[was: RE: [PEN-L:30875] Re: bullying]
Charles J. writes:
>So why don't you go after those people for their
cyncicism? Or better yet, why do you think they
are cynical?<
good idea. Do you have any tips about how to do this?
Charles:
>It [the Bill of Rights] was basically establishment libertarian
thinking that gave us the Bill of Rights, not plebian.<
I don't know what's meant by "libertarian" in this context, since the "Founders" included a bunch of slave-owners (including Jefferson) who didn't free their slaves.
But no matter. _Of course_, the establishment responded to the grass-roots revolt with their own version of what the revolters wanted. It was a compromise, one that was an imperfect expression of what plebeian forces wanted -- and is reinterpreted every day based on past and current struggles.
But the Bill of Rights is still something that's worth defending against the modern versions of John Adams (and worse). Most people in the U.S. would agree, though some would want to restrict speech more than I would or would interpret the Bill of Rights differently (as with Ashcroft's interpretation of the "right to bear arms").
BTW, I don't use "libertarian" as a necessarily negative word, since I favor a society in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Marx & Engels, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, end of section II). Of course, the right-wing libertarians have a different interpretation of "freedom" or "liberty" than I do, but I see nothing wrong with (say) Chomsky calling himself a "libertarian socialist." Socialist liberty is democratic liberty.
support the right to arm bears!
JD
