Re: Strange Sounds of Silence

["E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>]

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).

>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