Brian wrote:
>Majoritarian, now there's a word I'm going to remember for a long
>time, probably with the same icy chill I feel right now.
In my parlance, majoritarian means trying to building a political
party/movement that can win a majority of folks to support it. In practice,
I'm not very majoritarian, since most of my political passions (progressive
taxation, drug legalization, polygamy legalization, world government,
minimum guaranteed income, Mars colonization, freedom for transhuman
enhancements, etc.) are supported by less than 5% of the population. But
since winning these policies electorally requires majorities, there is
little choice but to try to win over the masses. In that respect
majoritarian is just the opposite of elitist, putschist or John Galtist.
Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
>> I acknowledge that my politics and values are products of a particular
time
>> and place.
>Which is so trivial an assertion as to be of no consequence whatsoever.
Apparently not so trivial that it failed to give you any humility in the
certitude of your own beliefs. But then, since you don't come from a
libertarian family or environment, converts are often the most fervent
evangelists.
>BTW, what's that "pomo-" prefix? "post-modernist"? no comment.
Yes, "pomo" means post-modern, and my phrase "pomo-universalist" means, "I
can't show why my ethical beliefs are better than anybody else's, but I'm
still willing to fight for what I think is right." Maybe I just don't like
exploitation, genocide, etc., but that's good enough for me.
>I reject your narrow social determinism.
>My dad ...My mom ...
>I'm a libertarian...
>So yes, my opinions are somehow the fruit of my past of being confronted
>to lots of different opinions, with reason as my guide
I'm sure that's comforting to you, that your libertarianism is simply the
result of reason and an open mind, but I feel the same way about my beliefs.
If the degree to which you disagree with your parents and school about
politics was an indicator of the degree to which reason guides your
politics, skinhead Nazis would be the most reasonable of all.
>> But there is no certainty in values or politics,
>Here's a loathable self-defeating statement.
Well, there are some wonderful French philosophers I could recommend you
read, such as Camus, Foucault and Lyotard, but I suppose you probably
already have.
For me, it all comes back to Hume, and the unbridgeable gap between the Is
and the Ought. One can prove the Is, but the Ought is always, at root, a
leap of faith. If you have an airtight reason why your idea about the Good
is better than mine, I'd love to hear it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Hughes "Why do we need to pay for things?"
Changesurfer Radio Tristan Bock-Hughes, 5
www.changesurfer.com
jhughes@changesurfer.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Hughes "Why do we need to pay for things?"
Changesurfer Radio Tristan Bock-Hughes, 5
www.changesurfer.com
jhughes@changesurfer.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:00 MDT