"Nonpersons" (was Re: [Fwd: THE TEARS OF THE MIGHTY])

[Eric Beck]

Yoshie wrote:

>It was ever, & it will always be, thus, *until* we achieve a free *world*
>-- classless, without oppressions based upon gender, race, sexuality,
>disability, etc.  Leftists are Machiavellians, not Kantians.

Thanks for speaking for me/us. I'd rather not be a Machiavellian, thanks.
Anything egalitarian or socialistic in Machiavelli's system--just as in
your hero Hobbes's--is desirable only because it's "efficient" and
accomplishes his most important objective: the long life and absolute power
of the state. Banish oppression, but only because it disrupts the state's
instituitional objectives. Call me "utopian" (that harshest of all Marxist
epithets), but I prefer a society that doesn't negate individuality--not to
mention emotion, desire, freedom, etc.--in its quest for equality.

If leftists are Machiavellians and Hobbesians(?) then that's probably why
the left is in such trouble. Leftists *should* be--if you'll allow me to
handle your emphatic, dictatorial wand for a moment--Spinozists. At least
ol' Baruch wasn't troubled by concerns of efficiency and control.

>BTW, those who think "free" speech is absolutely, in principle, always more
>important than freedom from racism creates a category of "non-persons," for
>they are in effect saying that racists' freedom of speech is more important
>than people of color's wellbeing, our right to exist even.  For me, my dear
>Charles's happiness is much more important than David Duke's "free" speech.

Change a few names in this paragraph, and I'm sure Joe McCarthy would have
agreed with you.

Eric