Good posts so far.
To me, the advocates of positive liberties seem to rely on one big sort of “is/ought” fallacy to support their position, but I dunno…
The problem is they think that a right not to be hindered in action translates to having others enslaved to provide you with all sorts of goodies to carry out said action. A very lively vision of liberty, that.
Exactly.
I was just presented the argument that “letting someone die would be more immoral than taxing someone else to pay for medical care if they can’t afford it.”
Well the problem there is explaining how the “letting one die” part somehow renders one culpable for that person’s death in the absence of pre-existing obligations, unless one wishes to conflate action with inaction.
Well said.
Of course I am debating this issue with someone who claims he doesn’t believe in “human nature,” calls himself a humanist, believes in moral relativity, etc. so this may all be pretty futile.
Exactly; letting die =/= killing.
The mind boggles at how one can be a humanist and simultaneously deny there’s a thing such as human nature. Why be a “humanist” and not something else then?
That is exactly what I asked him. It turns out he probably meant “humanitarian.” Obviously he believes nationalized healthcare, “free” public education, etc are much more humane and “moral” than a free market. Why he thinks it is justified to infringe on the “negative” liberties of some to provide certain “positive” rights for others I have yet to understand.
Maybe he could be convinced if he learnt how it might even enhance positive liberty if the government is taken out of the market [depending on how it is funded] - as some people could find they were able to purchase more healthcare. Also, some people would have been forced into paying for healthcare when it would actually have enhanced their positive liberty to spend it themselves - on more education.
Perhaps, but he doesn’t have the faith in markets like you or I do, so it would take a lot of convincing.
I don’t think he has to have faith in markets - merely to stop assume he knows what’s right for anyone else but himself - accept subjective value and you accept the decision-making ability of anyone. Accept their decision-making ability and the market is the only possible conclusion.
Ask him what he would think if a poor guy tried to mug him. And better yet, if you tried to mug him. Confront him with the relativity of poverty and ask where the line gets drawn. Then attempt to explain that the line is drawn arbitrary and that it varies greatly with the degree of coercion the state can use and which is asked of. So in fact your rights are not infringed only as much as necessary, but the limit up to which this can go are not objectively and morally established. Explain to him this is no better than man to man violence and robbery, but worse, since the state is so big and so powerful you can’t defend yourself.
Agree wholeheartedly. Faith is not necessary for a market - it only assumes that people will act. It does not take faith to know that people will act, and in their best interests.
I don’t know how my example could be taken out of context without further inquisition into the topic, or a reasonable debate springing forth. If you were to propose your long statement to someone with little to no understanding of the issue they would undoubtedly be at once overwhelmed and annoyed.
I know this because this is how I used to speak to people. Many grew frustrated and defensive, seeing my explication as an assault on their intellectual capacity through a display of bloviation rather than simply communicating my point. You must speak to people at their level in order for them to understand. If we are ever to make reasonable progress with the “unwashed”, or even reasonably informed people, it would behoove us to get over our own understanding of the issues and speak at the most basic level.
It’s all about building blocks.