Sorry about being so late. I'm too busy working nowadays.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Qx: Most right-wing Libertarians claim that they subscribe to "natural law".....
G: Most left wing whatevers claim to subscribe to 'natural law' only their version talks of
society, groups and not individualism.
Qx: Really? I always was of the opinion that the public good was a stronger point of
emphasis amongst “leftwing whatevers” whether or not they are of the authoritarian or
non-authoritarian variety. It’s really quite inaccurate of you to state that this imaginary
leftwing version of natural law omits individualism. It’s the same sort of mindset that
keeps on insisting that the USSR was truly communist or even Marxist. What next?
Maybe we can be expected to believe that the Tooth Fairy is David Freidman’s main
inspiration. Besides claiming to have attained the heights of Reason there is the other
claim that Libertarianism is in sole possession of the true definition of individualism.
What about individuation? Isn’t that an issue?
We do not sufficiently distinguish between Individualism
and individuation. Individualism means deliberately stressing
and giving prominence to some supposed peculiarity, rather
than to collective considerations and obligations. But
individuation means precisely the better and more complete
fulfilment of the collective qualities of the human being, since
adequate consideration of the peculiarity of the individual is
more conducive to better social achievement than when the
peculiarity is neglected or suppressed.
"The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious"
(1928). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.
267
G: If you were to speak of one as a parody then the other is as suspect.
Qx: Not hardly Gee. I stated that it was a parody of a parody. In other words, deep
subjectivity.
G: reality is the arbiter and what is real is what causes the ideological argument nearly as
much as what people *on both 'sides'* perceive as their self interest.
Qx: Yeah and you don’t even know about the Multilateral Agreement on Investments,
don’t really question corporate governance, accept neo-classical economics as the be-all
and end-all of economics (and dismally at that), view profits without realizing that it is a
cultivated (and polite) code word for theft and therefore socially acceptable, and rip-off
artists on a grand scale like Carnegie, J.J. Hill, and Rockefeller become portrayed as
benevolent people who really cared a lot about others. That is your reality Gee and it’s
highly suspect when there’s more than enough evidence to shoot it down in flames a
million times over. You may be consistent but you’ll always be contradictory in your
argumantations.
G: The starting point in questioning our current society would be to ask "why would
people 'require' guidance and the force of laws from others?" not "why should people
claim the right to their individual life and the means to live it as such"
Qx: Hmmm...interesting if one is so wrapped up in an ego game centering on rightwing
Libertarianism (i.e., Republitarianism) as an anchor. I always thought that capitalism
should be questioned and alternatives envisioned with the starting point as to who
controls and manipulates and who is controlled and manipulated. Personal pride is a
non-issue until it comes to debating and that’s just a part of the whole process of
questioning and viewing capitalism critically.
G: I replied to your other post.
Qx: Thanks.
