![]() |
1
View Ratings |
Rate It
By Ernest Partridge (about the author) Page 1 of 5 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Ernest Partridge - Writer
And yet, I would describe myself as a "semi-libertarian," in that I endorse the libertarian positions on personal liberty of association, of religion (or lack thereof), of sexual preference, of free expression, etc. Thus the libertarians and I agree with John Stuart Mill that "over himself, over his own mind body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
In this regard, the libertarians are in agreement with most liberals. So much so that many libertarians voted, albeit reluctantly, for Barack Obama in the recent election (as I discovered in a conference on "Libertarianism and Its Critics," in which I participated this past week).
However, regarding economic justice, property rights, and the protection and preservation of the natural environment, libertarians disagree profoundly with the liberals and are more in tune with the conservative Republicans.
Thus the libertarians are in the strange position of agreeing, in some essential respects, with both the Democrats and the Republicans. But their disagreements with both are so substantial that the libertarians are estranged from both parties.
With the libertarians, I cherish and defend the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. Also, along with the libertarians, I affirm the "like liberty principle:" that, in the words of John Rawls, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all."
However, with the liberals I insist that when we explore the implications of the basic triad of rights to life, liberty and property, and combine them with the like liberty principles, we find complications and conflicts which require the articulation and enforcement of rules by the only agency authorized to act disinterestedly on behalf of all citizens, namely a democratic government acting with "the consent of the governed."
This is all very abstract, and I will attempt in the course of this essay to exemplify these principles with familiar examples.
A "Society" is More Than the Sum of its Parts.
Perhaps the fundamental dispute between libertarians and liberals such as myself resides in the ontological status of "society" and "the public."
The social atomism of the libertarians was starkly expressed by Margaret Thatcher when she wrote: ""There is no such thing as society there are individuals and there are families." And Ayn Rand: "There is no such entity as "the public" ... the public is merely a number of individuals" Now admittedly, Baroness Thatcher is not a political philosopher, and Ayn Rand insisted that she was not a libertarian. So let's look further.
Consider first, this passage from Frank Chodorov:
Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people... The concept of Society as a metaphysical concept falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse... When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. (Quoted by David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer, p. 96).
Next, David Boaz of The Cato Institute:
For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual.... Individuals are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don't have plans or intentions. Only individuals are capable of choice...
http://www.crisispapers.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 16 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |