[477] in libertarians
Re: IRF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Thu Dec 8 12:29:26 1994
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:28:04 -0500
To: ricks@cognos.COM
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> All I know about IRF is what I read yesterday and the response by Seth.
I have somewhat more background, having seen their paper (The
Defender) earlier, being familiar with Horowitz's politics and books,
and having checked them out in newspaper indexes. Go read that stuff,
and it'll be clear where these people are coming from (and it's not pretty).
> I think seth, that if someone ran a line by line commentary of what
> you said, explaining the evil coded meaning in every phrase, you too
> could be discredited.
Coded meaning? I hope I've got very clear meaning!
> I do not understand the degree of factionalism presented here. What does
> it mater that one group takes on free speech from the right and another
> from the left?
Because they are not just a right-wing free-speech group.
Remember, they want to branch out. That was a fund-raising letter. I'm
saying to people that even if they agree with the IRF on the campus
cases, they should be careful in giving them support, because they
evidently want to become a right-wing lobby in general (I keep writing
this is basically my point, why is it being passed over?). Some people
don't have a problem with that, but other may. Also, the cases they take
seem more a means to building the lobby - they are USING the free-speech
issue, not dedicated to it.
> I find it strange that you downplay the importance of supression of
> free expression on campuses.
Ha. I point out they've only taken small, easy cases, all of a
certain political cast. I don't say this isn't nice, but it doesn't
impress me as an achievement. It feeds back into my point about them
using the issue.
> If the upholders of freedom must first pass a test of proper politics
> on economic matters, you will destroy yoursef.
It's the age-old question of whether the enemy of your enemy is
your friend.
