From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 05:47:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA
Message-ID: <199707162116.XAA17629@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
> 
> Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in
> Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not
> understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many
> ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process
> that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy.

  I don't see Cypherpunks being naieve about the need to compromise in
order for people to live together, but I think Cypherpunks recognize the 
difference between things which are inviolate and those which are not.

  e.g. - A group of people in a liferaft with food and poison.
  Debate over how much each of us can eat from a pool of food held in
common may be open to compromise, but debate over whether any individual
can-or-cannot-or-*must* eat poison to end suffering or "for the good of
the collective" should *not* be open to compromise of the individual's
right to self-determination.

  The problem is that the "solution" to every "problem," in the eyes of
LEA's and the legislature, is to compromise rights and freedoms that 
are guaranteed by the Constitution.
  The problem is that many of the purported "problems" involve people
passing judgement on the interests and actions of others and their
"solution" is to criminalize other's actions on the basis of their own
sense of guilt and shame.
  The problem is that those promoting "compromise" often have an agenda
that is based on a series of compromises leading to complete abrogation 
of the other's position. {A prime example is the "compromise" of making
already-legal crypto "legal" in return for agreeing to criminalizing
other currently legal actions.)

> Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position
> on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being
> marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then?

  If you are taking a reasonable, rational stance on issues and are
marginalized or cut out of the loop in order for the government to
disenfranchise your constituents, then you can serve your constituents
by taking up arms against the criminals who are subverting the will
of the people.

> I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the
> Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to
> remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental
> liberties in the process.

  Duh... I certainly hope you are talking about giving up your *own*
fundamental liberties to remain in "the game" (which you have every
right to do). However, if you are indeed representing constituents
(or readers), then you are also giving up their liberties, as well,
to a certain extent.
  I think you need to do some serious thinking about the difference
between compromising in order to defend a position and compromising
in order to "remain a player in the game."
  If you are not strong enough to defend a position of principle
and survive, then you should not be the one "in the game" defending
that position. The ACLU and the NRA "marginalize" and "compromise"
themselves, it is not the government, the public, or their members
"doing it *to*" them.

  As far as I am concerned, what compromises you make in order to
remain in a position to report on the beltway is your own decision
to make. I just hope you have the wit and wisdom to walk with the
Devil only as far as the bridge, because he always burns it behind
him, and few make it back.

TruthMonger