tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post111878199546681600..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: A spiritual questPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1118807175147290882005-06-15T15:46:00.000+12:002005-06-15T15:46:00.000+12:00Richard, you said, "Ha, I thought you opposed "sel...Richard, you said, "Ha, I thought you opposed "self-ownership"? ;)<BR/><BR/>Yes, I felt sure you would pick that up. :-) It is an excellent shorthand metaphor, don't you think? Shame it's so easily misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not an economic libertarian: because I recognize that substantive freedom is what matters..."<BR/><BR/>Freedom in the political context is not freedom from reality, no matter what label you want to put on it; as I've <A HREF="http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/06/making-freedom-concrete.html" REL="nofollow">said before</A>, freedom in the political context means no more nor any less than freedom from physical coercion. <BR/><BR/>It does not mean freedom from the laws of nature. If I am stuck down a well and there’s no one around to throw me a rope, no matter how you try and spin it that does not represent any lack of political freedom; it represents a lack of intelligence on my part in getting stuck down there.<BR/><BR/>"Our aim should be to enable as many people as possible to live the lives they want to live. To that end, we must ensure access to education, healthcare, and basic human needs like food and shelter, since all of these are essential prerequisites to any form of freedom worth having."<BR/><BR/>But these things don't grow on trees; they must first be produced by someone, and there's only two ways to get all those 'someones' to follow 'your aim'-- either by asking nicely, or by forcing them. <BR/><BR/>If for example 'your aim' is 'to ensure access' to shelter by insisting that builders be forced to provide it, then you haven't advanced freedom at all -- instead you've just enslaved the builders. If this is what you mean by 'ensuring access' to 'basic human needs' then your aim is not in fact freedom of any sort, it is slavery.<BR/><BR/>How is it 'social libertarians' fail to see this? :-PPeter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1118802443627562302005-06-15T14:27:00.000+12:002005-06-15T14:27:00.000+12:00Ha, I thought you opposed "self-ownership"? ;)Seri...Ha, I thought you opposed "self-ownership"? ;)<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, I'm in full agreement that autonomy is an important value. (Just see my frustrated argument with an authoritarian, <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/06/on-liberty.html#111857985221079584" REL="nofollow">here</A>.)<BR/><BR/>I'm very much a social libertarian. But that's precisely why I'm <I>not</I> an economic libertarian: because I recognize that <I>substantive</I> freedom is what matters, and poverty can seriously impede that. <BR/><BR/>Our aim should be to enable as many people as possible to live the lives they want to live. To that end, we must ensure access to education, healthcare, and basic human needs like food and shelter, since all of these are <B>essential prerequisites to any form of freedom worth having</B>.<BR/><BR/>Autonomy doesn't exist "in a vacuum". It doesn't come from nowhere. It must be nurtured and developed, as with a flower or sapling. If you condemn a child to be raised in poverty, with no access to adequate healthcare or education, then he is not going to grow into a flourishing autonomous adult.<BR/><BR/>How is it that libertarians fail to see this?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com