Nathan
> Vietnam, Grenada, and the rest to be suspicious: you don't have a problem
> with the way liberal society defines criminal delinquency, sexual
deviancy,
> the unemployed, single mothers, benefits seekers?
Sure, but what would be post-liberal about changing all that around? I mean,
how strictly are we using the word "liberal"? I suppose you're right...we
have to use it pretty strictly to avoid getting co-opted by people like
Rorty. I get disgusted by what I read in the newspaper all the time...I
guess I just never make the conscious association of what I see with
liberalism.
Thanks for correcting that unthought - kind of a significant and
embarrassing one, at that
Nate
> Vietnam, Grenada, and the rest to be suspicious: you don't have a problem
> with the way liberal society defines criminal delinquency, sexual
deviancy,
> the unemployed, single mothers, benefits seekers?
Sure, but what would be post-liberal about changing all that around? I mean,
how strictly are we using the word "liberal"? I suppose you're right...we
have to use it pretty strictly to avoid getting co-opted by people like
Rorty. I get disgusted by what I read in the newspaper all the time...I
guess I just never make the conscious association of what I see with
liberalism.
Thanks for correcting that unthought - kind of a significant and
embarrassing one, at that
Nate