1997-07-19 - Re: HISTORY - pre-CDA, “compromise”, untrue civil-liberties groups

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b10c65a9f8def8c8cde003abf9478f2a68527ceee1185a6364625d631298a2c4
Message ID: <19970719072518.07383@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970718191915.29745E-100000@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-19 14:41:29 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 22:41:29 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 22:41:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970718191915.29745E-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <19970719072518.07383@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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






Thread