Neo,
re >Libertarianism is just one attempt to impose a system of values on society. It has its
own certitude,<
The only certitude in libertarianism is that protection of individual liberty is the only valid use of government force. Any certitude beyond that is an invention of detractors.
re>It is absurd to use the "Bin Laden" argument
against conservatives in favor of libertarians, when I have known libertarians who
rant against the government, tote guns, and show sympathy to McVeigh.<
More slander. Bin Laden was used effectively to skewer the "common good" argument by showing how dependent such "common good" was on exactly who gets to define "common good". You want to use government to impose your idea of "common good". I want to let individuals work out their own ideas of what is good, both individual and common, voluntarily, insofar as they do not violate another's individual rights. The bit about ranting, guns, and McVeigh is just slanderous garbage and you know it. Not denying some may have said these things but your implication that this is a defining attitude of libertarians is slanderous garbage. Some conservatives have ranted against the government, toted guns, and shown sympathy for McVeigh. The same can be said for liberals or any other group out there. BTW last I looked toting guns is a guaranteed right under the 2nd Amendment. Gee, somebody exercised their right to keep and bear arms.
re>By this time,
most of us support desegregation, for example, including the notion of "public
accommodations" which forbids discrimination in restaurants, hotels, and the like. We
think that imposing an order of racial dominance through the exercise of property rights,
but collusively and throughout society, is as tyrannical as government mandated
segregation. This is but one example of the "common good" being pursued legislatively at
the expense of property rights. Here, the common good is understood as that which will
make us a markedly better society.<
Laws against segregation in "public accomodations" protect an alledged "individual right" to be treated as an equal by other private citizens at the expense of an "individual right" to use ones property as one sees fit and those laws are arguably unconstitutional in that they violate freedom of association. The Constitution requires government to treat everyone as equal "under the law", it says nothing about forcing individual citizens to associate with (or serve) those they would rather avoid. To protect an alledged right (or is it the common good) these laws violate an explicitly expressed right to freedom of association and an explicitly expressed right to ones own property. But I guess violating the Constitution is okay as long as it serves your idea of the "common good". This indeed is the first step on the road to tyranny and is an unnecessary step because the market would erase all but a few discriminatory businesses. Most people that I know would not support such a business even if it were not (unconstitutionally) illegal.
re >although the conversation has been largely with yourself<
Your resort to (wildly inaccurate) snide slurs was the seed of this discussion. I merely pointed you to an interesting article. You used it, as you often do, as a chance to dis libertarians. So much for "polite discourse". When stacked against the coherent political philosphy of libertarianism your "common good" conservatism fails to be more than a conclusion searching for a justification to support limiting individual rights in pursuit of a posited but not proved "common good".
I suspect your antipathy to libertarianism grows out of the fact that deep down you know they have the better argument but you don't like some of the implications. The gratuitous insults lend support to this theory. I will leave you to continue trying to build a foundation under the conclusion (common good trumps individual liberty) you have received from somewhere. |
