J.R. said
>Ideas that are good enough to have persuaded _you_ of their worth ought to
be
>good enough to stand on their own <snip> without being
>bolstered by association with social democrat/ic politics. What makes an
idea
>a "liberal" idea, as opposed to being an idea that promotes health,
>prosperity, beauty, freedom, practicality, excellence, and competence?
AFAIC,
>really good ideas transcend the left/right, liberal/conservative
dichotomies,
>so calling an idea "liberal" is no worse than calling one "conservative."
I entirely agree. I'd be happy to second the proposal that we all work on
such a basis.
My probem is that the word "liberal" gets used as an insult or a put-down,
as in "liberal schmalz" (which was what I reacted to), especially when
people are arguing with Olga or Miriam. I guess Olga and Miriam can look
after themselves, but there is this tendency on the list to suggest that
people like them are wrong *because* of their liberal qualities. There
sometimes seems to be a background assumption that social demcratic ideas
ipso facto lack legitimacy.
This *may* be because some of the leaders of the extropian movement have
strong libertarian views, but I don't see any necessary connection when I
read the extropian principles.
Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT