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

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Eric:

>Thanks for speaking for me/us. I'd rather not be a Machiavellian, thanks.

I don't mean to speak for you _at all_.  Feel free to except yourself.

>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.

Neither Hobbes nor Machiavelli is big on "efficiency."  For an economic or
philosophical advocate of "efficiency," you must turn to someone else, like
Bentham perhaps.  As for the power of the state, Hobbes & Machiavelli lived
periods of civil wars and (in the case of Machiavelli) warring city states
& a series of foreign invasions and rules, which made them think much of a
political solution to the creation of sovereignty.  They are creatures of
their times (as you are -- Americans have not suffered from foreign
invasions and rules).  That said, even they were _not_ as supportive of the
absolute power of the state as, for instance, Kant & Hegel.

Hobbes was neither egalitarian nor socialistic in his political preference,
even though his materialist philosophy could have been developed in that
direction.  As for Machiavelli, he was a republican.  Have you read their
works?  Anyhow, what interests me about them is their materialist approach
to political questions.

>but I prefer a society that doesn't negate individuality--not to
>mention emotion, desire, freedom, etc.--in its quest for equality.

I do also, but racists' desire, etc. are in contradiction with
anti-racists' desire, emotion, freedom, individuality, & equality.  For
instance, emotion.  Whose emotion is to be respected?  Both racists'
emotional attachment to feelings of supremacy and people of color's
feelings of being harmed by racist practice, including racist expression?
Racists'?  People of color's?  Neither?  Why?

>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.

Why don't you discuss Spinoza, then?  I have no particular objection to
Spinoza.  Others on the list may like discussion of Spinoza.

>>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.

No doubt for McCarthy anticommunists' happiness was more important than
communists' and he lived by his judgment.  So?  The point is everyone draws
a line in his quest for his vision of political good, as you, too, are
doing in your post (your replies are your ways of drawing a line between
people who think like you and people who think like me, for instance).  The
only question of interest is how you draw your line.

Yoshie