Is John Stuart Mill responsible for most nanny statism even though he wanted to create a new sphere of individual liberty against the civil societal majority above and beyond that enjoyed against the state?
I don't have in mind the usual conservative objection that a civil societal sphere of liberty requires a welfare state, the idea that people free from customs will necessarily suffer consequences that only societal alms can remedy.
I mean many petty restrictions on liberty are defended by recourse to harm to others. If by contrast we justify all restrictions by recourse to Hobbes' concept of peace -- lack of a known disposition to contend by force -- I think the remaining liberty is closer to what most liberals have in mind.
6 comments:
To get a better grasp of these issues requires an understanding of the clear distinction between left libertarianism (the logical extreme of classical liberalism), and right libertarianism (advocated by people like Ron Paul and Milton Friedman): http://realdealecon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/left-libertarian-and-right-libertarian.html
Your claim regarding classical-liberalism is inaccurate. Read the linked article on liberalism. It nicely outlines the different kinds of liberalism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
This is incorrect. You are a philosopher, so have you not heard of the Steiner-Vallentyne school of left libertarianism, which derives directly from classical liberalism?
Left libertarianism, I think you will agree, is far less restrictive in its conception of freedom than right libertarianism is.
Of course, I know of left-libertarianism.
Your points are meant to provoke. They're not calm reasons. As such, they're not worthy of addressing.
Read the encyclopedia article. It will give you a better understanding of the liberal pantheon. At present, your ignorance makes you seem like a bigoted left-libertarian.
The links below will also be of benefit.
The economic options are not an absolute free-market or an economic authoritarianism by democracy. See here:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
That economic democracy would not offer more choice because it would be extremely inefficient, see here:
http://www.indiapolicy.sabhlokcity.com/debate/Notes/hayek_low.pdf
Michael, the encyclopaedia article discusses liberalism in its classical form (i.e. during the age of Enlightenment). The question is what form such liberalism takes today, and a logical answer, in a world lacking perfect competition, is left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism. My points are not meant to "provoke," merely to question your argument.
I am already aware of Hayek's "Use of Knowledge in Society," and it is a brilliant article. However, I fail to see how you can use it to argue against left-libertarianism - that is just a nonsequitor.
Post a Comment