No Subject

[owner-cypherpunks@toad.com]

> 
> From:	IN%"tallpaul@pipeline.com" 12-FEB-1996 00:47:35.36
> 
> >But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have
> >noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and
> >chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her
> >supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin &
> >Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and
> >the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am,
> >however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar
> >demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. 
> 
> 	Large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh? The last time
> I checked, Rush Limbaugh was basically a conservative populist like Pat
> Buchanan. While we may appreciate his comments re Andrea Dworkin (and others
> who want to restrict free speech on ridiculous grounds, and who believe
> nonsensical things like an inability to consent to sex), that doesn't mean
> we're fans of his. I like some of what Jefferson said, too, but that doesn't
> mean I agree with him on slave-holding (or on agrarianism).

Neither Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan are populists.  Populists tend to
believe in strong government with strict regulation of business, an
actually progressive tax system, confiscation of businesses which break
the rules, government enterprise in competition with the private sector,
no secrecy in government of the type required in the private sector,
bias toward small businesses and sole proprietors, etc.
Letting business "do whatever they want", really doesn't qualify.
FWIU, Buchanan's only claim is opposition to "free trade"(forcing the US
to trade)

AFWIU, Jefferson didn't like slavery, and later freed his slaves,
but considered it necessary for business when he practiced it.
Have you worked at a job you didn't approve of?

> >Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think
> >they have that right. 
> 
> 	Call us whatever you like. My problem with the term is that it's
> confusing. I doubt, for instance, that Rush Limbaugh is using it as an
> abbreviation for libertarian, although I'm not sure for what, if anything,
> it's a contraction.
> 
> >I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right;
> >I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely
> >never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the
> >ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. 
> 
> 	Yes, the fundys are in there. Politics makes strange bedfellows; work
> with whoever you can on whatever you can agree on. It's sort of like both our
> and CPSR's opposition to the CDA - CPSR has entirely too many desires to
> regulate private property (free net access et al), but we can still work with
> them on what we agree on.
> 
> >I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of
> >authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone
> >who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One
> >difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many
> >(but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist"
> >side of the equation. 
>  
> 	Well, about 25% or so of libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, so far
> as I can tell. So of course they're going to find anyone who's advocating state
> control a "statist." They've agreed to disagree with people like me who aren't
> anarchists, but that's because we've got most other things in common.  
> 	-Allen
>