Replies

But, since it all works out in the end, it's OK. Is that the lesson we want our children to learn?

Possibly. When I was a college professor, the college I worked for pressured every student to sign a pledge that they they would not cheat or plagiarize. A certain number of students might refuse to sign this pledge because they wanted to get away with cheating. But others refused to sign because they simply opposed the idea of taking a pledge that was being forced upon them by the institution. Personally, I was very proud of this second group, even though they were in league with cheaters. But I guess that's what distinguishes lbertarians from moralists.

Given the corrupting nature of power, we should always be quick to question authority and rules. Didn't George Washington break the rules? Didn't Mozart break the rules of music in his day? True greatness comes not from going along, but from having the courage to ask why a rule exists, then deciding whether or not it deserves to be broken. The best example I can think of is if the federal government decided to confiscate our guns. Isn't that a rule we would be morally obligated to break?

As for Potter, I was a bit perplexed as to why he was not reprimanded for flying that broom after he was told not to. But I think the point is that true excellence can supercede rules, and that is a point worth considering. Had some stupid kid grabbed the broom and hurt himself, he would have paid two prices: pain and repurcussions. For better or worse, that is the true nature of life.

But others refused to sign because they simply opposed the idea of taking a pledge that was being forced upon them by the institution. Personally, I was very proud of this second group, even though they were in league with cheaters. But I guess that's what distinguishes lbertarians from moralists.

Doesn't sound like a very libertarian position to me. Doesn't the institution have the right to set the rules for those who choose to attend it? Those who don't want to sign such a pledge are perfectly free to attend an institution that doesn't require it.

The free market will eventually determine which was the "proper" position for the institutions to take. Frankly, I suspect a degree from an institution that doesn't tolerate cheating would eventually have greater value than a degree from one which does.

The above argument, of course, assumes the State is not forcing institutions or students to take a pledge.

BTW, doesn't classic libertarian thought prohibit the initiation of force or fraud? Isn't cheating fraudulent?