Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 11:13:04 -0500 From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com Subject: The Question of Violence and the Poverty of Libertarianism Brian -- May I begin by suggesting that you take the time and effort to figure out where the different folks on this list are coming from before you jump with all of your assumptions? It might improve your reception here, and might lead the rest of the list to engage you in a respectful way, rather than as a rude intruder who has decided that he is going to show all those "Marxists" how ignorant they are, and there is no reason to pay attentioon to their actual conversations. For starters, you might have discovered that I do not consider myself a Marxist, but rather politically a radical democrat and theoretically a post-Marxist, that is, someone who has an immanent critique of Marxism. Now to your points: >Clearly this is wrong. In fact technological improvements in >armaments has led to citizens having a much greater ability >to combat the state, IF citizens were allowed access to such >weaponry, which they currently are not. Maybe you might want to visit the streets in which I live and work, where assault weapons are a dime a dozen, and terrorize every decent person who has no escape. Even in classical liberal theory such as Hobbes and Locke, the state has the minimal function of protecting the life and safety of the citizens. And what meets the condition for the Hobbesian state of nature, a war of all against all in which no one's life is secure, if not communities in such a state of seige? Why do I think that this libertarianism is developed at great length from the inner city? >The proper balance being that individual rights should >never be sacrificed for the common good. We've seen >where that has gotten us in this century. Which is to say that you recognize no claims of the common good, since there is no balance and every claim of individual rights must take precedence over the common good. Such as the right to bear a gun over the need to establish the basics of community life, or property rights to do what wants with one's property, regardless of the destruction to the environment caused by pollution and the exploitation of working people. I don't understand why you are on this list, because I don't see any basis for conversation. Modern democratic political theory is based on the balance between individual rights and the common good, between liberty and equality. The danger in Marxism has been to promote the common good at the expense of individual rights, equality at the expense of liberty. It is hardly the place for someone who would eliminate, by fiat, the common good and equality. >Which is great if it were conceivable that *everyone* >would respect my right to life and liberty, but somehow >I'd put more faith in a Glock to preserve that life and >liberty than some flowery phrase...beside it's not the size of >the weapon that counts, but the killing power and skill >in its use that makes for a good deterrent or method of force. I am always amazed at how un-self-consciously adult male (and rather predatory male at that) this perspective is. Just how was the five year old child attending the elementary school next to my high school supposed to defend his life -- which he lost -- when he had the misfortune to wander into the crossfire of two drug dealers with their Tech 9s? And what of the adults who don't envision themselves in the model of the wild west? Talk about a dog eat dog world -- this is capitalism at its worst, preying on the youngest and oldest, those unable or unwilling to defend themselves with force, and you glorify it. >BTW...how do you think Marxists seize power in capitalist >countries?? Do you think they do so with paraphrases of >Martin Luther King??? The Shining Path couldn't have said it any better. Welcome to your new comrades. >You mean they maintained a little bit wary of the state, >rather than accept the Marxist kow towing to anything >that pretends to authority??? No, I mean that democrats insist that the state provide the same protection of life, liberty and property for the residents of the inner city as they do for those contemplating libertarianism in the safety of an university campus. >Let me get this straight...you are teaching children that >non-violent action has brought down racist power >structures in America...Puhleeze. Ever looked around you? 1. Seventeen year old African-Americans and Latino/as are _not_ children. They are young adults thoroughly capable of thinking for themselves, who can and do think for themselves all the time. How revealing that you can only see them as mouthpieces for my ideas. 2. Teaching is not a process of indoctrination. (Imagine that I have to take this stand in response to a self-avowed "libertarian.") When indoctrination is attempted, it fails as teaching. Democratic teaching involves a dialogue between teacher and student, and the development of independent, critical thinking skills on the part of the student. 3. Yes, it is my view, which I articulate in conversation with my students, that it was the democratic mass movement of African-Americans, commonly known as the civil rights movement and organized around campaigns of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, that brought an end to Jim Crow segregation. If you take the time to read what I wrote with even elementary care, neither I nor my students would ever make the preposterous claim that the end of Jim Crow segregation was the end of racism in America. Why does your libertarian discourse constantly read African-Americans as passive recipients and victims, and never as active historical subjects? --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005