> Date sent: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:54:28 -0800 (PST)
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:Re: clarification-individualism
ricardo:
> > No, that would be a contradiction in term
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>Let's see. I buy a Nike or a Disney Product, made by a little girl for
>$.22 an hour in Haiti. John S. Mill would approve. I am not hurting
>these children. I sit back in my life of ease. That's ok. I am not
>hurting anyone. My compan
James Heartfield wrote:
> So you are saying that everyone that buys Nike or Disney goods is
> responsible for the exploitation of their workforce. Well, that lets the
> chief exec at Nike off the hook!
Ricardo was referring to John Stuart Mill's concept of individualism. He was
trying to make
Ricardo wrote:
> > homeless people, victims of pollution etc. Or is that the definition of a
> > sociopath?
> >
>
> No, that would be a contradiction in terms: if you act without
> regards for others, you are infringing upon their individual
> rights. See Jonh Stuart Mills, On Liberty.
>
>
I like the ideas Jim Devine presented in clarifying individualism. Just to
add some amenable thoughts:
The problem with individualism under capitalism is that there is almost always
a silent exploitation filled with sexist and/or racist content to the
individualism. For instance, The Lone Range
I see no point in adding anything to the thread concerning the returns on
colonialism. Everything has been said by others.
In another thread, Ricardo D writes: >First, [Talcott] Parsons is one of
the few great American thinkers, so be careful with your compatriots. But
the days of his dominance
> Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:44:17 -0800
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:clarification
Devine, I don't know how to erase quickly what I need from here, so
look for my responses
