tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post4854513903757946466..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Libertarian ParablesRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-40425664652165895492014-05-15T17:58:22.948-04:002014-05-15T17:58:22.948-04:00"As long as it's done by an "institu..."<i>As long as it's done by an "institution" and happens to be legal, it's ok</i>"<br /><br />That doesn't follow. Different normative standards doesn't mean <i>no</i> normative standards. Again, the key claim is: "Just because it would be illegitimate for your neighbour to do something in their role as an ordinary citizen, doesn't <i>necessarily</i> mean there's no legitimate way it could be done." That's obviously compatible with additionally holding that some institutional actions are (or would be) morally wrong.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-19462059859909879612014-05-15T16:52:53.834-04:002014-05-15T16:52:53.834-04:00Given this theory, it is hard to say that any acti...Given this theory, it is hard to say that any action undertaken by any government could ever be considered wrong. As long as it's done by an "institution" and happens to be legal, it's ok and is nothing like individual action.<br /><br />Using the word "processes" and asserting that a different normative standard exists is just rephrasing the problem.Old Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-33709791964240053602012-10-29T09:02:13.632-04:002012-10-29T09:02:13.632-04:00Fundamental in your argument is that there are lin...Fundamental in your argument is that there are lines to be drawn somewhere, which is a moderate position among any political group or ideology, which means absolute fealty to libertarian thought isn't going to happen. Just so you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-18755799209765360572008-04-25T15:48:00.000-04:002008-04-25T15:48:00.000-04:00I consider myself to be a Libertarian, but I also ...I consider myself to be a Libertarian, but I also think the ideas of people who disagree with you are the ones to worry, and think, about. So rather than reflexively defending the parable, I'll say you have a point but that it doesn't conflict with thoughtful and pragmatic knowledge-based libertarianism.<BR/><BR/>If we're going to be able to live lives that are free from coercion, in practice, we need the state to act as guarantor of that freedom. That's something most libertarians tacitly accept when they talk about property rights or the law of contract, but it immediately concedes there is a difference between institutions and individuals, and that institutions can legitimately undertake actions that individuals can't.<BR/><BR/>If people were less reflexive in their objections to this, they might realise that there's a strength for the libertarian position in this argument, because what really needs to be discussed are things like whether there are any legitimate limits, absolute limits, to the power of government. I think there are: people's consensual sex lives, for example. Get someone to concede that, and you have won the pass. At the moment the political divide between libertarians and others is not where the lines should be drawn but whether there are any lines.<BR/><BR/>What we see in this case is a, not uncommon, situation where ultras discredit the mainstream of their ideas.<BR/><BR/>The mainstream sources cited by libertarians, from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman (let's leave the Soviet Art kitsch of Ayn Rand and others out of this), all <I>advocated</I> government action. But points they raised, like the insupportable intrusion into personal privacy that is a tax return (Smith's arguments against income tax), are legitimate.<BR/><BR/>A more reasoned approach by libertarians would expose the willingness of others to allow government intrusion into personal privacy that have no necessary role in the functioning of a state.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, in practice, the state is a thief, taking money from people and pouring it into a trough for the unscrupulous to snuffle in. Libertarians could, if they tell the ultras to p**s off, put the unqualified defenders of the state on the back foot. That's what we should be doing.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-32589777478861928432008-04-23T20:29:00.000-04:002008-04-23T20:29:00.000-04:00I responded here: There Are No Procedural Moral Ri...I responded here: <A HREF="http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/04/23/there-are-no-procedural-rights" REL="nofollow">There Are No Procedural Moral Rights</A>Micha Ghertnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09076303270071927922noreply@blogger.com