Virtue Ethics & Broken Windows: Why I am not a Libertarian By Joe Carter

culture11.com ^ | September 19th, 2008 | Joe Carter

[Publius804]

Virtue Ethics & Broken Windows: Why I am not a Libertarian

By Joe Carter

Charles Murray almost had me. When I first read Murray’s What It Means To Be A Libertarian nearly ten years ago I was compelled by the thrust of his argument. “Freedom is first of all our birthright,” Murray claimed. “An adult making an honest living and minding his own business deserves to be left alone to live his life. He deserves to be free.”

Libertarianism appeared to be an attractive political philosophy, yet something was missing. It reminded me of my high school days when after reading The Fountainhead I wanted to become an Objectivist. Becoming an objectivist would have required me to deny a concept that I had known was undeniably true: original sin. Likewise, the problem with libertarianism, like objectivism and liberalism, was that it required accepting a romanticized view of human nature.

Like other “ism’s”, libertarianism is difficult to define. Essentially, libertarians believe that each person “owns” his own life and property, and has the right to make his own decisions about how he shall live, providing he respects the rights of others to do the same. Cato Institute vice-president David Boaz adds that the basic political issue of libertarianism is the relationship of the individual to the state. (Since Boaz is one of the intellectual leaders of this philosophy I will use his “Key Concepts of Libertarianism” throughout this critique.)

The primary flaw in libertarianism is that it is rooted in an ethic of utilitarianism rather than virtue ethics. Without a person developing the corresponding moral character necessary for self-restraint, his liberty is bound to result in the harm of others. In fact, freedom without virtue is corrosive and will destroy everything within its range.

[Mojave]

Maher is a dem.

Libertarian frequently are.

[mysterio]

Have a good weekend.

[Publius804]

I disagree, these libertarians are not democrats:

http://www.rlc.org/

What is the RLC?

The Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated to restoring the principles of limited, constitutional government to the Republican Party. The RLC exists to recruit libertarian Republican activists and candidates, inform our supporters of pro-liberty events in the states, and provide a centralized vehicle to for coordination, collaboration, and communication.

[Mojave]

Thanks. You too.

[tacticalogic]

The primary flaw in libertarianism is that it is rooted in an ethic of utilitarianism rather than virtue ethics. Without a person developing the corresponding moral character necessary for self-restraint, his liberty is bound to result in the harm of others. In fact, freedom without virtue is corrosive and will destroy everything within its range.

Where is the utility in harming others?

[count-your-change]

But from what source does the “ethical, virtuous” philosophy arise except from utility?
Wilson says that so-called “victimless” crime, the untended broken window, leads to more of the same to the harm of all.
But this is an appeal to utility (do it to preserve what we value) rather than an appeal to virtue (do it because it is right whether you ever can detect any benefit).
Utilitarianism is favored because it avoids the messy explanations of who shall set the standards of right and wrong and on what basis.
Utilitarianism can be atheistic but virtue must admit a to higher origin. Which is why most of what is called virtue and ethics is just utilitarianism with piety on its face.

[DeLaine]

You are posting against others, but not putting forth what you believe. Stop berating others and tell us what you believe, or is that all you believe, that others are wrong?
:)

[garbanzo]

Without a person developing the corresponding moral character necessary for self-restraint, his liberty is bound to result in the harm of others.

The question is whether or not it's the state's responsibility to develop or enforce "moral character". There are other institutions in society other than the state who are better suited for moral development of individuals. The state can properly restrain itself to enforcement of violations of individual rights.

[Mojave]

“By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.” —Thomas Jefferson

Your falsehood is refuted.

[DeLaine]

see? Even now, almost all you do is argue, not present any new ideas. ok, well, I tried.
Done now. Proceed with your useless negative comments.

[Yaelle]

That is one of the best and simplest explanations of what I deeply believe about conservatism. Thank you again, Ronald Reagan.

[Yaelle]

Im in yer posts stealin yur taglinez

[Mojave]

see? Even now, almost all you do is argue, not present any new ideas.

New ideas? The nature of property rights should be "new ideas"?

Jefferson was wise, libertarians are facile.

[DeLaine]

Finally!!!! :D

[timm22]

I like John Schwenkler's response to the article in the "Upturned Earth" blog:

Eudaimonia, whatever exactly it involves, may well be the state towards which we ought all to be developing; the libertarian, for whatever reason, simply thinks that it’s not the state’s business to make sure that we achieve it....

Definitely worth a read.

[Mojave]

Finally!!!!

See Post #2.

[snicker]

[timm22]

Libertarians are clueless about the nature of property.

"By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

Please pardon my slow mind, but I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. How does Jefferson's quote contradict the idea that I own my own life?

[Mojave]

"Libertarians are clueless about the nature of property."

How does Jefferson's quote contradict the idea that I own my own life?

Is your life the only thing you own?

[13Sisters76]

I have this argument with Lib’Ts all the time- I not saying that they aren’t an important source within conservativism, they just aren’t the ONLY one. In so many ways, they are no different from the left on social issues. Economically and reducing the size of the fed is where we cross, but that will NEVER be enough.

We will never have much to disagree about on the fed level- it’s at the local and state level where it heats up. Conservatives will ALWAYS believe that the voters should have a say in local laws and regs- i.e. whether or not there is a strip joint down the street from your kids school or an adult book store in your neighborhood. Lib’Ts disagree with us THERE and THAT is why there is so much bad feeling.

It’s LOCAL.

[Lonely Are The Brave]

I can't say I disagree with you about the local issues...

Conservatives support churches, schools and the local community.

They realize man is more than just an economic entity and has a spirit and a higher calling.

But if an individual wants to take a trip to a seedy side of town by exerting his free will to partake in some kind of activities you and I may find offensive, well, I would not support a government sanction against that behaviour.

Also, I think it is incorrect to assume all Libertarians are drug users and Godless.

Really, this is an issue that has many avenues to explore.

I am very comfortable with my thinking at this point in my life and I guess you could say I side with the Libertarians on fiscal issues and have some problems, for me, with their beliefs about personal behaviour.

Interesting subject and have a great week.