<< One of the great
> achievements of bourgeois revolution was the idea, which has slowly and not
> always steadily taken root and blossomed, taht we can toleratea diversity of
> views without having to run to the cops to shut up the ones we don't like. The
> hard cases are those that really offend us, of course. The problem is,
> everyone is offended by something different.
>Justin, you are an accomplished political theorist.
Well. thank you! Course, I don't expect any plaudits for this tired but still true old warhorse.
central text here would be John Locke's letter on tolerance, no? Did
his tolerance of religion suggest a compromise by the bourgeoisie with
the Church--tolerance here signifies the incompleteness of the bourgeois
More Mill On Liberty. Locke was OK, but he had his limits. Tolerance amonce Prtotestants was well and good for him, but not for those damn Papists, And atheists? Perish the thought.
> Plus, the tolerant Locke leaves a lot of room in hell for
those who don't respect the rites of private property, correct?
Hm. I don't know exactly what passges you might be thinking of. There had been a few radical quasi-Commir types around 40 years earlier--Levellers, Ranters, Diggers, etc. But don't think Locke has much to say bout such views,w ith which he would have had less than no sympathy.
> Or from
the other side, aren't there several examples of bourgeois
representatives supporting the prohibition of texts on alchemy and
superstition (Morris Kline mentioned this in one of his math books, no?)
The bourgeoisie have been happy to suppress anything that bothered them every time they got the chance. They still are. Think of Rudy G. and the police briutality march just recently in the city. That's what keeps us ACLU types in business.
> We of course don't want the state to prohibit the X
files but I am not tolerant of it. The movie was really troubling.
I thought it was OK in a cheesy sort of way.