Catherine Driscoll catherine.driscoll at
Mon Oct 23 08:09:25 PDT 2000

Hey Rob...

[replying to Matt]

>'Utilty' is simply
>what works for you and 'individualism' is the view of the 'you' for whom it

you learn something everyday who thinks this, says this, where does this come from i guess i have this really nineteenth-century understanding of utilitarianism am i out of date?

>No room there to wonder at how you came to want what 'you' wanted,
>why it 'works' for you, what 'works' means here, and why the 'you' you're
>trying to satisfy is so unlike the you you can't help but regularly suspect
>you are. Our wants are naturally, internally, hierarchically and
>individually the wants of each of us and each of us is a product only of
>those natural internalities - and what we want is as internally directed as
>it is internally sourced. How one comes by the things one wants for one is
>the only question for the utilitarian individualist.

huh? i know i can be obscure, but i don't follow the beginning questions the 'utility' previously established ok so far regularly suspect... this would be about posts i haven't read 'our wants' -- i wish i regularly encountered people who had the same wants as me never happens these days

i don't know about you rob but i, personally, have no natural internalities what do yours look like? what am i not getting in this conversation? please do tell rob, i know you're a nice guy

>Else they'd ask why it is so important to 'em, autonomous wanters that they

ah a category i can believe in --autonomous wanters-- i think i'll start a club

>to fit in with all the autonomous wanters ... and a lot of 'em must,
>because even the marketers, who have long recognised and exploited the
>social aspirations of the essentially social would-be autonomous
>individualist, are learning to brand stuff as anti-brand-brands (at least
>they are here).

non-conformity is a long-recognised marketing category --with you here--

> >The equivocation of social darwinism with libertarian political philosophy
> >is absurd.
>Well, then Christopher must not be a libertarian, because he's sure-as-hell
>a social darwinist! Trying to fit the species-oriented Darwin to the
>individual in an implicit 'war of all against all'.

yeah, well it could be old age but i don't comprehend the 'libertarian political philosophy' thing at all this would be neo-locke or something?

>And the social is either a way to optimal human freedom or it is a nagging
>and ever-threatening inhibition to human freedom. American libertarians
>tend, it seems to me, to the latter view. If so, that falls bodily into
>the social darwinist category.

oh yes well we know all about americans

so, hey, rob, what made you of the ceremonial olympics? do tell i thought of you several times


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list