But I _am_ a liberal. I am also a socialist, but for reasons I have explained, I am a liberal and I think you should be too and many of you probably are. As is Doug, anyway, whether he likes the term or not: we both believe in competitive elections, universal suffrage, and extensive political and civil liberties -- the basic institutions of political liberalism. I also believe in competitive markets (though not in wage labor or private property); I think Doug is unhappily reconciled to putting up with those for the foreseeable future.
I can't speak for Doug here, but I am also a liberal in the sense that I think principled agreement on terms of democratic decisionmaking trumps any particular conception of the good life -- that you can't base policy on someone' commitment to salvation. self-realization, utility-maximization, duty-fulfillment, consumerist self-gratification, what-have-you -- you just have to appeal to the other people;s commitment to resolve disputes democratically because for whatever non-self or non-narrowly-group interested reasons one has, one thinks that's the right thing to do even if the outcome is to one's disadvantage in a particular case. (This is what Rawls calls "political liberalism" -- the idea that deep metaphysical or theological disputes have no place in politics.)
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > wrobert
> > To start off, neither Doug, andie, or I are
> liberals.
> >
> > ^^^^
> > CB: Ok , you are redbaiting _like_ liberals.
>
> Charles, that's ludicrous. Make an argument, don't
> throw around smears.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367