>The problem is that the Rights of Man thing is rhetoric.
That suggests that you think it would be a good idea if put into practice (i.e. that you think the rhetoric about RoM is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is ever that vice that pays homage to virtue).
Myself, I think the rights of man enunciated and (albeit partially) realised was a massive step forward for humankind. But even if every expression of the idea was hypocrisy the basic idea would be sound. After all, what is to object to if equality and liberty are not values worth aspiring to, in the suppression of the same?
>Maybe I'll be Straussian (is that
>correct?) and say that the Rights of Man thing is good enough
>for the masses, for now; but serious leftists should recognize
>its defects, both theoretical and practical (noted above).
But the aspiration for perfection is Godly, not human. Nothing is without defects, otherwise history would end in its realisation. Defects is not the same thing as saying pointless or rubbish.
-- James Heartfield