One of the facets of libertarianism is positioning liberty and freedom as “goals” as opposed to mere “means”. This requires a bigger leap of faith than most realize, and that is indeed why the number of libertarians is even fewer than those who watch Fear Factor. Interestingly, many libertarians adopt a switch tactic, and waylaying the axiom of liberty as a goal; argue instead along the lines of liberty being the best means to achieve happiness.
Typically these tend to run weak sometimes.
Take seat-belt laws.
Before I was a full-convert, when die-hard libertarians argued passionately against seat-belt laws and the like, using “efficiency” arguments such as unintended consequences et al, I just used to nod placatingly, the way one nods to a rabid rottweiler in the hope it gets placated and would leave you alone.
For I personally believed that seat belt laws and the like were quite salutary. I believed so due to the deep conviction that most people are idiots. And that they needed to be parentalized and told what to do. And that there was nothing wrong with that if one is looking to maximize happiness in a society.
I of course no longer believe so.
I mean, I still strongly believe that most people are idiots and that there is nothing most humans desire more than to be told what to do. No – that part I still believe in. But as the recent spate of posts have pointed out – happiness is not what human society is all about. And THAT is where the parental socialists’ arguments become moot.
No, the key facet that converted me was the axiom of liberty as a goal. As the previous posts argued, To be fully human, one has to create, to know, to control. A corollary of this is that liberty – and the responsibility that comes with it – is an essential part of being a human. To make a choice, to live up to its consequences, to learn and improve, these are the things that makes us human, and distinct from that buffalo happily chewing cud in that field.
And that is why one needs to not have seat belt laws, and not illegalize victimless crimes.
Not because it would make us more happy. But because it would make us more human.
Most people could be idiots, I wouldn’t know about that.
Tell me one thing, if Ajit does not want to belt up (and is ready to die as a consequence) then what right does Mr. 42 have to make him belt up? Is Mr. 42’s thought that Ajit is an idiot and Mr 42 is a know-all intellect, reason enough?
Mr. 42, I beg to differ.
So liberty and freedom are not goals but means, and “to create, to know, to control” are goals! Your logic is ridiculous, 42 (or Geoffrey Tu), and what you argued in the previous posts was duly demolished in the comments. Most people may or may not be idiots, Geoff, but there’s one more of them than you’d be willing to admit.
Ravikiran, please come back soon. Your blog’s reputation is being damaged.
I think I must point out that 7*6 is arguing the exact opposite of what you guys think he is.
Um, that’s true in Ajit’s case, but how is it true in mine?
He is arguing that there shouldn’t be seatbelt laws even though people are idiots because the freedom to be an idiot is ultimately the fredom to be human.
Mr 42, Ravikiran: Point noted. Mistake accepted. Did not read till the end. I guess I’m human after all 🙁
Yes, I got that much, Ravikiran, I was arguing with his definition of human, that “To be fully human, one has to create, to know, to control.” Liberty, according to him, was but a corollary of this. I share his stand, but not his reasons, or his fundamental premise.
But yes, I do agree that one should have the freedom to be an idiot. Keep blogging, Geoff! 😉
Abhijit, hopefully your clouds abt the article vis-a-vis liberty being goals or means have been cleared.
But I see that you still haven’t grasped the insight behind the article. Did you pause to think WHY liberty should be a goal or a right – especially when it conflicts with happiness? Libertarianism deems it an axiom, but to become a full-blown convert – one has to either have a leap of faith or rationalize even the axioms. The article gives one possible rationalization of the liberty axiom.
I think I should have an article about Justice and Rights – the axioms and assumptions and the logic.
What is a victimless crime? I mean, give me some examples of victimless crimes.
Oh, I guess you libertarians don’t agree that people have a debt to society. Never mind, then.