Emory brain imaging studies reveal biological basis for human cooperation

EurekAlert ^ | 17 July, 2002 | Kathy Ovnic

[general_re]

At #30 you claimed 'reliance on self-interest' to be a flaw in a libertarian society.

It's a failure of the system, for not taking into account human nature, not a failure of libertarians. Or, I suppose that insofar as it's a human failure, it's a failure of design.

Not so;
--- In a constitutional republic, which is the prefered
government form of libertarians.
--- Wouldn't you agree?

That depends on the implementation. It seems pretty clear to me that a totally non-coercive, completely voluntary system is going to be a pretty risky proposition. At a minimum, there will need to be some element of mandatory contribution to something like national defense. Take cases like that into account, and I think a society that is about 98% built on libertarian principles is entirely workable. I just don't think you can go all the way 100% libertarian, as a practical matter. Not that there's anything wrong with a society that's more libertarian than it is now, to be sure.

I've seen no libertarian system that so proposes. - Have you?

Sure. a full-blown anarcho-capitalist system always relies on the common good to be improved by people acting in their own rational self-interest. Sometimes, though, the best, most rational choice for individuals leads to a breakdown of the common good, as in the case of national defense, and perhaps one or two other things. I don't think that these cases of negative externalities are nearly as common as most people believe, but I do think it's hard to avoid admitting that they do exist in a few cases...

[Nebullis]

In other words, what if one innocent person chose to die so that 1,000+ others could have a chance to live- Would that person have made a moral or immoral decision?

I don't think it's moral or immoral. It's a rational decision. The soldier makes a rational decision to place his life at risk for his family and country. When he is in a situation where he purposely places himself in the line of fire he is following through on his contract to risk his life. I suppose this could be considered ethical behavior.

Moral imperatives are for everyone. Actions beyond that, that is those which incur death or great harm to self for the sole benefit of others, may still be rational but they fall outside of morality.

[Ahban]

Moral imperatives are for everyone. Actions beyond that, that is those which incur death or great harm to self for the sole benefit of others, may still be rational but they fall outside of morality

Thought provoking. Perhaps I should have asked the question differently.