In-Reply-To: <fe.d9a701e.28fc7240@aol.com> References: <fe.d9a701e.28fc7240@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:24:51 -0400 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: 5 Reasons the Pro-freedom Movement Is in Trouble Cc: GkLtft@aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"At 1:09 PM -0400 10/15/01, Gail Lightfoot <GkLtft@aol.com> wrote: >Dear Matt,
>
> No matter how reasonable an individuals philosophy of living
> may be, they will still succumb to emotionalism from time to time.
And succumb they do.
We now have these examples of alleged freedom advocates making the following non-freedom remarks.
1.) Reason Magazine Contributing Editor Cathy Young advocating banning encryption stating that: "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. It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life." <http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html>
2.) Ivan Eland <ieland@cato.org>, Director of Defense Policy Studies, Cato Institute writes in favor of victim disarmament "The ban against sharp metal objects (i.e., knives) aboard aircraft is a good one." See: <http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/eland-010920.html>
3.) The Objectivist Center's James Robbins's support of a national ID- Robbins' writes: "...however, the recent assault on America has had a significant clarifying effect. Since last Tuesday, some of my "go to the wall" libertarian views, such as opposing a national ID card, have seemed trivial. The potential for government abuse is present, but the need for providing security is actual. So long as there are adequate checks and balances, so long as the enabling legislation is circumscribed and directed, the measures currently being touted seem a reasonable cost." See: <http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/jr_what_will_happen_now.asp>
4.) Various Libertarian Party spokespersons notably in Ohio and Florida making statements such as: " "We're normally very wary about anything that could mean more authority to the federal government and limited individual liberties," said Ralph Swanson, an administrator for the Florida Libertarian Party. "But I think you'll find, after all this, something has to be done to keep people safe." <http://www.Jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091201/met_7262452.html >. And Ohio's LP director stating that: "I personally have no problem with airlines preventing passengers to carry weapons..." And she went on to say "Airport searches aren't 4th amendment violations." <see archives at libertarian discussion list <LDL@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU> >.
5.) The Libertarian Party of Virginia candidate for Governor William Redpath is publicly calling for the elimination of private gun sales as he wants all private gun sales routed via a government licensed dealer so a FBI background check can be done. Currently in Virginia if you wanted to give or sell your neighbor a gun you can do so without governmental involvement. See <http://www.redpath2001.com/gun_control.html>.
I'd like to view the liberty goblet as half full rather than half empty but with freedom advocates like these who needs enemies?
Regards, Matt-
At 1:09 PM -0400 10/15/01, GkLtft@aol.com wrote: >From: GkLtft@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:09:20 EDT
>Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Objectivism?
>To: freematt@coil.com
>
>Dear Matt,
>
> No matter how reasonable an individuals philosophy of living
> may be, they will still succumb to emotionalism from time to time.
>
> For instance, Libertarians (many of whom - like me - consider
> themselves to be Objectivists) oppose the use of force for
> political ends, yet we may recognize the need to use force to
> append individuals who advocate the use of such force. In fact,
> a Libertarian government has the sole responsibility to use force
> against those who would use force for their own gain.
>
> In the face of the horrific events of Sept 11, 2001, it is not really
> very surprising to hear normally rational people speak out with
> emotion instead of reason. The key is will they give up their reason
> for emotion over time. Check back with the individual as time passes
> and see what they say then.
>
> I am somewhat encouraged to note it was not David Kelley who wrote
> words of encouragement to those who think an ID card is an effective
> way to stem any illegal activity. If such a card could, the wisest move
> would be to give them to criminals not the rest of us. Maybe a tattoo
> on the forehead. :)
>
> Perhaps some satire and silly ideas on the subject of ID cards will
> bring Robbins to his senses.
>
>Liberty,
>gail lightfoot
>California Libertarian
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/