From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 06:27:46 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Sure, but this difference was not at all clear in the post I
> responded to. Your statements seemed to be painted a bit more
> broadly.
>
> Looting Starbucks is not exactly "extremism" in my book though.
I dont regard it so either. Starbucks is a huge chain that doesn't even
grant franchises to budding entrepreneurs, so from a sense of economic
justice, Starbucks is less progressive than, say, MacDonalds. From the
point of view of WTO protesters, looting Starbucks is entirely
appropriate. Starbucks' 'progressive' agenda is a PR front. If they were
really progressive they would work with SCORE to locate enterprising
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and to finance their
franchising coffee shops from them.
I used to know Shultz and Bob Arnold, the fellow who financed his first
expansion to 50 stores. Neither is a progressive. Arnold used to finance
overseas CIA operations and front companies back in the old days and was
best of friends with several CIA directors along with Bill Boeing.
>
> >
> > I don't see extropian ideals as attracting those types
> > of individuals or promoting those types of extreme
> > actions... in fact they seem to me to be rather un
> > extropian.
>
> The phrase "extreme action" is a bit too broad also. It would
> be helpful to narrow it down. A lot of the work and actins
> necessary to make the world as we would like are quite "extreme"
> but not in the sense of violence. If you mean violence then
> please say so.
And by what standard? I am a big believer in holding people to their own
standards, rather than my own, because most people generally don't even
measure up to their own standards, never mind mine.
Those on the left believe that destruction of private property is not
violence. While this labelling campaign might be construed to be
vandalism by someone with a more exteme libertarian sense of property
rights, but by the standards the luddites preach, it is not, it is
simply free speech. That is a secondary benefit of this labelling
campaign: it tests the luddites for their ethical hypocrisy as well. If
they protest the way this campaign is carried out, then they must accept
that the practices of the even more vandalous ELF/ALF and
anti-globalization protesters in general is completely unacceptable.
For this reason, I will make this pledge: CTHD actions will never be as
or more excessive than those committed by the luddite movement. We will
leave it to them to up the ante, further exposing their hypocrisy along
the way. Furthermore, while the luddites have already stooped to bombing
and murder (The Unabomber Ted Kazinski), the CTHD will not engage in
such practices unless we are specifically targeted by such tactics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:49 MST