orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/21/85)
> From R.J. Stewart: To a libertarian, however, the relativistic > axiom suggests a principle, that goes something like: > > Since my philosophy has no special significance, I should not do > things to promote it that I would not want other people to do in > promoting *their* philosophy. > This sounds like a paraphrase of: 1)the Golden Rule 2)John Rawles basic principle for his Social Contract theory of justice: namely, that the best society would be that which I would agree to, if I do not know what my position would be in that society. This principle acknowledges the true problem of government-how to resolve individuals conflicting desires and aims. If one accepts this as the fundamental problem of government (which I do) then one comes to the conclusion that Rawles and other Social Contract philosophers like John Locke came to: that society and government is based upon a social contract between all its members. Thus a just society will not exclude or deny people certain rights or privileges just because those people happen to have inherited no claim to a large portion of society's goods, while other people have inherited a majority of claims to society's goods. On the other hand, freedom itself is a good which I will undoubtedly find desirable regardless of my possessions. Most people would not desire an equal claim to clothing that is all the same , or all of inferior quality. Most people would also accept that axiom that justice means that those who work harder should be paid more. They may accept that "efficiency" may be increased if people are paid solely their worth on the market, but that is another problem than justice. Yet this is what Libertarians claim is the "only" measure of worth- worth on the market. Libertarianism also has the tendency to put the rights of property above any other rights. We have already seen this in Libertarians defense of killing to protect property. Yet they fail to ask the question: what could be "worth more" to me than my own life? Do I have the right to take away someone's ultimate "property" and the very ground of their freedom by taking somebody's life? Property rights usually involve rights to water and the prohibition of someone else's property from denying access to water. Is it acceptable then to deny people the right to food, which they need to live? Should they be denied the right to an education, which they need to be full members of society? I am not arguing that human rights simply devolve into property rights. Rather human rights come before property rights--without the protection of the person then there is nobody to be free, nor does it make sense to talk about anybody's "property", for the concept of property itself requires the prior concept of an owner of such property. Without an owner there can be no property. Human rights are above property rights. tim sevener whuxl!orb