From: J. Maxwell Legg (income@ihug.co.nz)
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998 - 14:39:37 MST
Michael Lorrey wrote:
> No No No. You missed the most important difference. In the first
> definition, it applied to the individual, while the second refered to
> the 'producers' as a common group. This is the essential incompatibility
> of libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism declares that the prime
> political unit is the individual, while socialism declares that the
> primary political unity is the community or society, thus letting in the
> buggaboo of coersion of the individual by the tyranny of the masses.
>
Can you give net refs as to how this Libertarianism doublethink came
about where the word *political* (i.e. I think of it as describing an
aspect of people's connections) came to focus on a node within the
connections rather than the collective. If I were to use an analogy, the
concepts of a jukebox, genre, playlist or database springs to mind as
words on one end of the scale where the adjective *political* would
reside and words like individual, song or field appear at the other end.
Thus to me a song isn't a set and an individual isn't his connections.
My PC isn't a primary internet unit because before I used the internet
my PC did other things. I know there are differences between adjectives
and nouns and that confusion between the two can lead to delusional
thinking, but even though I also know the Nazis were deluded in their
thinking about race, etc., this plural/singular (i.e.,
political/individual) definition mix up that you point to has me
perplexed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:43 MST