New York : Macmillan, Hare, R. Frey ed. Utility and Rights. Oxford : Blackwell, Oxford : Clarendon Press, Hart, H. Hospers, J. Sterba ed. Ethics: The Big Questions. Malden, MA : Blackwell, Kymlicka, W. New York : Oxford University Press, Nozick, R.
New York: Basic Books, Parfit, D. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press, Rawls, J. Cambridge, Mass. Rescher, N. Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill, Steiner, H. Jeffrey ed. Reading Nozick. Totowa, N. I think you are confusing liberty with anarchy. I'm sure it would be easy to justify taxation as a maximiser of liberty on the grounds that unequal power relationships result in exploitation of the many by the few, and thus a net loss in liberty. I agree that a free market is inherently just, but only in an economist's perfect sense of the word.
If there are truly no barriers to entry, no natural monopolies etc, then a free market can embody fair principles, but as we all know, the real world is somewhat different.
I have always seen taxation as a solution to the imperfections of the world. Perfectly rational libertarians operating in a perfectly free market would voluntarily contribute to public good funds in order to improve the society in which they live. Enlightened self-interest and all of that. Cheers, -MP. Oh, crap. I just realised how much more there was to the post than I could see at first. That last comment only exists in response to the opening paragraphs, and has, basically, nothing to do with the specific arguments of the individual you mention.
Well stated and referenced. Both Utilitarian and Libertarian theories of Justice fall short. Without unlimited resources or perfect equality, we are left scratching our heads; do we maximize freedom autonomously or collectively?
If on my merit alone, I find a way to capture all the oxygen on the planet, and then hold it ransom to extort cooperation from everyone as my slaves, is this not a fair trade under Libertarian entitlement theory? I acquired the resources by my own will, and trade it freely for your lives, there was no one using the vast amount of the oxygen at any given time, and therefore I owe no rectification.
When a new child is born, they become indebted to me for the air they breath, until such time as they can afford their own breathing, and work off the debt.
How is this any different than our debt-money society, today? If all people own all the natural resources in common, and we can only use such by permission. Then, what I create belongs to all, and it can be taken from me for those who need it most. To each by his need, from each by his ability. Thus, communist systems, strip us of our profit motives. What if the balance is to provide all people with their basic needs, and even equal opportunity to education, health-care, and transportation.
But have everyone own the products of their labor, and trade that, based upon their merits, in a competitive fair-market. Resources would be communally owned, but work-product would be privately owned. Land would be subject to 'eminent domain', but liquid capital could be acquired until death. Taxes would be minimal, because all basic needs would be provided, little crime, no wars for resources.
The only problem is how to stop people from over-breeding. I thought utilitarianism was defined by a series of value considerations. It does not serve the greater good to have the population given equal concern by what ever organization that may occur.
It further does not serve the greater good by allowing cheaters to capture the system unless it was a rigged set up designed to cheat the cheaters. As for greater good, I mean to the existence of Earth life and any sentience that develops here after not saying it actually matters though, just whats likely. I don't agree that the reality of utilitarianism is necessarily to the greatest good. The reality appears to be that is towards which ever ends a sentient being finds it will muster.
Oh, did I say I think every one is a utilitarian, they just don't know it? It's because I don't believe in free will, or I should say that I don't believe behavior results with out a genetic basis. Utility is a fuzzy metric that is provided to the propagation of our genetic type any hypothetical organism.
It's like how volcanoes make it possible for life on Earth, so they are very valuable, but they are otherwise deadly dangerous and therefore the inverse. Visitors: check my comments policy first. Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf.
If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts. On August 26, Jeffrey Tucker published an article highlighting what he perceives to be Utiliharianism important differences between the alt-right and libertarianism.
Precedent utilitarianism demands a deeper examination of consequences than some other constructions of utilitarianism. There are three schools of thought which were developed from time to time, to address this issue of income inequality; utilitarianism, liberalism, and libertarianism. This: 1. Kantianism vs Utilitarianism Those who are not students of philosophy, words like utilitarianism and Kantianism may sound alien, but for those who try to tackle questions of ethics and wisdom, these Libertaarianism represent important viewpoints.
I am sorry, that has interfered At me a similar situation. I invite to discussion. Write here or in PM. Your e-mail won't be published. Skip to content.
Utilitarianism Vs Libertarianism Utilitarianism And Libertarianism - sorry, that Determinism and Libertarianism For many years, people have discussed how we choose what to do and what is the reason for choosing what to do. According to determinism, our actions are out of control. Determinism claims that whatever we do is determined by previous events; therefore, we should not be countable for whatever we do.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, rejects the determinism and claims that everything we do is voluntary and we are free to make decisions. Unlike a determinist, a libertarian would argue that whatever we do could be different if we desired to choose differently and if it were physically possible to choose differently.
Clearly, Mill argues, if the ultimate goal is to engineer a social and political system that will effectuate the most pleasure and least pain, then reducing the greatest number to slavery cannot be the solution.
After considering and dismissing various possible modes of government—Democratical, Aristocratical, and Monarchical—Mill prescribes a representative government, carefully explaining the various devices for ensuring that the representatives share the interests of the whole people. Like his friend David Ricardo, James Mill is among the pioneering fathers of classical economics, his many unique contributions to which are often overshadowed both by his general association with Benthamite utilitarianism and by the legacy of John Stuart Mill.
Mill deftly exposed the problems with such arguments, championing free trade and spending years of his life popularizing the ideas of Smith and Ricardo. Though the utilitarians leave a mixed and often contradictory legacy to libertarians, their contributions are nonetheless an important element of classical liberalism and classical economics.
0コメント