Since I'm one of the OPs--
Karen,
are you really an OP? I thought that this is one thing that all libertarians would have in common. That is, a set of values that are not situational and that you apply (or try) to yourself as you would apply to others. In a political sense, just because a law, policy or government program could be beneficial to me, if it violated my basic values, I couldn't support it. In a real life example, I was once an aspiring artist, but I have always fervently opposed the NEA based on the idea that this is not the proper role of the government (among other things). Now, I was never good enough to realistically expect an NEA grant, but I assure you that I would have turned one down if it was offered based on principle even though I could have had a direct benefit. It is my belief that all true libertarians would respond similarly.
I don't understand how any libertarian could claim to be an OP, unless I misunderstand your classification.
Are we talking about those who embrace situational ethics and those who don't?
I have a basic set of values, morals, principles etc...that I live my life by. I am not religious though. The basis though is the Golden Rule. I treat people the way that I want to be treated and I don't treat people in ways that I wouldn't want to be treated. And I don't expect people to follow rules that I am also not willing to follow. I believe that this is the foundation for integrity.
Does this make me an OP or a PMP? I would have classified myself as a PMP, but I thought that our philosophical beliefs were pretty similar and that tells me that you would probably classify me as an OP. |
