[Peace-discuss] Drinking the Kool-Aid

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't think you want to say that liberalism is a compromise between the 
liberty of the slave-holders to be slaveholders and the interests of the 
majority (the slaves).  Or if you do, so much the worse for liberal slaveholding.

In fact, the interest of the slaves (to be free) is opposed to the interests of 
slaveholders (to hold slaves).  Hence, a good leader would seem to be in the 
first place one who serves the interests of the majority, not the opposing 
interests of a minority.  And what's true of chattel slavery is also true of 
wage slavery, as some late-19th-century Republicans recognized. --CGE

Bob Illyes wrote:
> You're right, Bob, but there is an important issue that is getting 
> submerged in the argument about Obama (which has become quite annoying). 
> By ignoring this underlying issue, the argument can be continued 
> indefinitely, to the detriment of most folks on this list.
> 
> Carl writes "A good leader would seem to be in the first place one who 
> serves the interests of the majority, not the opposing interests of a 
> minority." And then quotes James Madison as having said about the 1787 
> constitution that its goal was not democracy, which he and his good 
> colleagues saw as dangerous, but "to protect the minority of the opulent 
> against the majority."
> 
> There is a middle ground, represented by liberalism, which is a 
> compromise between majority rule and individual liberty- a difficult 
> balancing act, but a worthwhile one in my estimation, but apparently not 
> in Carl's. His "serves the interests of the majority" morphs easily into 
> "the greatest good for the greatest number", which should give one 
> pause. It could be used to justify slavery, for example, although I'm 
> sure that this isn't Carl's intent.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss