From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 02:51:00 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups
In-Reply-To: <19970719072518.07383@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970720143259.20201A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Kent,

Yours is an interesting response. But what if one has no principles, just
strategy and tactics?

If you don't know what your principles are -- if you can't identify them
and speak to them -- then you have no business being an advocate.

    "I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though
     not in principle." --Jane Austen

-Declan



On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 1997 at 07:19:31PM -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [...]
> > This goes back to the original debate: pragmatism vs. principle. How do
> > you stand on principle and remain an effective advocate in Washington? If
> > you navigate the route of pragmatism and compromise, what does that mean
> > for civil liberties? Can you avoid compromising them away?
> 
> A quote you may find interesting:
> 
> "The debate between compromise and principle is a false debate, 
> because principle doesn't speak, it acts.  People don't compromise 
> their principles -- they simply mis-identify them."
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
> 
>