[190] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: A SAVE member's response to Sourav
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Mon Apr 23 02:52:00 2001
Message-Id: <200104230651.CAA01890@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:51:49 -0400
"Zhelinrentice L Scott <zlscott@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> I took the person's contact info off b/c I didn't think it would
> be appropriate for us to flame them.
Zhe -- Please be kind enough to forward this message to the author.
Also, feel free to tell him or her that he or she should consider
emailing me directly -- I don't bite. While I have engaged in strong
rhetoric on mit-talk, I think I've done well to refrain from ad hominem
attacks and vulgarities, unlike others who shall remain nameless. ;-)
> I guess I wanted to mention the above point because he called
> us "radical leftists". I really don't see where this comes
> from. Perhaps in the American context, being in favor of
> less environmental impact and kindess to less privileged people
> is considered leftist or radical, but in most of the world,
> especially in Europe, we'd be considered rather...normal.
Believe it or not, I have no problem with kindness. I have been known
to donate my time and money to certain causes which reflect my ideals.
However, such kindness should be voluntary; if it is not, e.g. via
taxation, it is theft. At least Robin Hood stole from royalty, an
illegitimate organization; to steal from those who have earned their
wealth is an abomination.
> I get annoyed with everything political in the US being forced
> into taking the label "liberal" or "conservative". Life is more
> complex than these people make it out to be.
True -- I would not characterize myself as a conservative in the modern
parlance, since I am pro-choice, for the legalization of drugs, have no
problems with gay marriage, etc. "Classical liberal" or "Objectivist"
are more accurate labels.
However, from everything I've read on the SAVE website, including the
links supplied, the agenda promulgated is that of the far left-wing in
the American context. Hence, my term "radical leftist;" if we were in
Europe, I would characterize the agenda as merely "leftist." Of
course, I'm not sure what would compel me to live in Europe -- to my
knowledge, only Ireland and Luxembourg have the economic liberty I seek.
> The FTAA protests are a small part of what we do. [...]
That is true; nevertheless, the endorsement of FTAA protests and Boston
Critical Mass makes me question the _basis_ for your enviromentalism.
Are you advocating the preservation of the enviroment to serve man
(health, future industrial development, aesthetic enjoyment), or do you
think man is subordinate to "Gaea?" This is the fundamental question.
If the latter, I am correct to protest MIT's partnership with your
group. Such an attitude is not compatible with the general advancement
of the intellect, the ultimate goal of any university.
BTW, I believe that all conservation efforts should be private. The
purchase of a tropical island in the Pacific by a private conservation
organization is an excellent example. Tort law can deter pollution.
> [...] Meeting with
> administrators and sitting on committees - I don't see how any-
> one can label that "radical".
My alarm stems from the fact that the MIT administration would
collaborate with a group whose _agenda_ is radical.
Regards,
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
