FC: More on Nader, privacy hypocrisy, globalization, and Cato

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Jamie Love, who works for Ralph Nader, wrote to me to stress that Public 
Citizen does not necessarily speak for Nader. This came up in Aaron's 
article. Jamie says that Nader started Public Citizen in 1970 and is 
considered close to it and has long relationships with the top people 
there, but has no official connection. Apparently Public Citizen resorted 
to stressing this no-official-link in a letter to their Democratic 
supporters who were upset over Nader's presidential bid in 2000. --Declan]

*********

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:30:07 -0400
From: Robert Sexton <robert () kudra com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: Aaron  Lukas <aaronl () cato org>
Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas and 
Lizard
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701090335.0258c840 () mail well com>; from 
declan () well com on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:12:53AM -0400

Declan,

I found Aaron Lukas' commentary rather amusingly hypocritical,
perhaps it should have been, 'The only problem with republican party
these days is, well, republicans'.  We're sure most of them are
pillars of society, and those young right wingers who stop poll
workers from counting votes, are just "Being Kids".

Mr Lukas paints a simplistic picture, decrying the lack of 'careful
analysis and reasoned discourse'.  It hard to say if this is the
result of shoddy journalism or willful ignorance.  There has been
plenty of both of these, available to anybody who will listen.

Like so many people in America, Aaron Lukas does not really understand
the anti-globalization movement.  It is not an anti trade movement.
It is not about preventing commerce, but stopping the erosion of
environmental standards, labor laws, and human rights that have
come with the expansion of 'Free Trade Agreements'.  Under the
existing system, when profits come up against environmental laws,
environmental laws lose.  Its a race to the bottom.

The anti-globalization movement is without a doubt growing, and
there are a lot of angry people.  As long as the architects of free
trade expansion continue to meet behind closed doors, without public
oversight or input, resistance to increased globalization will only
increase.

Whose needs will come first: Yours, or Exxons?

--
Robert Sexton - robert () kudra com, Cincinnati OH, USA
There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers. - John Gilmore

*********

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 11:16:41 -0400
From: Chuck0 <chuck () tao ca>
Organization: Infoshop.org
To: declan () well com
CC: politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas 
andLizard

Cato's little insult of the black bloc means that we'll be paying Cato HQ a
visit this coming September. People who work in glass buildings shouldn't throw
the first rhetorical stones.

*********

From: "fablor" <rigby () fablor com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: On manners and results.
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:06:39 +1000

Hello Declan,
I've stopped lurking around the world to "follow my own rhetoric"
as a correspondent from a publication I write for pointed out to
me. :-)

May we look at the situation of something simple like "Global
Free Trade" (nee New World Order) and all pretend we are 19th
Century English Diplomats as we do so?
This means being very calm, polite and using wiles to replace the
Gunboat wherever possible. Look at how far the power of that
little group from a little island managed to get, in terms of
world power. It works.

Aaron Lukas actually prompted me to put electrons to air with:
"Nader's double standard on privacy" essay.
May I quote Kilneth (writing as a Chinese General)?  "Bravery
wins many battles, but it is the Treasury that wins the war."
Unfortunately the majority who oppose the New World Order have no
real Treasury. In a normal conflict of today, two or more richer
powers, fight their economic moves on somebody else's ground.

The money made from the "Gulf  War" by its proponents was
astonishing by any standards in todays terms of far more rapid
returns on investment than were possible in prior Wars. In older
times, Wars were simple. As soon as one power saw another as
weaker they assaulted them to take their wealth for themselves.
Or, to simply destroy the competition.

Aaron Lukas makes his personal political/economic position clear
in his summary paragraph:
    The anti-globalization left demands that people take it
seriously, but that's hard to do when confronted by a PR strategy
that vacillates between tantrums and pranks. I suppose with no
facts on their side, that's the best the activists can do.

Mine can be declared as simply: I worked for Our Owners. I saw
and used their power as a Good Servant. I am not confident of
success for the anti-GTO/NWO "activists", they have no money,
only the fanaticism of youth, the belief that they CAN make a
difference.
I see that unless our Owners can come to understand that the
ballgame has changed and that their methods of generating
personal power and wealth are "old-hat" and that it is far easier
to do what say, Bill Gates has done and PROVE how good a "player"
they are in the Game, using new methods, that the whole Game may
be called off - like so many "Sporting" events today.

However as for the concluding propaganda sentence of  Aaron
Lukas' essay, may I say that thanks to this awful problem for Our
Owners, the Internet, in less than an hour, even the most ardent
and necessarily Good Servant like Aaron can begin to terrify
himself with the overwhelming mountain of facts - produced by Our
Owners themselves - as to their next phase of "total world
homogenisation by 2012".

I would like to simply remind people that under the new regime,
the individual's value will be zeroed the moment they are not
"useful" any longer. That is good, sound Economics sense.  That
"homogenisation" means to make all the same. In the Dairy
Industry of the West, it was a tactic invented to allow Our
(littler) Owners to sell us stale milk. It breaks up any globule
bigger than the pre-determined size and makes them all the same.
(It stops the cream rising and betraying things.)

Our fates are to be homogenised. Brought DOWN to the common
denominator, the others will not be brought UP. That would make
no Economic sense at all.
My regret is that the pen is mightier than the sword and the few
with the real talent to use it are quickly made an example of and
the rest of us fall back into line, after all, as Our Owners keep
conditioning into us, with their untold number of commercial
writers and pens: "You can't make a difference, why try".

Thank the God/s for the "Activists", for without them that great
Milling Machine would have already succeeded, instead of being
slowed as it has to date.
Just use a Search Engine. Look for "CODEX" and "New World Order."
Of course most of it is emotional. Anyone who studies the facts -
the facts, Mr Lukas, will get emotional about it.

Peace,

John Rigby.

*********

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 06:29:33 -0700
To: "Aaron  Lukas" <aaronl () cato org>, lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
From: George Mason <masong002 () hawaii rr com>
Subject: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite
Cc: <declan () well com>

In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the
frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a
Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call
for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of
medicine.  With salary caps for certain procedures and the equvalent of
HMOs.  The legal equivalent of Medicare and Medicaid.  That kind of thing.
This caused a near apoplectic response and the admission that Nader was
indeed a lawyer.  How many professions could get away with the blatant
multibillion $$ rip off of Big Tobacco?  With class action liablilty suits
that bankrupt large corporations on no scientific evidence?

A hui hou--

GM

DSS/DH key id: 0xD60CE0F9
http://www.swell.com/sw/surflinehome

*********

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:44:26 -0700
To: George Mason <masong002 () hawaii rr com>, "Aaron  Lukas" <aaronl () cato org>
From: Lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
Subject: Re: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite
Cc: <declan () well com>

At 06:29 AM 7/1/2001, George Mason wrote:

> In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the
> frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a
> Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call
> for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of
> medicine.

I've suggested this many times. Consider -- lawyers exist solely due to 
government actions -- it is governments which pass laws, after all! Thus, 
they are, to a very large extent, public employees by default -- their 
entire job depends on laws passed at taxpayer expense. And it is often the 
case that many who need lawyers cannot afford the best. A good liberal 
would be aghast at the suggestion that the poor who cannot afford, say, a 
triple-bypass operation simply drop dead;thus, it seems that, just as 
anyone is 'entitled' to the most expensive surgery performed by the finest 
surgeons, we should all be entitled to have ourselves defended by Johnny 
Cochrane when we have a parking ticket. Socialization of lawyers is clearly 
the only just, fair, and equitable solution.

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------