Natural-rights thinking contributes to nanny-state restrictions for the simple reason that weighing of rights is not possible. Many petty restrictions are seen as justified because they prevent a small number of people from harm or death. Smoking bans, seat-belt laws, gun-control, etc.
I suspect natural-rights libertarians will object that this is because the rights in question aren't rights. None of these violate property-rights, which are the only natural-rights. Even if it's true that these restrictions don't violate property-rights, it means that that natural-rights thinking is only valuable in arguments against petty restrictions in an ideal society where everyone recognises that our natural-rights consist only of property-rights. That makes natural-rights libertarians' thinking pretty limited in our modern context of value-pluralism.
The alternative doesn't have to be a utilitarian framework where odd rights violations follow, e.g. society is justified in executing curmudgeons because no one likes them around. (That said, I think that overall, utilitarianism would lead to more a liberal society under value-pluralism than natural-rights.) Rather, a contractarian society can allow for weighing of rights without utilitarianism's bizarre rights-violations. The reason is that it permits probability calculations in its thought. In a contractarian framework, you can say, for example, that gun-rights will be permitted even though more people will be injured or die because the deaths will only affect a few people and chances are it won't be you. Alternatively, many will receive additional utility from the option of owning and enjoying firearms and chances are that will include you.
I suspect natural-rights libertarians will object that this is because the rights in question aren't rights. None of these violate property-rights, which are the only natural-rights. Even if it's true that these restrictions don't violate property-rights, it means that that natural-rights thinking is only valuable in arguments against petty restrictions in an ideal society where everyone recognises that our natural-rights consist only of property-rights. That makes natural-rights libertarians' thinking pretty limited in our modern context of value-pluralism.
The alternative doesn't have to be a utilitarian framework where odd rights violations follow, e.g. society is justified in executing curmudgeons because no one likes them around. (That said, I think that overall, utilitarianism would lead to more a liberal society under value-pluralism than natural-rights.) Rather, a contractarian society can allow for weighing of rights without utilitarianism's bizarre rights-violations. The reason is that it permits probability calculations in its thought. In a contractarian framework, you can say, for example, that gun-rights will be permitted even though more people will be injured or die because the deaths will only affect a few people and chances are it won't be you. Alternatively, many will receive additional utility from the option of owning and enjoying firearms and chances are that will include you.
No comments:
Post a Comment