Through the Broken Window

Guilty as charged...

"Radical libertarian" as well, but slightly more left-leaning.

Travis old boy, I think we may have traded spaces...
 

I'm not suprised I came up as a "libertarian-leaning centrist".

I support markets because I believe freedom is essential for people to flourish (in the aristotelian sense), not because they are ends in themselves. So, I don't have a problem with government intervening if that goal isn't met. That, right away, keeps me out of the "radical libertarian" camp.

I'd say this position mostly comes from my recent interest in Virtue Ethics, Amartya Sen's "capabilities" approach to efficiency, and my reading of Martha Nussbaum's philosophical writings in a very forgiving and self-serving way.

Of course, there are plenty of problems with virtue ethics and I still don't know whether this approach will take me anywhere. But I think it's the best start I've found.

Anyways, good find, Jenna. It's a fun way to kill 5 minutes. :D
 

On second thought, I should clarify. :P

I think that the system of American government does the best job (so far) of protecting its citizen's property and person through its well crafted institutional structures. This is essential to human flourishing. And I have no problem with that government movin, on occasion, to correct market failures like pollution.

The mere fact that I don't think anarchy would actually do as good of a job as the American system (i.e. that the "state" can do something right) is what prevents me from being radical libertarian.

:D Just wanted to make my whole position clear.
 

I scored radical libertarian. Your introduction of ethics to the discussion interests me, Student. Stanley Hauerwas at Duke Divinity looks into the importance of virtue as opposed to "value." Value is an incremental term, an economic term. Virtue is categorical, you either are or are not virtuous according to what you do. I find myself marking off the term "value" in many of my readings and replacing it with "virtue" when the distinction is appropriate.
A few questions:
Do we believe in liberty because it is most efficient, or because we consider individuals to be responsible?
Is it possible to explain "market failures" as examples of irresponsibile individual's actions?
Pollution is an example of the government taking away private property rights and creating commons. This was done through political favors to industrial operators to create lower fixed costs and a less competitive market.
 

I came out as a "radical libertarian," leaning neither right nor left (it's impossible to lean when your little dot is at the apex of the chart.)

Everyone is totally shocked at that outcome, I'm sure.

Juris Naturalist, I believe in freedom as an end in itself, not the means to acquire wealth. Non-coercion and self-ownership are absolutely essential to morality. Even if liberty were totally inefficient (in the cost-benefit, monetary sense), I would still support a completely free-market, libertarian society.

Travis, what's that Austrian concept called that says we can't have interpersonal value comparisons?
 

Jenna,

I never can understand what makes natural rights so great that they would persuade anyone to ignore the outcomes of "respecting" them.

Here's a question. Which world would you live in: A world where all your natural rights were respected, but you had to live in poverty; OR a world like the one you live in now, where the government steals your property, but you live in relative comfort?

Now, I'm not presupposing that a natural-right-respecting world would end in poverty, I am only trying to gauge how true your convictions are.

If you really would pick rights-respecting-poverty over comfort, why do you? And why should anyone else make the same choice? Because it is the "RIGHT" thing to do? According to whom?
 

Well, there are limits to everything, but within reason I would choose rights over wealth. Of course, there is a point at which I would (probably) give up some rights for food, water, shelter, etc.

And now you ask: "And why should anyone else make the same choice?"

They don't have to. They just have to keep their choice away from me and mine. That's the beauty of a natural rights system. Your rights end at my property and my person. I can't make anyone choose the same things I do. And they shouldn't be able to make me, neither through voting nor through force of arms.
 

Jenna,

So you're saying no one else has to believe in natural rights, but they shouldn't violate your rights?

I'm confused. If no one else believed in natural rights, why would they be obligated to respect your "rights"?

If everyone else thinks your rights are imaginary or even evil, I don't see anything to stop them from killing you and taking your stuff.
 

Quoting Student: "If everyone else thinks your rights are imaginary or even evil, I don't see anything to stop them from killing you and taking your stuff."

Ok, so there would be nothing philosophically to stop them.

But in practical terms, self-defense would stop them. Completely compatible with natural rights theory. I'm not Gandhi, you know.

Why must you be so difficult?
 

Jenna,

Don't take it personally. :)

I like what Chris said about contraians being useful for inspiring people to question their beliefs.
 

Can I be so brash as to suggest that I believe in liberty because it is the Truth? Not because it works the way I want it to, not because it has optimal outcomes, but because it just is. Do we believe in gravity because it produces favorable outcomes, or because it just is? There is a Law written into the Universe which dictates that all men are free.
Not very intellectual, I understand, but all mental acrobatics miss the swing at some point and need a net.
Nathan
 

"It is a fact of reality, unveiled by reason, that men ought to be free."

I like that.

Student, I'm not taking it personally. However, if you seek to change my views by challenging them, you are doomed to disappointment.

It just seems like we've had this conversation many times, with the same conclusion: I still believe in Natural Rights. You still challenge that they are not natural at all. We are at an impasse.
 

"It is a fact of reality, unveiled by reason, that men ought to be free."

This is what I call a mystery. The data encroaches upon the question.

The issue then becomes epistomological, how do we know what we know about liberty, that men ought to be free?

Is there any room for revelation here?

Nathan
 

Huh?!?
 

Revelation as a means for aquiring knowledge, not as in "the end of the world" or whatever Tim LaHey and Kirk Cameron imagine.
How do we know we should be free?
What evidence do we have?

The question is the same as "Why is there evil in the world?" or "Is there a god?"

How CAN we know?

Nathan
 

Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! Custom embossed business cards north carolina dog bit victim lawyer http://www.wool-sweaters-2.info/Chrysler-conversion-mini-vans.html tunning audi a4 Alternative baccarat free betting Used toyota engines Generic version of ultracet tablets Virgin river hotel and casino mesquite nevada Carnival cruise lines fantasy Reset bmw e30 service software Individual+insurance+coverage dysfunction erectile new treatment travel insurance no excess High cholesterol and pregnancy Urodynamic effects of venlafaxine sarah decker soccer Used volvo cas