<html>
<body>
I'm forwarding this from the WTA list. Mark Walker has been much more
reasonable in this discussion that others... until now. I think this
silly form of reductio ad absurdum is pernicious and unhelpful. (Read it
to the end to see what I mean.) I'll reply in detail if I can later, but
in case anyone else here with the requisite knowledge of political
philosophy wants to...<br><br>
Max<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Courier New, Courier">On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Max
More <max@maxmore.com> wrote:<br><br>
><br>
> As to those who insist that health care is a
"right", I'm not going to<br>
> get into that discussion again. I do not believe in such
"positive<br>
> rights", but I see no sign that most of those
claiming them are<br>
> remotely familiar with the relevant literature in
political philosophy,<br>
> and I'm not going to take the time and energy to educate
them. Even for<br>
> those who are familiar with the positive vs. negative
right distinction<br>
> and the ideas behind it, I think arguing about it is
less productive<br>
> than working out specific means of improving health care
access and<br>
> lowering cost.<br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Max<br>
> Mark Walker wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br><br>
As this thread winds along I can see that Max is entirely correct here
about insufficient appreciation of the political philosophy literature.
Whatever you may think of libertarianism, it is a political philosophy
with a long tradition. Of course, some of it is embarrassing, like
Locke's idea that the right to life, liberty and property derive from us
being the property of God. But there are many more defenses, perhaps the
most discussed in recent history is Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia.
It is not an amoral position, it is simply one that many of us don't
agree with. And, I see all too often the complaint that it calls for us
to be indifferent to the plight of others. This is far from correct. It
is consistent for libertarians to allow a role for charity, because it is
voluntary. It is, as Max says, an individualistic philosophy. One
that requires the utmost respect for the sovereignty of the individual.
Nor is it a morally lax philosophy. Just because it only invokes negative
rights does not mean that these are easy to honor. The positive/negative
right distinction does not track the easy/hard to honor distinction.
Libertarians do not say, "we only have to honor negative rights
because these are easier to honor". No, you have to honor the
negative rights of others because of the inalienable sovereignty of the
individual. Let me provide a baby example. Jack and Jill are 18 and just
married and have moved to a big house and property near a LA freeway.
They are radical environmentalists and libertarians. They do not ask for
universal health care nor do they expect to have their labor taxed for
the collective good. They practice organic farming on their property, and
live entirely off of this. They also do not use public electricity other
than the little they produce with solar cells and a wind turbine. They
are admirably independent. Imagine their horror when they read a report
that pollution from the free may harm their expectant child.
</font>
<a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/30/traffic-premature-birth.html" eudora="autourl">
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#0000FF"><u>
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/30/traffic-premature-birth.html</a>
</u></font><font face="Courier New, Courier"> . On behalf of themselves
and their child they assert their negative rights not to be harmed by
others, to have their right to life and health not compromised by others.
They fully expect the socialist hoards to ignore their calls for
renouncing pollution emmitting vehicles. They anticipate the response
that we all most put up with some infringement upon our rights for the
collective good. However, Jack and Jill are at least consoled by the fact
that other libertarians will honor their negative rights and not drive on
the freeway near their home. In terms of ease, I think it is a lot easier
to pay a little more tax like Canadians and have universal health
coverage as opposed to honoring the negative rights of all. I'm not
suggesting that this example decides anything. Rather, my point is that
honoring negative rights at times can be a lot harder than honoring
positive rights. So, the idea that libertarians are morally indifferent
or moral slackers is wrong. Imagine enough people assert their negative
rights not to suffer pollution, our society would grind to a halt. Again,
this is not an objection. Some moral systems require tremendous
sacrifices. If socialists and other non-individualists are willing to
sacrifice some individual sovereignty for the collective good, why should
libertians be embarassed about sacrificing societal good (like our
industrial society) for purpose of honoring individua rightsl?<br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Mark Walker<br>
Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies Department of
Philosophy New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B Las Cruces,
NM 88003-8001 USA
</font>
<a href="http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html" eudora="autourl">
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#0000FF"><u>
http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html</a></u></font>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
wta-talk mailing list<br>
wta-talk@transhumanism.org
</font>
<a href="http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk" eudora="autourl">
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#0000FF"><u>
http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk</a></u></font>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"><br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>