Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
From: David H Dennis <david@amazing.com> I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government Warrior,
I resent this part of the description, but let it pass.
able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound,
able to out-flame 5 or so Libertarians in a single thread is more accurate.
thinks of all this. Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian world, due to our fundamental distrust of government. Where do they fit in a Liberal one?
I'm *solidly* against such restrictions. Hey, if *Lizard* recommends me here, you've got to believe it :-). Here's a quick political lesson: Being a Liberal in the US means very roughly ONLY that one believes that the government has some role to play in moderating the excesses of the market. It does not particularly *make* you a civil-libertarian. However, because Liberals think about general social power and the abuse of it, they are very often led to the civil-libertarian view. In the opposite direction, sometimes they just want power themselves. It is with great regret that I must debunk the myth that being a Liberal makes you a saint (it only seems that way in comparison to everyone else around ... :-) ) It also helps that Liberals are *predominantly* drawn from ranks of those who are the targets of both public and private abuses. So they often both favor government action against business abuse, and strong civil-liberties guarantees to keep government power in check. It is *possible* to be a Conservative civil-libertarian, but this much lesser group, and has in the past decades very much been purged from the Republican party by the theocrats and hence from the national scene. The net result of this process: Not all Liberals are civil-libertarians, but civil-libertarian opposition will almost always come from Liberals (read this sentence several times until you understand it. I get so tired of people attacking the strawman that all Liberals are civil-libertarians, nyah, nyah, look at e.g. Dellums). Now, when you comprehend that, we go on to the next lesson: The Fundamental Problem in American politics is GET-A-MAJORITY. It is not "be a constitutional scholar", it is not "construct and defend the most rigorous argument for your position in terms of axiomatics from first principles", it isn't even "know what you're talking about". It is GET-A-MAJORITY. Old joke: After a campaign rally, a supporter told Adelai Stevenson "Mr. Stevenson, you've got every thinking man's vote!". He replied "That's not enough, I need a majority." Semi-digression: Business is "make a profit" - if you do that by throwing widows and orphans out into the street, it still works. What matters is how many dollars are made, not people affected. This is why Liberals view a population-based civil system as a necessary constraint on the imperatives of capital. Because ultimately we're people, not dollars. The goal of GET-A-MAJORITY is in great tension with intrinsically minority-rights, anti-majoritarian concepts such as civil-liberties. Any politician ignores this at great peril. Thus, Liberals who don't have to be elected can be a lot more vocal civil-liberties supporters than those who need to GET-A-MAJORITY. Thus even Liberal, civil-libertarian politicians may *vote against their principles* (do I hear gasps from the peanut gallery) because of electoral imperatives. Corollary 1: Detonating a nuclear device in DC will not solve this problem. The surviving government will just have a very good excuse for crypto-controls. Corollary 2: Repeated Libertarian rantings won't solve it either. Now, personally, you're probably not going to be seeing me on the crypto-barricades in the future. Is it because I'm a Big-Brother-loving government-worshipper? No, not at all. I was thinking today about what I could do on the issue. And I came to the conclusion that I'm basically so crippled and exhausted as a net.activist that I shouldn't do more (general statement, but set off by this particular topic). I can't stand a huge number of the people I'd have to work with, and I just don't have the patience and energy to keep pounding grains of understanding into them, it's like filling a sandbag with tweezers. But don't you dare assume support for crypto restrictions from that, it's rather coming to the point of being completely fed up with the drain of electronic activism on my life. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu
From: David H Dennis <david@amazing.com> I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government Warrior,
I resent this part of the description, but let it pass.
It was meant to be amusing, not insulting; I apologise to you for it.
thinks of all this. Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a Libertarian world, due to our fundamental distrust of government. Where do they fit in a Liberal one?
I'm *solidly* against such restrictions. Hey, if *Lizard* recommends me here, you've got to believe it :-).
No question about this. I appreciated your lesson; it was lucid and well written. Of course the end result in my mind is to put "Don't trust government" in boldface italic letters about fifty points high. D
From: David H Dennis <david@amazing.com> able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, able to out-flame 5 or so Libertarians in a single thread is more accurate.
Don't break your arm.
Here's a quick political lesson: Being a Liberal in the US means very roughly ONLY that one believes that the government has some role to play in moderating the excesses of the market. It does not
That may be what they *SAY*, based on what they *DO*, what they are for is taking from the productive members of society, and giving to the unproductive. (or rather taking from the financially productive, and giving to the financially unproductive.).
particularly *make* you a civil-libertarian. However, because Liberals think about general social power and the abuse of it, they are very
Liberals usually don't think much. They are too busy "feeling" and playing with their crystals.
It also helps that Liberals are *predominantly* drawn from ranks of those who are the targets of both public and private abuses. So they often both favor government action against business
Really? I wasn't aware that the Kennedys were/are targets of public and private abuses. Nor are the Clintons (exepct they are from Arkansas), nor most _current_ union members, including their leadership. etc.
Corollary 1: Detonating a nuclear device in DC will not solve this problem. The surviving government will just have a very good excuse for crypto-controls.
We got plenty of nukes, and if we feel those are too dirty (I don't think one or two would matter, but any more than that and things might get a little nasty) we could always descalate (or whatever the opposite of escalate is) to small arms or conventional explosives.
Corollary 2: Repeated Libertarian rantings won't solve it either.
No, but it might get one or two people to stop fingering their crystals/genitals long enough to realize that big monololitihc governments do not now and never have provided protection for the individual. The protections of individuals, whether that be civil-liberty type protections, or protections against other evils is always more effective the closer it gets to home. When neighbors work together, theives have a real hard time. (the only time when Big Government tends to protect one better than the city/neighborhood is in times of war, but if there weren't any big governments, there wouldn't be any big wars...).
participants (3)
-
David H Dennis -
Seth Finkelstein -
snow