[845] in libertarians
Re: Imposing Values
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Sat Mar 25 01:11:46 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 01:10:57 +0001 (EST)
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9503232205.AA08635@seawolf.MIT.EDU>
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Vernon Imrich wrote:
>
>
> |> 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?
>
> All points well taken. It is not always easy. However, the standard
> for deciding is different than it otherwise could be. Right now, the
> courts and many people, use some "social good" reasoning to determine
> the solution. Libertarians what the basis to be "who's impinging on who?"
> We may not agree on the answer, but that's only from differing interpreations
> of the facts (eg how dangerous IS second hand smoke?). It's a very
> different paradigm that "who much social good is gained/lost by
> adopting policy X?"
So in other words (correct me if I'm wrong here), libertarians are only
for imposing the value "you shall not interfere others" upon people,
as well as our conception as to what constitutes interference.
If we could get everyone to agree on this point, I certainly agree it
would be a step forward, but it does seem a bit removed from your
original claim.
(I do disagree with you, though, that the only disagreement among
libertarians comes from differing interpretations of facts, unless you're
using the word "interpret" in a very wide sense. We are pretty sure
about most of the facts regarding fetuses (feti?); disagreement arises
over the moral question of what makes someone a person. But the whole
debate over secondhand smoke, while interesting, seems largely
irrelevant to me from a libertarian perspective, since people are
consenting to be exposed to it when they enter a restraunt or office or
whatnot.)
-derek.
