Liberalism (Locke, Mill)

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Mon Nov 2 13:45:53 PST 1998


That's Ann Ginger's term. I would say "nationally or racially oppressed group ."

Most of the problem with "blaming", " the rich" and "truth" is that the rich are not blamed enough for the problems they truly cause (including poverty and oppression).

Anti-capitalist speech is already illegitimate and during WWI, the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism anti-capitalist speech was outlawed , so the danger you warn of has already been actual ; but not because the speech was lies, but because of the opposite: the powers-that-be/rich are practical liars.

As far as lies being made illegal, it would be PRO- capitalist speech that would be in danger of being outlawed, that is if a scientific approach to the question were followed.

Charles Brown


>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 11/02 4:24 PM >>>
> . . . The comon law
> was transmitted to the colonies and
> hence to the new United States. Now
> everyone will learn that genocide is not
> free speech, that inciting genocide is
> not protected because it imperils
> the public peace. It falsely cries
> "Fire" in the crowded theatre that
> is 20th Century America, falsely blaming
> minority groups for problems the
> majority face."
> . . .

What about blaming another minority group (arithmetically, at least), namely the rich, for poverty, oppression, hurricanes, and bad television, all of which have been done on this list? That imperils the public peace too.

The scientific consensus on race clearly does not extend to class, so doesn't your argument lend itself to the danger of anti-capitalist speech being outlawed?

[This would not affect me, of course. I raise this out of a concern for the welfare of my fellow list members.]

Cheers, MBS



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list