From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Tue Feb 16 1999 - 02:57:45 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Maxwell Legg <income@ihug.co.nz>
To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Nazis memories
>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 - 15:03:04 MST