[governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline

[David Allen]

At 10:12 PM -0500 3/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an
>>individual to claim.  It cannot be said to characterize the US -
>>that would be a misrepresentation.
>
>David:
>I think you are confusing your own normative judgment with an empirical assessment of the American legal and philosphical tradition.

You are of course welcome to think what you want.  But I am in charge of what I think, and your statement is distinctly mistaken.

>An individualist approach

is more in tune with American tradition.  The usual description is (classical) liberalism.  Libertarianism is quite another matter, having a distinct oeuvre and fairly narrow tradition.

All that is tradition.  When we come to the more recent past and the present, yet other strains become important if not dominant, at least on one side.

>to rights is deeply engrained in American culture -- even among its Left and democrats -- relative to Europe and Asia. That's why a Mao or a Hitler -- both sides of the collectivist coin -- could never happen here.

A counterfactual, which, by its nature, cannot be known until and unless it occurs.  The US is a culture in its infancy, extremely young.  Much evolution lies ahead, and with it previously unthinkable possibilities.

>The Lockean basis of the thinking of the constitution drafters and of American political institutions is firmly established in the historical literature.

There indeed we get to the - early - tradition of (classical) liberalism, quite distinct from libertarianism.  And again, the present has already moved from past anchor points.

>No point in debating that.
>
>When you say this, 
>
>>The great schism that now characterizes US political life
>>finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against
>>quite opposite thinking.
>
>I am not sure which sides you are talking about. Which in itself proves you wrong.

Again, you are welcome to assert as you see fit.  Assertion, unfortunately, does not establish veracity nor by itself necessarily advance the conversation.

>Both the American left and right claim on the surface to be libertarian

Not by any definitions with which I ordinarily truck.  Some on the right, yes, not by any means all on the right.  The (typical) left, not even classical liberal (let alone libertarian), rather new liberal, often opposite classical liberal.

> - the conservatives claiming to be for small government and free markets (an increasingly dubious claim under Bush) and the liberals claiming to be for civil liberties and for the positive, 2nd-gen freedoms and entitlements of the post-WW2 era. Both rely heavily on the rhetoric of liberal freedoms.

Which are quite distinct from the particular notions of libertarianism, as said already.  And again, the left quite opposite in some cases, in favor of state interventions etc.

>
>True, the religious right have hugely undermined the freedom orientation of the Republicans, combining with militaristic nationalism in dangerous ways. But I was talking about the prevailing understanding of philosophical approaches to rights, I was not in any way attempting to characterize the current political alignments of the population.

I was and did, as one illustration of the narrow place for libertarianism per se (not liberalism, either classical or its sometimes opposite on today's left).

David
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance