Skip to main content

View Diary: What Conservatives Mean When They Say "Libertarian" (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair enough. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliticallyNonEuclidean

    If you want to consider libertarianism a philosophy of ethics in a purely deontological sense, that is probably OK (for me) for here (although I have misgivings about even bringing that up in this forum.). But, I think you cannot ascribe any axiological position to it--that is what Libertarianism, at least attempts, to try to avoid.

    Surely there is an ethics at work when describing a system of individual rights, whether you believe they are scientistically derived, derived from nature, or granted by the flying spaghetti monster. I mean a system of individual rights seeks to protect people from direct harm from others (which is certainly an ethical position). But it does not actively seek a method for which the situations of others can be lifted via a centralized coercive force.

    So the ethical nature of a libertarian position is rather broad, in that it only seeks to create a communal environment where people can thrive in the ways that they see best. But it offers no guidance on whether it is right or wrong for people to be happy, or whether a central government should make them happy. The major problem that Libertarians have with progressivism, is that although the intentions may be good, there are always so many variables that lead to unintended consequences that you cannot ultimately achieve a viable centrally-planned economy; a consensual system of ethics applicable to everyone, A happy life for everyone, etc. with resulting in at least some flavor of tyranny.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site