fdf@houxa.UUCP (06/24/83)
I have enjoyed reading the quasi-libertarian viewpoints of Mr. Craver, but I'm very confused as to his objection to government based on some altruistic moral standard; i. e., the 'common good'. It's possible that I'm missing something, but isn't a belief in the supremacy of individual rights just a belief in a different altruistic moral standard? If liberals (shame, shame - I'm one) are supposed to find a basis for their government other that the 'common good', then a libertarian or laissez-fairian should have some basis other than individual freedom. Both of those concepts are moral ones, and both may be totally inappropriate in some societies.
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (06/28/83)
Tom Craver's objection (If I may be allowed to assume he holds the common libertarian view) to a moral standard based on the "common good" is simply that the "common good" is an ill-defined concept. The only ways I've ever seen it defined is either as whatever the majority votes for or as "I say [or everybody knows] that [this proposal I favor] is for the common good." The request that you use a basis other than the common good mostly means that you should be more specific than either of these styles of argument. The Libertarian argument for government begins with an argument for individual rights. These rights are [claimed to be] necessary in order for an individual to be able to work productively and be able to count on being able to enjoy the benefits of the labor. That claim is what you need to argue about in order to convince libertarians that their concept of a just government is incomplete or bad in some other way.