[473] in libertarians
Re: IRF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Thu Dec 8 00:16:51 1994
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 00:15:38 -0500
To: cem@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> humble, beginning. Or did [the ACLU] start out large, taking on only the
> tough cases? I suspect that few of us are probably knowledgable about this,
Check out the ACLU on-line gopher, at URL gopher://gopher.aclu.org:6601
path Publications, then Briefing Papers. The history document says:
1920: The Palmer Raids
In its first year the ACLU worked at combating the deportation of aliens
for their radical beliefs (ordered by Attorney General Palmer), opposing
attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World and trade
unions to hold meetings and organize, and securing release from prison for
the hundreds sentenced during the war for expression of antiwar opinions.
That's not puffball stuff. It's good to help college frats and
right-wing rags, but it just doesn't compare.
> I don't believe that there is a statistically large per cent of the
> population that really cares much about politics, and it's attendant
I agree - though I think the percentage could easily be larger
than is currently active in the US. Just look at the voting percentage
data here as compared to other countries.
> lives with a minimum of outside intervention. So, why is there a "right"
> and a "left" in the first place? Do each stem from from independent
Because it matters! It may be heresy on this list, but there is
nothing intrinsically obvious about capitalism and social organization.
This country has changed drastically in the past 30 years. That's what
the reactionaries are talking about (negatively) when they invoke the "60's".
Basically, before then, if you were a black or a woman, how you would
live your life was severely circumscribed. It was next to impossible to
attend many educational institutions, to have many careers, even to
shop in certain places. This has changed, and that change is still being
*painfully* felt today (my thumbnail analysis of "political correctness"
is certain groups that have been out of power getting some power, and
then proceeding to do unto others as they have been done unto).
> possible to identify and permanently disable the mischief makers (and
Yes, if we could achieve Utopia, we might all live happily ever
after. But I don't think it's a case of "mischief makers", so much as
social action and reaction. Many people have dramatically different ideas
about how one should live one's life.
> I think that I'd rather have each of the organizations around
> until they demonstrate that they potentially will do more harm than good.
And this brings us back to my original message on the IRF, I
have severe doubts about the "more harm than good" regarding them.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
