P.S. I haven't forgotten the Adorno elaboration. I'll get something together in the next couple days.
> I don't see libertarianism as radically individualist, although in
> the US many do define it this way. But, strictly speaking, its akin
> to anarchism-opposed to illegitimate authority-i.e., basically all
> authority we are currently subject to.
>
> I think this portrayal of anarchism/libertarianism as being hyper-
> individualist is largely a strawman construction erected those who
> feel threatened by it. If you actually look at the history of
> anarchism, it has been a tremendously well-organized movement.
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Sean Andrews wrote:
>
>>>>> Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To take my argument further, perhaps too far for this list:
>>>>
>>>> "too far"...as if...do you read this list?
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:53 AM, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>>> Sandy is a long time list member ...
>>
>> It was more of a rhetorical question. There are plenty of anarchists
>> on the list and there is generally little sympathy for the state in
>> general so it is strange to see a longtime list member act like this
>> kind of thought is somehow beyond the pale--or that being exposed to
>> it would suddenly enlighten us.
>>
>>> (Sandy's a big open source software guy)
>>
>> I'm always intrigued by this combination: libertarian AND open source.
>> Radically individial yet committed to the collective production and
>> availability of value. I know there are all kinds of articulations
>> which can round out the pegs for the holes, and maybe he's just being
>> provocative: consider me provoked.
>>
>>> the funny thing is, if memory serves, Sandy used to get ridiculed
>>> for his
>>> "lefty" positions on one of those lists. :)
>>
>> I guess this depends on what you mean by "lefty." Marcuse was sort of
>> a lefty, but he was all about the libertarian standpoint, a
>> combination Woj likes to remind us of often.
>>
>>> To my knowledge, there are about a dozen folks here, generally
>>> lurkers,
>>> who aren't necessarily leftists who read the list nonetheless.
>>
>> I know, but shouldn't that mean that they are familiar with it? What
>> was so unique about this interjection? That he talked about the
>> contingent nature of the idea of rights? The coercive function of the
>> state? Broke some puritanical barrier by talking about the sex trade?
>> None of this seems unusual. I'd be interested to know how he would
>> characterize the list, but, in any case, it was more of a rhetorical
>> question/observation.
>>
>> s
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>