File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0302, message 157


Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:33:28 +0000
Subject: Re: terms - libertarian




Shawn
I realised suddenly that I negelected to answer the "a libertarian 
position" useless to your purposes..."
 
Do I then consider being 'libertarian' or the term 'libertarian' useless 
for my social-political-philosophical purposes - actually yes I do... 
 There is no reason to believe that adopting a notion of 
'libertarianism' as understood below, and applying it within the 
social-political or philosophical realm in which I live and operate will 
in anyway help to improve things for anyone. It is generally accepted 
within the social realm referred to above that certain additional 
constraints will have to imposed on the ability of  individuals to make 
choices that are detrimental to their 'rights', and that further this is 
going to be a requirement if the society is to become less unpleasent...

(Recent slightly absurd attempts to control ever-rising and destructive 
forms of road traffic in central london through congestion charging 
being a  neo-liberal case in point.)

(i feel that situationist urge rising - ah well i guess i'm the romantic 
tonight)

regards
steve

steve.devos wrote:

> Shawn
>
> I did not intend to cause you personal offence - sorry you assumed I was.
>
> The standard understandings of the ter libertarian have a different 
> meaning in Europe and the USA.  In Europe it is commonly understood as 
> refering to a culture and ideology based on the defense of individal 
> liberty as a supreme value - this may be against the state but also in 
> allaince and with the help of  govenments, for example privacy 
> protection, welfare state provision and so on. In the USA context 
> 'libertarian' is a socio-political ideology that includes a distrust 
> of govenments, often including the understanding that the market will 
> take care of everything and that individuals will take care of 
> themselves. There are other variants but the above are in some way or 
> other sufficient to begin with.
>
> Whilst the former variant is acceptable, though not a position I agree 
> or particularly sympathise with, the latter is not. Do I want to ban 
> the 'cyborg' - no because as a construct, theoretical or otherwise I 
> don't believe that they exist and am certainly not convinced by the 
> level of argument that Haraway or Gray produce. As for SUV's yes - 
> they should be banned and at some stage they will have to be, because 
> they are environmentally appallingly destructive machines...
>
> (there's nothing wrong with being a romantic - on the whole I approve...)
>
> regards
> steve
>
>
>
> shawn wilbur wrote:
>
>>"steve.devos" wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Shawn
>>>
>>>What leaky boundaries are these then?
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Steve, you're doing nothing to dispel my suspicion that you have not
>>read Haraway.
>>The question of leaky boundaries - those dividing the human for the
>>non-human
>>animal, the living from the non-living, and the tangible from the
>>intangible, roughly -
>>is explicitly at the center of the "Manifesto," but also most of the
>>rest of the essays
>>in _Simians, Cyborgs, and Women_, a collection named for three exemplary
>>
>>boundary-crossing figures. Whether or not this is a compelling argument,
>>there
>>is nothing in it to support "the 'right of humans' to use the chickens."
>>Quite the
>>contrary.
>>
>>  
>>
>>>As the Oncomouse is endlessly sacrificed it is closer to the darkness
>>>that is Bataille then Haraways happy Cyborg vision....
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Well, since there is no "happy Cyborg vision" in Haraway, the distance
>>between her
>>actual, stated vision and that of Bataille (whose relationship to
>>"darkness" is certainly
>>not unambiguous) is considerably less than you apparently believe.
>>Indeed, i find that
>>Bataille's notions of limited and general economies are rather useful
>>tools in thinking
>>through precisely the questions of "leaky boundaries."
>>
>>  
>>
>>>But then you are being romantic again Shawn...
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>And you're being unpleasant again...
>>
>>  
>>
>>>((I think it's the libertarian in you) one day I'm going to have to
>>>ask how you can ban the cyborg and it's friend the V8 SUV from a
>>>libertarian position but not today)
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Do i want to ban the cyborg or the SUV? Or do you - and you consider "a
>>libertarian
>>position" useless to your purposes? I'm actually asking for
>>clarification, not alerting you
>>to the possibility of asking for clarification at some later date.
>>
>>-shawn
>>
>>  
>>
>>>and I'm probably ill with some nasty virus... off to a meeting in 10.
>>>M.
>>>
>>>solidarity... sigh
>>>
>>>regards
>>>steve
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>  
>>
>


HTML VERSION:

Shawn
I realised suddenly that I negelected to answer the "a libertarian position" useless to your purposes..."
 
Do I then consider being 'libertarian' or the term 'libertarian' useless for my social-political-philosophical purposes - actually yes I do...  There is no reason to believe that adopting a notion of 'libertarianism' as understood below, and applying it within the social-political or philosophical realm in which I live and operate will in anyway help to improve things for anyone. It is generally accepted within the social realm referred to above that certain additional constraints will have to imposed on the ability of  individuals to make choices that are detrimental to their 'rights', and that further this is going to be a requirement if the society is to become less unpleasent...

(Recent slightly absurd attempts to control ever-rising and destructive forms of road traffic in central london through congestion charging being a  neo-liberal case in point.)

(i feel that situationist urge rising - ah well i guess i'm the romantic tonight)

regards
steve

steve.devos wrote:
Shawn

I did not intend to cause you personal offence - sorry you assumed I was.

The standard understandings of the ter libertarian have a different meaning in Europe and the USA.  In Europe it is commonly understood as refering to a culture and ideology based on the defense of individal liberty as a supreme value - this may be against the state but also in allaince and with the help of  govenments, for example privacy protection, welfare state provision and so on. In the USA context 'libertarian' is a socio-political ideology that includes a distrust of govenments, often including the understanding that the market will take care of everything and that individuals will take care of themselves. There are other variants but the above are in some way or other sufficient to begin with.

Whilst the former variant is acceptable, though not a position I agree or particularly sympathise with, the latter is not. Do I want to ban the 'cyborg' - no because as a construct, theoretical or otherwise I don't believe that they exist and am certainly not convinced by the level of argument that Haraway or Gray produce. As for SUV's yes - they should be banned and at some stage they will have to be, because they are environmentally appallingly destructive machines...

(there's nothing wrong with being a romantic - on the whole I approve...)

regards
steve



shawn wilbur wrote:
"steve.devos" wrote:

  
Shawn

What leaky boundaries are these then?
    

Steve, you're doing nothing to dispel my suspicion that you have not
read Haraway.
The question of leaky boundaries - those dividing the human for the
non-human
animal, the living from the non-living, and the tangible from the
intangible, roughly -
is explicitly at the center of the "Manifesto," but also most of the
rest of the essays
in _Simians, Cyborgs, and Women_, a collection named for three exemplary

boundary-crossing figures. Whether or not this is a compelling argument,
there
is nothing in it to support "the 'right of humans' to use the chickens."
Quite the
contrary.

  
As the Oncomouse is endlessly sacrificed it is closer to the darkness
that is Bataille then Haraways happy Cyborg vision....
    

Well, since there is no "happy Cyborg vision" in Haraway, the distance
between her
actual, stated vision and that of Bataille (whose relationship to
"darkness" is certainly
not unambiguous) is considerably less than you apparently believe.
Indeed, i find that
Bataille's notions of limited and general economies are rather useful
tools in thinking
through precisely the questions of "leaky boundaries."

  
But then you are being romantic again Shawn...
    

And you're being unpleasant again...

  
((I think it's the libertarian in you) one day I'm going to have to
ask how you can ban the cyborg and it's friend the V8 SUV from a
libertarian position but not today)
    

Do i want to ban the cyborg or the SUV? Or do you - and you consider "a
libertarian
position" useless to your purposes? I'm actually asking for
clarification, not alerting you
to the possibility of asking for clarification at some later date.

-shawn

  
and I'm probably ill with some nasty virus... off to a meeting in 10.
M.

solidarity... sigh

regards
steve
    

  



Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005