Assume humans in a “state of nature” naturally commit bad acts because this would be the worst case scenario (i.e., violence runs rampant, forceful action, sexual violence, and theft are common). We then emerge from this “state of nature” with the knowledge that we have a right to self-ownership, and ownership of our labor or property (assume this is as we are today, although these values have become somewhat convoluted). And the “state” was eventually created in order to keep us from anarchy. However, in a “perfect libertarian” society, the state does not exist at all.
If the government or the “state” is problematic (even in the limited sense), how are we to prevent another state of anarchy? Shouldn’t we assume the worst case scenario that it’s possible this could happen? And, wouldn’t this also be awful if it happened? That is, how do we “know” that in a “perfect libertarian society” that human nature will assume a rational/cooperative stance (i.e., adhere to the axiom implied with non-aggression, and a rational belief in natural rights)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your first sentence is an incomplete sentence :-)
Humans act according to some purpose (i.e., for some *reason* or to some *end*). The primary goal of every rational being is survival, or continued existence. Our very physical bodies demand it. Nature has determined this goal for us. It is not within the province of any person to determine whether his neighbor's existence is legitimate; reality is what it is, it cannot be changed. The right to life is the first, and primary right of all people. Because man's life is not guaranteed automatically, he must act to sustain it. This presupposes the rights of liberty and property -- liberty to exercise the means of existence, and ownership to sustain that existence through time.
Like all living beings, man is social. It is in his self-interest to align himself with other human beings on a voluntary basis, for the division of labor, for the psychological benefits of rational company, for pleasure, etc. In these interactions, a man acts morally if he recognizes two key facts:
1) that other human beings are conceptually the same as he is, ergo
2) that other human beings *naturally* have the same rights as he does.
(I say *conceptually the same* because the idea of "humanness" is an abstraction of qualities, and abstractions are concepts.)
Morality (in society) is the application of these two principles to human action.
Unfortunately, people do not always act rationally, and often violate the rights of others for different reasons. For this reason, government was created to arbitrate disputes and to execute justice on behalf of its constituents. Please note that it is *immoral* individuals that are governed here, and *not* moral individuals. Government is an extension of a person's right to defend themselves from aggressors; it is force by proxy, and, like individuals, should only exercise force in a retaliatory manner when individual rights are in danger, or when restitution needs to be made to an offended party.
More later...
Post a Comment