My last word on this. It's obvious that Michael is predisposed to find nothing I say interesting, and to let you know that you shouldn't either.
> >Justin: >Other things being equal, freedom is good.< > >what if the increased freedom of the working class reduces the freedom of >the capitalists? Any decrease of freedom is a loss. Sometimes we have to decrease some freedoms to enhance others. My freedom to punch you out, for example. > > >I follow theusual tripartite account, negative freedom (from from >interference), positive freedom (freedom to X based on access to resources >and skills), and Marxian/Hegelian real freedom (obedience to the law one >gives to oneself, disalienation). The matter is complex,and I refer you >tomy >papers on exploitation...< > >but if freedom includes the Marxian "real" freedom, that goes against >liberalism. > Sez who? Not Mill, and if he's not a liberal, no one is. > >If [Mill] acknowledged the role of capitalist exploitation of labor, then >he >wasn't a liberal. OK, I'm not a liberal either, because I acknowledge the existence of capitalist exploitation. > > >I don't identify democracy with "majority rule." You forgot "minority >rights." Unlike classical liberalism (Locke, _et al_) I don't see rights as >being "natural." Rather, I know that people value them and will choose to >allow them, if given a democratic chance. You normally do forget minority rights, such as when I mention the tyranny of the majority, you start accusing me of being antidemocratic. If people will value and choose rights, they don't need to be legally protected. I am not so optimistic as you. That's why I support constitutional democracy, which insulates rights from majoritarian prejudices. > >I've heard that "fuzzy" was [Mill's] real middle name. You should be so fuzzy. > > No. Mill wanted worker ownership and control of production.< > >_all_ of production? Yes. Probably socialist politicians will still >be creeps. Sorry.< > >that's why mechanisms have to be developed to get us beyond the weak kind >of >democracy that's called "representative democracy," e.g., greater ability >to >recall the bums. That's still representative democracy. Personally I think that easy recalls are a bad idea. I'd argue against them. But if the people wanted that form of representative govt, it would be no worse than some. > > >>>As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors representative >govt, univ. suffrage, extensive civil rights and liberties. In that sense >we are all liberals.<<< > > >>if you define your terms vaguely, any statement is true.<< > > >You still have not said what is vague about my definition.< > >the individual terms seem to be infinitely elastic, so you can see them as >applying under capitalism and with socialism, with no substantial change. Begs the question. I define them minimally, so I can see them applying under capitalism and socialism with no substantial change. You have not yourself indicated any substantial changes. Lower salaries and easier recalls do not strike me as substantial changes. > > >>>BTW, I think that one thing we should do is to choose a definition of >liberalism and stick to it (at least for this thread, since there are no >"true" definitions).<<< > > > I have. I've used to for years.< > >It differs from the usual. Actually, it does not. I am in fact an exoert on thsi; I was a professional political philosopher for years and have published and read extensively in the field, and my definition is absolutely 100% standard. Terms are contested, and othere definitions are possible. But my usage squares with Mill's and Rawls', to start with, and they basically define the range of liberalism. No more from me. I have nothing interesting to say, Just ask Michael. jks _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
