rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (12/04/85)
A Challenge Richard Carnes has correctly pointed out that Libertarians "have not thought carefully enough about the concept of freedom." In fact, Libertarians openly start with the concept floating in their minds. But I have seen no evidence that Richard has anchored freedom to reality either. Someone who says it is wrong to "believe that the existence of private property does not entail any social or legal constraints on individual liberty" is not using liberty to name the same facts of reality I name by the concept of freedom. Someone who understands socialism and believes it is good has totally different values from me; and someone who says socialism promotes freedom is either mixed up or dishonest. THE CHALLENGE: Richard, please clarify your concept of freedom. A clarification would consist of at least three parts. 1. A definition. The definition should allow us to know what facts of reality you are referring to when you use the term. You should be careful to relate the concept to other similar but distinct concepts. For example, do you differentiate metaphysical freedom (the physical capability to do something) from political freedom? Do you distinguish psychological freedom from existential freedom--i.e., the freedom to think as you want from the freedom to do as you want? Is the freedom from force the same thing as the freedom from hunger? Do you distinguish the freedom to do as you want from the freedom to do as you should be able to do? I assume that the concept of freedom we are talking about is this latter one--political freedom based on some code of morality. 2. A justification. What are the facts of reality that give rise to the concept of freedom? For example, if men could survive by dreaming into existence the values they need for life, would you need a concept of freedom? If human society required a structure like workers, drones, soldiers, and a queen (like some insect colonies), would you need a concept of freedom? If man has no choice in what he does, is there a need for a concept of freedom? If the purpose of man's existence is to sacrifice for others, would you need a concept of freedom? 3. Integration. Since freedom is a political concept, does it contradict the essentials of the more fundamental areas of metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. To do this step, you must state your view on the essentials of these areas. (In metaphysics: are you for the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness? In epistemology: do you get knowledge by reason or by emotions? In ethics: is the standard of value life or death? and is your purpose self-interest or self-sacrifice? If you think the essentials are different or irrelevant, say so.) Does your concept of freedom integrate with what you know of the derivative field of economics? If you hold your concept of freedom as good, is the resultant economic system better (by your same standard of good)? What is the relation between freedom and other political concepts such as rights, government, and coercion? ----------------- I give this same challenge to anyone else on the net who would like to clarify their own thoughts on liberty. (Special note to those who think they are sympathetic to Libertarianism: to attempt to answer the challenge is to abandon Libertarianism, whose basic tenet is that liberty is an axiom.) -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/05/85)
> I give this same challenge to anyone > else on the net who would like to clarify > their own thoughts on liberty. (Special > note to those who think they > are sympathetic to Libertarianism: to > attempt to answer the challenge > is to abandon Libertarianism, whose basic > tenet is that liberty is an axiom.) > > Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hund!rwsh 201-949-2846 I don't know about other libertarians on the net, but to me nothing in libertarianism is an axiom. In fact, nothing in libertarianism is unconditionally true. It all derives from more basic values, and in exceptionaly circumstances these basic values will supercede the political philosophy of libertarianism. To take a trite example: Suppose that to prevent World War III, I need to get someplace, and the only way to do so is to steal a car. I will do this without a second thought for the property rights of the owner. Just about everyone will. Therefore property rights are not axiomatically valid. Note that this holds even if the owner is right there, but is unconvinced by my arguments, or is convinced but thinks World War III would be fun. This seems to be a common mistake on the net. In the heat of argument, people make universal assertions which can't be defended, but don't back down later. Other people take admissions that in exceptional circumstances something breaks down as showing that it's no good in ordinary circumstances either... Radford Neal