Re: Libertarians and crypto and such

[tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)]

On Feb 16, 1996 23:06:27, 'Bruce Baugh <bruce@aracnet.com>' wrote: 
 
 
>At 12:43 AM 2/17/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote: 
> 
>>While the LP or its majority may not call for the things I've critiqued, 
>>certainly libertarians have. Nor, as far as I can recall, have LPers 
>>repeatedly posted to the cypherpunk list material that is on-the-surface
at 
>>least significantly off-topic; libertarians have. And I responded.  
> 
>So you get the fun of attacking this straw man called "libertarians"
without 
>any responsibility to identify any actual people it might include other
than 
>a handful of folks that the vast majority of us think are kooks. And
you've 
>also acquired the remarkable mental power, apparently, to discern who is
or 
>is not an LP member based on their posts here. 
> 
 
Libertarians are not "straw men." They actually exist. I've seen them with
my own eyes. 
 
If B. Baugh is upset that I have not mentioned any of the other
libertarians (olf the cypherpunk list) that I have criticized, I would be
happy to re-post to the list all of the related messages in other news
groups on this topic listing their names. My "sent mail" archives contain a
few thousand messages. (Aside to T.C. May: this is sarcasm and rhetorical
hyperbole.) 
 
The vast majority of the libertarians on the cypherpunk list *might* think
that the people I've criticized are "kooks" but I can find no evidence of
this. I do note that some people who call themselves "libertarians" have so
criticized the "kooks." 
 
The second point is, I think, either an error in logic. I have written
nothing about my ability to tell what political party someone belongs or
does not belong to. I infer that when someone tells me they are a member of
the LP, CPUSA, SPUSA, etc. that they are, until evidence dictates another
conclusion. If someone is a party member and decides not to make the
material public, then they, not I, are responsible for any transient
confusion that develops. But I do not demand or expect people to
automatically list their party affiliation. I do note that the declared
ability to "discern" unannounced party membership has historically been far
more a rightwing then leftwing "ability" in the U.S.A. 
 
>Neat tricks. 
> 
>But until they're joined with a willingness to look at a wider range of 
>libertarian posts than the fragment that feeds your pet peeves, I reserve 
>the right to be impressed. 
 
Again, these seems to reflect your ability to reach conclusions about other
people's behavior based on no evidence. I have read numerous posts by
libertarians on the net; who has not! 
 
The issues I have responded to have usually centered on thigs like the mass
killings of civilians, murder, and hatred of other people based on issues
like race, ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion. 
 
You may consider these nothing more than my "pet peeves." This is your
right. But in an era of increasing global hatred over such issues I do not
think many would agree with your accessment of the relative weight of these
issues. 
 
You need not be impressed; I was not posting to impress you. 
 
> 
>And yes, this is off-topic. So this is all I have to say about it. 
> 
 
I think then that you posted one message too many. 
 
--tallpaul