spammed by the account asoiau1632(a)yahoo.com. I'm > sure we've all seen the numerous messages on here. > > Anyway - my autoresponder has been responding to these messages and as a > result a number of bounced email ended up redirected to the > cypherpunks lists. Actually, I only got the originals. It looks like the mail kept going through the CDR nodes because one of them was re-sending it. Its hard to tell from the headers, but I think it's minder.net. If your autobounce was just feeding back the message that you receive with no changes (error headers, etc) to minder then you might have been the cause. Otherwise, there's some other problem. (if you didn't see it because you're subscribed to a filtering CDR that filtered them, it was about 400 copies of spam). Either way, you shouldnt set up an autobounce that can reply to a list. Please fix it so it won't do that. Eric > I have recently /dev/null all email from asoiau1632(a)yahoo.com - so the > bounces should stop soon. > > regards > joe > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: > > > The original message was received at Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:41:04 -0500 > > from locust.minder.net [216.254.113.229] > > > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > "|exec /usr/bin/procmail" > > (expanded from: <baptista(a)pccf.net>) > > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > > 554 Too many hops 26 (25 max): from <owner-cypherpunks(a)minder.net> via locust.minder.net, to <baptista(a)pccf.net> > > > > -- > The dot.GOD Registry, Limited > > http://www.dot-god.com/

3 2