 I'd
like to say something sympathetic, but I have lots of problems with libertarianism.
For one thing, I don't think there is just one value for the state to defend.
I'm a utilitarian. I agree with Dee that individual liberty is important, but it's not the only thing that is important. We also have to think about the welfare of people. I'll go so far as to say that I think that welfare is more fundamental than liberty. Liberty is a means to welfare, not an end in itself.
As far as rights are concerned. I recognize that rights are a very
useful device; and I think we may be able to found a set of individual rights on utilitarian
concerns. After all, the fact that certain rights help promote human welfare is a good reason for recognizing them. Beyond that, I don’t know what foundation rights could have.
I've seen non-utilitarian arguments used by libertarians to provide a foundation for rights, but I've never been convinced by any of them.
Robert Nozick, the most celebrated libertarian writer of the late 20th century, offers a sketch of what he calls the "entitlement theory" of "side constraints." But he offers very little in the way of foundations for his theory.
Lots of critics have pointed that out. For example, the philosopher Samuel Scheffler comments that "Given the structural importance of the moral theory for Nozick's argument, it is presented with surprising haste, and in little detail. He concedes this point at the
outset." Scheffler goes on to quote Nozick, who agrees that the "gap" in his argument is "yawning." See Scheffer, p. 149-50 in Reading Nozick.
|
