>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