Are most people here deontological or consequentialist libertarians?
Deontological libertarians believe in natural rights, and say that even if socialism was ultimately better than liberty, socialism would be wrong because it violates natural rights.
Consequentialist libertarians support liberty because they beleve liberty is what creates more happiness. They do not necessarily believe that rights are natural.
I'm for the most part a consequentialist; that which is not so is due to my religious beliefs.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Can one be religious and a libertarian? What religion do you subscribe to?
I agree with Lam. Whilst as a Christian I take issue with murder and theft (this by no means implies I view all taxation as theft), I ultimately support the free market because it would make society better off. I believe Rothbard's attempt to define the free market as more efficient a priori was something of a mistake that has clouded the better judgement of many otherwise competant economists. To be honest, I think Rothbard made such an error simply so he wouldn't have to face the problem of what to advocate if it really turned out that the state was more efficient than the market.
If I believe the free market was inferior to the government, I would be all means reject the market (once again, this isn't to say I wouldn't take issue with other types of arrangements)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
alimentarius: Can one be religious and a libertarian? What religion do you subscribe to?
I am Roman Catholic, and if you find offense with me being a "libertarian" then feel free to call me a "liberal", "classical liberal", "whig". "Burkean whig" et cetera.
As a critical thinker I don't believe in natural rights. Rights are constructs of the human brain, and humans are evolved primates. Of course, if I were religious and believed that God created the universe, it would perhaps be possible to believe in natural rights.
alimentarius:Can one be religious and a libertarian?
Of course they can. How should one define libertarian? I am for big-tent. I try not to subscribe to metaphysics, or theology. I believe the issues generally remain the same with, or without a god. I find metaphysics/theology, to be an emotive plea that taints intellectual interactions.
I don't think teleological ethics, and deontological ethics need to be in opposition. It is likely that every individual case demands a ethical methodology. I see a need for general rules, but I am sure that there are times that demand these loose rules to be broken. I am not exactly a moral absolutist, but I don't believe in 'any means to achieve an end'. In fact Mises has taught me that it must always be means that are in question.
When it comes to abstracts, I think it is better to define a certain situation, in order to see what sort of method is best. In general Rule Utilitarianism, is a better abstract to live with for me. For instance I may choose not to stop at a red light, if I was rushing to the hospital on a baron road (though it would be safer to honk my horn, with my hazards on). Point is nearly all human interaction is a unique situation.
Individualism Rocks
alimentarius:Deontological libertarians believe in natural rights, and say that even if socialism was ultimately better than liberty, socialism would be wrong because it violates natural rights.
When hear "deontology," I think of a father and a son.
Father: Don't do that.
Son: Why not?
Father: Don't ask questions.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
AJ: When hear "deontology," I think of a father and a son. Father: Don't do that. Son: Why not? Father: Don't ask questions.
From first hand experience, right? lol
I would consider myself a deontological libertarian, but I certainly don't believe in "natural rights." Nature endows nothing—human, animal, nor plant—with any guaranteed rights to life live unmolested, to own property, etc. I am an ethical egoist, however, and capitalism is the only social system that provides every man the freedom to work for his own interests.
Of course, I'm pragmatic enough to realize that many people are not egoists, and so Austrian economics provides the utilitarian justification.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
I'm just wondering is there some reason why you can't be both? They both imply each other and you can't have one with out the other.
solos:I'm just wondering is there some reason why you can't be both? They both imply each other and you can't have one with out the other.
I don't necessarily see any conflict between the two principles, but the difference is in how libertarianism is justified: looking at an individual ("libertarianism protects rights") vs. looking at society ("libertarianism generates the greatest overall satisfaction").
Conza88: AJ: When hear "deontology," I think of a father and a son. Father: Don't do that. Son: Why not? Father: Don't ask questions. From first hand experience, right? lol
Never heard that one from my parents, which may be why I'm not beholden to paternalist deontology.
You could be both, because no one wants to clearly define their terms. In fact, I'm often surprised to find that so-called deontological libertarians are just as consequentialist as everyone else, but they just believe deontology has good consequences.
Justin Spahr-Summers:many people are not egoists
I think all human actions are egoistic.
When hear "deontology," I think of a father and a son. Father: Don't do that. Son: Why not? Father: Don't ask questions.
I am curious, what works by deontologists have you read?
To darkness I condemn you...
Justin Spahr-Summers:I don't necessarily see any conflict between the two principles, but the difference is in how libertarianism is justified: looking at an individual ("libertarianism protects rights") vs. looking at society ("libertarianism generates the greatest overall satisfaction").
First of all, Libertarianism(tm) does not protect rights. Rather, it is a philosophy that holds a specific concept of rights as inalienable. Only people protect rights. Libertarianism is not an entity with the capacity to provide protection.
Second, overall satisfaction is not a measurable concept across a group of people or within an individual. So, you can not look at society and arrive at a justification of libertarianism.
Finally, you can never justify libertarianism in an absolutely objective sense without ultimately appealing to the following leap of faith: initiating aggression is evil. You can not prove aggression is evil in an argument. You can never justify libertarianism any more than you can prove that cats OUGHT not torment mice.
Charles Anthony: You can never justify libertarianism any more than you can prove that cats OUGHT not torment mice.
You can never justify libertarianism any more than you can prove that cats OUGHT not torment mice.
It is not a question of whether or not they ought to be held to the NAP in a libertarian society. They will be held to such a standard or it will not be a libertarian society.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Bank Run: I find metaphysics... to be an emotive plea that taints intellectual interactions.
I find metaphysics... to be an emotive plea that taints intellectual interactions.
Who's metaphysical definition are you using?
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Justin Spahr-Summers: Nature endows nothing—human, animal, nor plant—with any guaranteed rights to life live unmolested, to own property, etc.
Nature endows nothing—human, animal, nor plant—with any guaranteed rights to life live unmolested, to own property, etc.
What's "Nature"?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap