Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:59:31 -0400 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: Comments On Cathy Young's Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine Cc: gillespie@reason.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id OAA28327Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:52:41 -0700 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: David Theroux <DTheroux@independent.org> Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Dear Matt,
Good for you.
Best regards,
David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
###
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:10:38 -0600 From: "L. Neil Smith" <lneil@ez0.ezlink.com> X-Accept-Language: en To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: Re: [smith2004-discuss] Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
Matt --
I will deal with the assholes, CATO and _Reason_ with enthusiasm, just as soon as my other writing chores this week are completed. I will make them sorry they were ever fucking born.
Sharpening my teeth,
N. -- ...................................................................... L. NEIL SMITH is the award-winning author of more than 20 novels about individual liberty and the right to own and carry weapons. Read more than 80 articles and speeches: buy _LEVER ACTION: ESSAYS ON LIBERTY_, for $21.95+$6 S&H from http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/leveraction.html
Order Neil's latest novel, _HOPE_ (with Aaron Zelman), get free stuff and a special offer: click on: <http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm> or read about MAKING A MOVIE OF _The Mitzvah_ the action-adventure thriller by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith -- and maybe even help get it done! -- click on <http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/mitzvahmovie.html>.
Watch for L. Neil Smith's long-awaited _THE AMERICAN ZONE_ plus a new _trade_ paperback edition of _The Probability Broach_ from Tor Books, respectively, in November and December, 2001.
AUTOGRAPHED COPIES of _Lever Action_, _Hope_, _Forge of the Elders_, _Henry Martyn_, and a few others (sorry, supplies of _The Mitzvah_ are sold out) are available from the author. For details, write to Neil at <mailto:lneil@ezlink.com>.
###
From: Nilsphone@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:15:22 EDT Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine To: freematt@coil.com CC: gillespie@reason.com, davidn@reason.org, tcmay@got.net
In a message dated 2001-09-26 17:21 Pacific Daylight Time, freematt@coil.com writes:
>"Between Cato arguing for victim disarmament
>and Reason arguing that "right to liberty is preceded by the right to
>life," I say we just kill them all and let Rand sort them out." If
>you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing please
>write to Nick Gillespie <gillespie@reason.com> Editor-in-Chief of
>Reason Magazine and David Nott <davidn@reason.org> President, Reason
>Foundation.]
>
I think Reason got it wrong. Crypto technology might simplify a terrorist's life a little, that is all. If there are no secure channels, terrorists can meet in person. The "GO" order can be done in the clear, "lets go" needs no encryption. Alternatively, low volume comm between people who know each other, and can meet beforehand, can easily be done using one time pad, which are drop dead easy to use, foolproof (as long as you don't lose or re-use them) etc, but not suitable for mass communication. I can write a one-time-pad program in minutes that does it all for you. You need a source for the pads, GM-tubes are best, rooms full of lava lamps and a digital camera have been used. Not very hard, can be set up at a central location, once, and then the pads distributed by hand. (This latter is a must and the catch in mass communications.)
Nils Andersson (long time Reason subscriber, from the beginning in the 70-s) nils@codeart.com Phone: 877 CODEART
###
From: WalkerBill@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:20:42 EDT Subject: Wimps at Reason, pilots To: freematt@coil.com
I hadn't expected anyone at Reason to think that banning encryption could: 1. Work at all, or 2. be a good idea.
Very disappointing. The good news is that the pilot's union has called for arming the pilots. This is the issue that we should concentrate on, because: 1. It will really hurt the gun control people to fight this issue even if they "win". Pilots will resent being disarmed and the public will resent the lack of security. The AOL poll showed 78% in favor of arming pilots; not scientific but probably fairly representative of the average idiot (the smart people aren't on aol and probably don't even bother to rig their polls....) 2. If the pilots are armed, this will set a precedent of militia-type measures to fight terrorism, rather than more federal control.
###
From: "RV Head" <4whp@home.com> To: "Matthew Gaylor" <freematt@coil.com> Subject: Re: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:27:44 -0400 X-Priority: 3
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Gaylor" <freematt@coil.com> [snip] > you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing please
> write to Nick Gillespie <gillespie@reason.com> Editor-in-Chief of
> Reason Magazine and David Nott <davidn@reason.org> President, Reason
> Foundation.]
>
> <http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html>
This is easily explained by the exigencies of deadline journalism.
I too write an "Opinion" column on deadline, and sometimes it isn't all that easy to come up with anything that hasn't been better said by Hunter Thompson.
As an Opinion columnist, my job is to provoke. I don't care if anybody agrees with me, and I really doubt that I convince anyone who doesn't already feel the same way I do about whatever it is I'm writing, but my success is measured by the number of hits received by my page on the magazine's web site AND by the number of people who take the time to write to my editor. (Interestingly enough, they NEVER write to ME ...)
Keep the faith, Man ...
###
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:52:08 -0700 To: gillespie@reason.com, davidn@reason.org, tcmay@got.net From: "E.J. Totty" <echeghlon@seanet.com> Subject: Getting real Cc: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Dear Editor,
Matt Gaylor (<freematt@coil.com>) sent me a missive that was produced by Cathy Young. It seems that Ms/Miss/Mrs. Young chooses to believe that it is OK to suppress liberty in times of adverse reaction by other members of the human community. Let me see if I get this straight: She wants to forgo any talk of protecting the right to privacy, merely that some members of a group 'may' have planned their acts through the use of encryption. Did I get that correctly?
So, if I speak fluently in a language not understood by 99 percent of the population of the earth, I am now to be considered as some kind of conspirator?
I hasten to remind you that there is quite a following of those who speak the native 'Klingon' language, and they are able to communicate quite well in complex thoughts. Do we outlaw that as well? Do we relegate all of humanity to communicating in one common language merely that tyrant may know all? No secrets anymore?
It matters not that there may -- or may not -- be any evidence that the actors used any form of crypto in communicating. So what if they did? Young's comments are typical knee jerk feminist reaction: If it shoots, ban it! If it cuts, ban it! If it encrypts, ban it! If it impregnates, ban it! If it does ANYTHING we just happen to dislike, BAN IT!!!
So, okay, let's make yet another law. Let's look at the 'law' angle one more time. Let me ask: What man made law has ever stopped anything from happening? Can you, or Young, name even one man made law that has? Just one? Time for a clue: Only the bad guys get to break the law, because they are expected to. The good people -- whose lives have been made a living hell by 'laws that are for our own good' -- get to be put through the grinder for merely wanting to exercise their rights. So, let me ask: What the hell good is a right if it declared null and void at the drop of a hat, merely that some jerk has abused it, or worse yet, that some politico has decried its exercise because, well, it 'might' have been abused by a 'suspect' to a crime? Rights aren't called rights for nothing.
So, Young wants to 'feel' safe? Feeling safe is nothing more than an aphorism for getting so drunk on some drug, that you just don't give a damn anymore. In the case of the current sense, it is merely that she 'thinks' that by depriving all people of a right, that she can then freely imbibe in the elixir of ignorance, and not feel a thing when the fecal matter hits the fan.
I've said this so many times before: "So, why the laws? The only reason is: To harass the innocent, making it likelier for the bad to take easy advantage of the weak, and ultimately for the idiots in high office to point out why we need even more rights restricting laws (that don't do a damned thing to protect anyone), since the current ones are not effective enough at causing mass murder of the sheep. It'll be that way until we have no rights left, and then the government may annihilate the population at will, as we will then all be criminals for trying to exercise any rights -- at all."
And: "Benjamin Franklin had this to say about those who would surrender their liberty for safety: "Those who would surrender their liberty for little added safety, deserve neither." "Decoded: Just because you want to 'feel' safe, does not imply that I must be stripped of my rights, for you have no right to deprive me of mine, merely that you may 'feel' a certain way. Taken in its totality, if I may feel safer that you are dead, then you must be killed. Take away my rights, and you will lose yours -- completely. "Embodied within that comment, is the idea of two entirely different concepts: Feeling vs Being. "You can 'feel' safe, but not 'be' safe. "Conversely, you can be safe, but not feel safe, merely that you understand that you are never, in this life, safe from anything.
"History is my witness: Those people aboard those jetliners certainly 'felt safe', but they weren't safe at all."
And, here is Young, propounding that privacy is passé. One wonders just how long it will be before your magazine is subsumed into the greater socialist demagoguery . . .
If you keep this crap up, you can expect me to revoke my subscription, and refuse and further issues. -- In Liberty, =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- WILLIAM PENN (1693) =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
###
Subject: FW: My Reason reply Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:37:20 -0700 Thread-Topic: (no subject) Thread-Index: AcFHygXLF93PhSkwQvul++hR9+vDnAAhu0lwAAMMy2A= From: "Mike Denny" <mike@drinksusa.com> To: "Matthew Gaylor (E-mail)" <freematt@coil.com>
Hey Matt,
Mike Alissi, Reason editor wrote back to me on my comment on Cathy Young's article so I gave him a piece of my mind.
Mike Denny Mike@theDennys.org
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Denny Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:29 PM To: 'Mike Alissi' Subject: My reply
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your reply. The tone of Cathy Young's article rubbed me the wrong way. And while I do feel that Reason covers the issues of government waste and abuse fairly well, articles that encourage the antidote for government waste, individual action freedom and responsibility seem few and far between. It is almost like you don't really believe that liberty is a high ideal and that you believe it is reasonable to compromise it if you can find a good enough excuse.
What is Cathy Young saying here?:
1) "Historically, individual freedom has not fared well in wartime, understandably so." - Is Reason saying that the loss of freedom in wartime is acceptable or even necessary? I disagree!
2) "Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic communications so that they are beyond surveillance? Frankly, I found it scary even before Sept. 11 - precisely because of the threat of terrorism." - Are the people at Reason more afraid of terrorism than they love Freedom? I don't.
3) "Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life." - Is Reason saying that these two issues are mutually exclusive? I don't think like that.
3) "There are libertarians who say that it doesn't have to be that way... They argue that, if our government only withdrew from meddling in regions where we have no real interest, stop playing global policeman, and limited itself to providing for a national defense against foreign attack, we wouldn't be a terrorist target. Alas, this is a myopic position." - Does Reason think that it is not a good idea to evaluating our foreign policy in the region? Or that non-intervention is the same as isolationism? Or does Reason think that the US has simply been an angel in the region and that there is absolutely nothing that these terrorists could reasonably want from the US and that they simply want to kill US citizens for the hell of it? - I don't!
4) "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are
no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks."
You know Mike, these last two comments really bother me and here's why. I've noticed that Reason frequently treats the libertarians as silly and impractical. And while it remains to be seen how much a political force they actually become, whether we vote for them or not, they are the true ideological heroes of the freedom movement. As a long-time Republican, I am sick of their current lack of focus on liberty and freedom that drew me to the RP in the 80's. Like the Republicans, it seems that Reason has lost it's appreciation for freedom as an ideal. Without this ideal, I feel that Reason, along with the Republicans, are simply adrift. People that are passionate about the ideal of freedom, the core value of this country and its Constitution, deserve better treatment in your magazine. Until they get it, I will simply scan your articles to find the good stuff but will not truly support your work. I want to know that a publication really cares about what I care about before I start sending money.
I will watch for more articles that reflect this line of thought and pass them on to you. But now that you have heard from me, I hope you will be able to recognize them yourself, hopefully before they make it to print.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael Denny 2435 Lake Street San Francisco, CA 94121 415-750-9340 Mike@theDennys.org
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Alissi [mailto:malissi@reason.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:12 PM To: Mike Denny Subject: (no subject)
Dear Mike -
Your comments are really disturbing and I could not disagree more. Can you please tell me which articles of ours - in the print and online edition - have given you the impression that we are "soft on liberty?"
Thanks, Mike Mike Alissi Publisher, Reason malissi@reason.com
From: "Mike Denny" <mike@drinksusa.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:02:49 -0700 To: <letters@reason.com> Subject: Civil liberties may take a hit
Dear Reason,
I read with interest Cathy Young's article on how "Civil Liberties May Take a Hit". While it is appropriate in these times to consider such things, I found her willingness to accept the loss of Liberty as an appropriate response to terrorism unfitting for your magazine.
But I shouldn't be that surprised. This has been your editorial bent for
some time. I subscribed to Reason for years because I thought that it was a "light for Freedom".
But then I noticed that when it really got down to business, you were "soft on liberty". So
I stopped subscribing to the magazine but kept in touch via the Internet and your email articles. Now I'm wondering where you provide value at all.
I'm sorry but that's how I feel and I wanted you to know.
Sincerely,
Mike Michael Denny 2435 Lake Street San Francisco, CA 94121 415-750-9340 Mike@theDennys.org
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@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/