[843] in libertarians
Re: Imposing Values
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Thu Mar 23 00:46:05 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 00:44:56 +0001 (EST)
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
Reply-To: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9503222013.AA07863@bluenose.MIT.EDU>
> |>
> |> But the government has to set values. This is the biggest most bogus
> |> idea that many libertarians hold -- that somehow libertarianism doesn't
> |> involve imposing your values on anyone. Passing a law prohibiting
> |> wife-beating, that is imposing your values. Putting someone in jail for
> |> theft, that is imposing a value.
>
> Libertarianism imposes only what I call "meta-values" that is "you can have
> any values you want so long as you do not deprive other's the
> opportunity to choose themselves." The values imposed are things like
> "neutrality" (whats legal for one must be legal for all) or "cooperation"
> (coercion is not an acceptible method of social interaction).
>
> Limbaugh always makes the argument you just made, and he is wrong.
> Murder is illegal not because we impose the value "life is good" but
> because we impose the meta-value "all should be able to determine
> for themselves whether life is good" (murder deprives this). In fact,
> relativist libertarians would say that "life is good" can ONLY have
> meaning in the sense of such a personal decision (preference). Similarly
> for theft, wife-beating, and so on.
Well, this is still a value, but I can see how you say that this is sort
of a "root value" or metavalue. But even if we accept this principle,
putting it into practice can be sticky. When you say "other," does that
include fetuses? Viable fetuses? 2-minute old infants? And what about
animals?
Is calling someone a racial ephitat depriving them of their opportunity
to choose their own values? What about constant non-physical harassment?
If I copy your software or your patented invention, am I depriving you
of your opportunity to choose your values -- or is putting me in jail
for doing so depriving me of my right to choose my own values?
And what about the sticky question of property? Nearly all libertarians
believe that Locke's "mixing your labor with land" creates ownership, but
how much labor? Can I declare that some land is mine just by running a
hoe over it? If I've been using some land infrequently for a path, and
then someone starts farming on it, who should get to stop the other from
using it?
And once you have the property, there are still questions. When I play
my radio loud, am I depriving you of your right to choose? If yes, then
what volume is too loud? Does my owning land include "vertical air rights,"
or the right to a certain amount of sunlight?
Even just looking at personal interactions, there are still tough
questions. To use one I've discussed on talk.rape: If I'm making out with a
woman, and she tells me to stop but doesn't make any attempt to leave
(and I'm not threatening her), is this rape or sexual assault if I
don't stop? What about if I'm tickiling her, rather having sex?
All of these questions, and many more, involve values. I can't imagine
us having a society where there wasn't a consistent policy on these
things -- but, make no mistake about it, that would involve imposing values.
> The actual values themselves; honesty, family, individualism, collectivism,
> work ethic, profit motive, absolutism, relativism, athesim, Christianity
> and so on, are not mandated. Libertarians believe in "spontaneous
> order" for social relations. Whatever emerges out of the variation
> and selection freely choosen by society is fine. This is why atheists
> and Christians can work together on it. Neither of us wants to impose
> our values. There is no guarantee for capitalists that people will not
> turn over all their property to communes and collectives by choice. There
> is no guarantee for atheists that people will not all embrace Budda or
> Christ. Libertarians don't care so long as it's all by choice.
Well, I would not actually want to _mandate_ any of the values you've
listed, except maybe honesty in business dealings and other
transactions. But I do consider myself a hard-core libertarian
anarchist, and I do care about these values. People should have the
freedom to make whatever choice they want, but all these choices aren't
the same, morally speaking. Also, I'm just curious: how do you arrive at
liberarianism as a value? For me, individualism leads to libertarianism,
not the other way around.
-d.
