unemployed former philosophy major
In reply to Another (completely sincere) Open Question on the Furyblog (which you may want to read first, as I don't repeat it here):
OK, two weeks later and I see that no one else has commented. Am I the only libertarian who reads your blog?
Of course, I do notice that you ask after Bush Junior's corporatist scam as if it has something to do with liberty. It doesn't. It's just a right-wing regressive welfare scheme to replace a left-wing regressive welfare scheme. Don't be fooled by the Cato Institute -- they are less and less libertarian and more and more neoliberal Republican.
Actually, I also notice that you don't use the term libertarian in your question, but rather individualist. This would indicate that you're asking not an economic question, but an ethical/philosophical one, since individualism is a position within moral philosophy about who does and doesn't have which sorts of rights.But you also say, "I imagine that deep down, few people are interested in that, and that what we see instead are different imaginings of how best to achieve a good outcome for all."
This would indicate that you're asking the consequentialist -- "economic" -- question: looking for the utilitarian perspective.
So either you or I or both of us are quite confused about what exactly you're asking.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing my article, "The 3 'E's of the Minimum Wage" I'd ask you to assess whether yours is an E1/ethical question, an E2/economic question, or the E3/emotional question.
If you're asking the connotative emotional/symbolic (E3) question then I probably can't help you.
If you're asking the utilitarian/economic (E2) question, then I'll repeat my previous recommendations.To those I will add a second-hand recommendation (meaning that this book has been recommended to me): From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 by David T. Beito. Sixty-five smackers is why I haven't gotten it yet, but I'll bet your library has a copy.
And I don't see how you can be asking the ethical question, since (from an individualist perspective) it practically answers itself: robbing Peter to pay Paul is theft, no matter who does the robbing or how much you believe Paul deserves Peter's resources.Between your consequentialist parenthetical and the fact that you are still asking the question, I infer that you believe the ends can justify the means. In other words: your ethics would seem to be utilitarian, in which case we're back to recommending economic reading and ethical principles are irrelevant.
2:29 AM
7 Comments:
The "FuryBlob"?
In the spirit of cross-blog dialogue (diablogue?) here is my response to your comment on the "Furyblob":
Is it impossible that for some thinkers emotional, economic and ethical issues could be intertwined?
As it happens, I am not, in my question, making an assertion (i.e., trying to convince anyone of my beliefs) but rather, as I believe I stated pretty clearly, asking a question.
And while I understand your desire to work within philosophical discourse, and therefore to the exclusion of those who do not, cannot, or will not speak it themselves, your rather dismissive "So either you or I or both of us are quite confused about what exactly you're asking" irritates me. I stated pretty explicitly early on that I am trying as best I can to communicate what I am asking, and that I had found myself having a little trouble. Forgive me for being unable to do so to your liking--and for asking in the first place that you be willing to work with me.
On a similar note, in looking back at what I wrote, you will see that I am using the social security example as simply an example--NOT (as you accuse) suggesting that it is a libertarian scheme (something I do not believe).
That said, I appreciate your references, which I will happily check out.
The "FuryBlob"?blog blog blog! (whoops)
fixed now
"... irritates me. I stated pretty explicitly early on that I am trying as best I can to communicate what I am asking, and that I had found myself having a little trouble. Forgive me for being unable to do so to your liking--and for asking in the first place that you be willing to work with me."My apologies. I wasn't trying to be irritating, and I wasn't trying to dismiss your concerns. If you thought you were being dismissed, then that in itself would be irritating.
Of course, my unasking your question -- or answering it with more questions -- might also strike you as irritating, which I'd apologize less for, but I think you're talking about tone.
Reviewing what I wrote last night, I see that that line adds nothing helpful and I should have just left it out.
But I would argue that what you call philosophical discourse is merely intellectual rigor. I am claiming that you need to disentangle your concerns, not necessarily to eliminate any of them. Are you asking the (meta-)ethical question, "What's wrong with violating rights if it achieves the greater good?" If so, then you are accepting ends over means and we need to talk economics and leave individualism out of it.
"Is it impossible that for some thinkers emotional, economic and ethical issues could be intertwined?"I think for most people they are intertwined and I think that's exactly the problem.
I don't know how to think clearly without making these distinctions. More, I claim that no one else does either, whether they recognize it or not.
Interesting point--and I appreciate your sense that it is worth disentangling entangled concerns.
Let me say something explicitly again, which I tried to say before, but may not have made clear: I AM NOT ARGUING FOR A POSITION, OR ADVOCATING ANY STANCE.
My initial question was motivated by honest to goodness curiosity--a sense that there is something I do not understand, and that because I do not understand it, I cannot get past it to move on to other questions.
No, I was not asking "What's wrong with violating rights if it achieves the greater good."
What I want to know is, in a worldview centered around the freedom of the individual to pursue his or her own objectives, is there a sense of concern about how other individuals fare? I am not saying, gee, don't you really think we should share the wealth, or gee, don't you think we should combine into a collective in order to take care of each other, or gee, let's eliminate rights here or there. I am not talking about *my* thinking: I want to know what *you* think.
(Initially this was not a bk-exclusive "you," but since no one else wanted to answer....)
And FYI, there are many kinds of intellectual rigor. Philosophy is but a single discipline.
"What I want to know is, in a worldview centered around the freedom of the individual to pursue his or her own objectives, is there a sense of concern about how other individuals fare?"OK, however long it took me, I think I finally understand your question, and why you focused on individualism, specifically.
You're asking if individualists ever think about the welfare of others, or do we state our abstract principles about abstract rights and thereafter close our hearts and minds to the world?
The short answer is this: philosophical individualism is a very specific position with a very narrow scope. It is not a worldview. Individualists as individualists don't worry about positive obligations or the practical welfare of others. But that doesn't mean that someone who is an individualist on ethics needs to stop at negative rights. An individual can be more than an individualist. Individualism tells you what not to do. It limits your options, just as any ethical principle necessarily does, but it doesn't require you to become an atomist.
An atomist is an individualist who ignores the role of community or the plight of others. I am not an atomist. For most of us, philosophical individualism is the starting point, not the end of the discussion. An atomist is is an individualist for whom individualism is both start and end. (Individualists are always being accused of being atomists, which is why I care so much about this particular distinction.)
Classical liberals and economic libertarians believe that the greatest good comes to the greatest number through spontaneous order in the absence of coercion.
This is the source of my interest in economics.
(I hope that finally answers your actual question. Sorry this was such a struggle.)
But the struggle was worth it. Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home