The title of James Otteson's book is, I am sure unintentionally, misleading. Readers might expect a dry and abstract philosophical treatment of ethics. In fact, what Otteson offers is a full-scale defense of classical liberalism
A doctrine may be modern, fashionable, generally accepted and nevertheless detrimental to human society, civilization and survival. The first step to every attempt to investigate social, political, and economic changes has to be the study of the changes of the ideas which guided men to bring about these changes. The theories which build up or disintegrate social cooperation can only be proved or refuted by pure reasoning. They cannot be exposed to the simple examination of the experiment.
From the book For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, as narrated by Jeff Riggenbach.
Does libertarianism require widespread acceptance of certain cultural values? One end of the spectrum says yes [thick libertarianism]. The other end says libertarianism does not require any other set of values except the non-aggression principle – the right not to have force initiated against them [thin libertarianism].
Special lecture presented at the Mises Institute on 29 June 2006.
When can you respond to force? The four response positions range from “never” to “impose by force some further penalty on them”. A person’s capacity must be considered. Compensation instead of punishment is generally a libertarian society’s choice.
Now we go from ethics to liberty. Justice, narrowly, is a legitimately enforceable claim. What is the consideration between justice, rights and utility? Justice seems more rule-oriented than rights. Libertarian rights theory can consider consequences.
We have a right not to be aggressed against. Any other right has to be an application of my right not to have force initiated against me. Now, we need to do this with property rights. We need to treat the violation of property as aggression against self.
One of the very first replies to my posting of CO2 Science’s journal
Why should I care about anyone else but myself? We each have our own values to pursue. Is all valuation relative or neutral? The values we actually use seem to be agent neutral. We endorse these values both for ourselves and for others. Hobbes says that in a state of nature it is legitimate for everybody to do what they want. Socrates said that once you recognize that something is worth admiring, you will integrate it into your life.
