>
>Offlist (over my limit for the day)
>
>----- Original Message >
>
> > No. I distinguished between Marxists and other kinds of hard leftists. I
>am
> > the latter myself. Singer takes good positions on lots of things, but
>his
> > approach is indivisualistic and nonstructural. For example, his solution
>to
> > world hunger is individual charity.
>
>Maybe he is "individualistic and nonstructural." However, your example is
>a
>blatant misrepresentation. Singer's argument boils down to this: since
>massive governmental increases in the level of foreign aid from the first
>world to the third world aren't forthcoming, we're all obligated to give
>most of our income to the least well off.
Like I said. He didn't make the argument that the solution is to disposses the capitalist class of its property.
I doubt Singer would place a bet
>on individual charity solving world hunger any time soon, although as
>Singer
>points out such an outcome is a theoretical possibility.
His argument is an idle distraction. It's not a hard left position.
>
> > Anyway, he's not in the Princeton phil
> > dept,
>
>I didn't know that, although I guess his professorial title should've
>tipped
>me off.
Yeah, the snobs in the phil dept there don't think he's on their level.
>
> >This isn't going to be productive, Luke.
>
>I didn't intend to open an exchange on third parties vs. the Dems. I
>simply
>pointed out that, in a very real sense, Nader cost Gore the election.
>Judging from your response, you didn't really disagree with the claim
Yes I do. Gore and the Court cost Gore the election. You might as well say that Buchanan cost Gore the election, since the "Jews for Buchanan" vote would've tipped it the other way. This is dumb, we aren't getting anywhere, let's drop it.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com