What if there’s a difference of opinion on the subject? Suppose my neighbor decides to start doing something that I feel is endangering my home. I speak to him and he assures me his actions aren’t dangerous; I disagree. Now his viewpoint is that he’s being peaceful and honest; mine is that he’s endangering me and lying about it so he’s neither peaceful or honest. If he’s right, he’s protected by the non-coercion principle and should be left alone. If I’m right, I have the right to intervene and stop his actions as they are affecting me even if I have to use coercion to do so. Who decides which of us is right?
(Note that I’ve intentionally avoided describing the specifics of what’s happening. I’m trying to establish a general principle and avoid getting hijacked into a debate on a specific case. But I think everyone would agree that the general case I described above could occur in the real world.)
This bears repeating, for it’s an outstanding statement of the fundamental outlook of libertarianism, and highlights the reason why libertarianism is both completely defensible as a philosophy and at the same time completely incompatible with the societal goals to which most Western nations claim to aspire.
I’ve tried very hard to acknowledge the philosophical validity of libertarianism in the hope that libertarians will be induced to acknowledge the actual costs adaptation of such a system would necessarily create. (And to be fair, most of the board’s libertarian posters have done so to at least some extent --somewhat grudgingly, perhaps, but they’ve made the effort.)
Exactly. There’s no reason that different philosophies of government have to share the same goals. We’re just not used to it - in the comparatively limited scope of Western politics, and American politics especially, people from very different parts of the spectrum have similar ideas of what is a good outcome, but differ strongly on which system of government is likely to get us there.
There’s nothing philosophically indefensible about having a different set of outcomes as a goal.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to leave the discussion for awhile - I’m going on vacation. But it’s been fun.
Yeah - thought I’d spend some time in Sylvania. But not the one where UncleBeer lives.
[sub]Not that there’s anything wrong with that Sylvania, I’m sure it’s a nice place, and Unc’s presence has to add to its appeal as a destination. But it’s not where we’re going.[/sub]
