1997-07-23 - Re: Fight-each-other

Header Data

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net (Cypherpunks List)
Message Hash: ccade296e37de941dd611d92616d1fb4dc24364dbca1144614e85b392d9b7692
Message ID: <199707231406.KAA31336@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
Reply To: <97Jul22.220455edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-23 13:53:06 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:53:06 +0800

Raw message

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:53:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net (Cypherpunks List)
Subject: Re: Fight-each-other
In-Reply-To: <97Jul22.220455edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Message-ID: <199707231406.KAA31336@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Nobody writes:

> > > Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
> > > simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
> > > authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
> > > only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
> > > Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
> > 
> > Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these
> > groups to leave the rest of us alone.
> >                                                    These groups are
> > not friends of liberty.  Like the traditional "liberals", they seek
> > not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own.

> You either missed or paraphrased my second paragraph.  My point is
> precisely that the rift is between those who want to use government to
> regulate the things you mention, and those who don't think it is the
> government's business, whether they consider them good or bad.  The
> organizations I mentioned here specifically don't want the federal
> government trying to control these things.

OK, let's look at one of these organizations.  Here's certain bullets
from the mission statement from Eagle Forum's web site, followed by
my annotations.  I've omitted most of their bullets, some of which
I actually agree with.

o	Supports a strong national defense and the protection of
	American sovereignty and jobs against encroachments by
	international agreements. We support using the newest
	technology to build a strong ballistic missile defense. We
	oppose weakening the military by putting women and open
	homosexuals in combat assignments. We oppose "New World
	Order" interventions -- a government that can't protect our
	safety in America's cities has no business trying to police the

Protection of jobs by government as implied here does not reflect a
perception of government as "an intrinsic evil".

o	Supports a health care system that puts control of spending in
	the hands of individuals -- not the government. We support
	individual medical savings accounts plus tax fairness, so that all
	Americans can buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars. 

Again, a government solution, not a clear "keep the government out of
the health care system."

o	Supports conservative and pro-family policies at every level of

There's that G-word again.

o	Opposes government subsidies for offensive "art," elective
	abortions, or immoral lifestyles. 

But implicit in this is that they *would* give government subsidies
to art they don't find offensive, and would support "moral" lifestyles
(for their definition of moral).  Otherwise, why don't they come out 
and say "we oppose ALL government subsidies for art" and "we think
the government ought not promote any lifestyle"?

o	Opposes violence, pornography, and attacks on traditional
	family values by the entertainment industry. 

An implicit threat to use government to regulate the industry.

I could do the same thing with the Progress and Freedom Foundation
or the National Empowerment TV group you mentioned, but what's the
point?  These people are not libertarians!  And grouping them into
something called the "leave-us-alone" coalition is a fraud.

-- Jeff