[846] in libertarians
Re: Imposing Values
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Sat Mar 25 11:02:44 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:01:50 EST
From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
|> 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.
I would say we're for the one value: "you shall not impose your values
on people who don't want them." (Note that this means someone who
thinks it's ok to murder is negated because murder necessitates imposing
values on the victim, namely a devaluation of the victim's life, while
laws against murder do not impose any given potential victim's value
of life. Indeed, if the victim wants to die, then it's not murder.)
|> 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 still think it's fair to characterize libertarianism as being
against imposing values on people. Perhaps the key word is "particular
values" as in "libertarians are against imposing any given set of
particular values on people." All the things that we do "impose," i.e.
what we call individual rights, come from the necessity of preserving
individual consent to what happens to a person. Thus, we "impose" a
right to life, but have no problems with assisted suicide (in cases where
it is truely consentual). Those that wanted to impose their value
"life is good" would be against it.
|> (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
I am.
|> about most of the facts regarding fetuses (feti?); disagreement arises
|> over the moral question of what makes someone a person. But the whole
I'd say we disagree over what endows a person (or any entity really)
with inalienable rights. But yes, you have the idea more or less.
|> 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.)
Yeah, you're right on that, but hopefully you get the idea.
I guess a better way to phrase it is that we disagree on the application
of the abstract theory to a given set of facts. That is, how we
interpret the real situation fitting into the theory differs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT, Dept. OE | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (The Exchange) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
