I Am Proud To Be A Liberal

[Skull Pilot]

That's right. I said it.

I am a liberal.

I am a liberal in the classical sense not the modern.

I believe in liberty and that people have inherent rights, natural rights and that government exists because of those rights and for the sole purpose of protecting those rights not the converse.

I, unlike modern liberals, believe economic liberty is a civil liberty. In fact, they are one in the same. There is no discernible or important difference between economic and civil liberty.

What Is Classical*Liberalism?

In the classical liberal tradition, rights have several characteristics, including the following:

Rights are Relational in the sense that they pertain to the moral responsibilities that people have to one another. In particular they refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without interference by others. In this way, rights serve as moral side-constraints on the actions of other people. In a world consisting of only one individual, or in which people never interacted, rights would not exist in the sense that there would be no one to claim a right against and no one who could interfere with the exercise of any individual rights. Rights exist because people do interact in pursuit of their own interests. Rights are also relational in another sense: They limit the morally permissible actions government may take to interfere with the lives of individuals who are governed.

Rights Imply Obligations. Rights sanction morally allowable actions. In the process, they create obligations for other people to refrain from preventing those actions. To say that "Joe has the right to do X" implies all other people have an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X.

Fundamental Rights Imply Negative Obligations. For example, the right to free speech implies a (negative) obligation on the part of others not to interfere with your speaking. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with a platform, a microphone and an audience. The right to freedom of the press implies a (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your publishing. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with newsprint, ink and a printing press. The right to freedom of assembly creates the (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your association with others. It does not create the (positive) obligation to furnish you with an assembly hall.

From primary rights (e.g., the rights to life, liberty and property) flow derivative rights. These are new obligations that arise as people exercise their primary rights. Virtually all rights created through trade, exchange or contract are derivative. For instance, Joe owns a motorcycle and agrees to let Tom rent it for a period of time. Joe has a right to expect to get his motorcycle back along with the agreed upon rental fee. Joe's rights entail positive obligations on the part of Tom.

Rights are Compossible. Can rights conflict? In the classical liberal conception, a conflict of rights implies a contradiction. Consider two claims:

1. Joe has the right to do X.
2. Tom has the right to interfere with Joe's doing X.

The first sentence implies that Tom has an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X, whereas the second sentence implies that he has no such obligation. Hence, there is a contradiction.

In order to be logically consistent, therefore, rights cannot conflict; which is to say, they must be compossible. Compossiblility means that each person's rights are compatible with everyone else having the same rights. This is the feature behind the adage "Your right to act ends at my nose," and vice-versa. Take the claim that each person has a right to liberty. Compossibility implies that when any one person is exercising her liberty she is not violating other peoples' right to liberty.

This does not mean that people cannot compete to achieve mutually exclusive goals. It does mean that the competition must be in the context of rights. Put differently, there may be conflicts among people (e.g., they may be pursuing conflicting goals) but there cannot be conflicts of rights. Also, the statement that rights are compossible does not imply that there cannot be arguments and disputes about what those rights are (which is why we have courts of law). But the presumption of a legal hearing is that even though the disputants may disagree, there are objective, non-contradictory rights for the court to discover.

Fundamental Rights are Inalienable. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that basic rights are inalienable. This means they cannot be alienated from the individual who holds the rights. They cannot be given away or taken away. They cannot be bought, sold or traded. They can be violated, however.

Joe can give away his swing set or sell it or trade it for some other asset. Joe can also buy, sell, trade or donate other pieces of property. But he cannot give away, sell or trade away his right to property as such. Individuals, through consent or contract, may limit their liberty to take specific acts (e.g., under the terms of a contract); but they may not give up their right to liberty as such.

Fundamental Rights Do Not Come from Government. Not only do rights not get their legitimacy from government, but - as the Declaration of Independence so eloquently states - it's the other way around. Government gets its legitimacy from the existence of rights. In the view of Locke, Jefferson and others, rational, moral people form governments for the express purpose of protecting rights. In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke argued that legitimate governments are, in fact, instituted to facilitate the more effective protection or enforcement of these rights, and may not abrogate an individual's natural rights. In natural rights theories, legitimate governments are created by consent, but fundamental rights are not grounded in consent.

Substantive Rights vs. Procedural Rights. Some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "substantive" rights. Others are "procedural." The founding fathers were clearly very concerned with both. The distinction is as follows. Legitimate governments are created to protect substantive rights. But in carrying out this task, the government is required to adhere to certain procedures, and these requirements create procedural rights. For example, the Constitution specifies that certain government officials must be elected. This implies that citizens have a (procedural) right to vote.

Furthermore, in order to protect rights and to adjudicate disputes about rights, the government must exercise certain police powers. In our system, certain procedural safeguards were built into the Constitution specifying how the government must act in exercising these powers. For instance, the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant before arresting a person or seizing his property. In addition, for serious crimes it requires the government to provide the accused with a speedy, public trial before an impartial jury, the ability to confront witnesses and to compel testimony. All these rights are procedural rights.

An important distinction between rights and needs is necessary before we continue.

To appreciate the classical liberal concept of individual rights, it is as important to understand what is being rejected as it is to understand what is being asserted. To say that individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness implies that they are not obliged to pursue the happiness of others. Put differently, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that people are not obligated to serve the needs, concerns, wishes and wants of others. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be selfish. It does imply that everyone has a right to be selfish.

In the classical liberal world, need is not a claim. That is, the needs, wishes, wants, feelings and desires of others are not a claim against your mind, body or property. At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, this meant that the American colonists had the right to pursue their own interests, independent of the needs of King George and the British Empire. In time, the concept was broadened - affirming each individual's right to pursue his or her own interest, despite the existence of unmet needs somewhere on the planet or even next door.

The idea that need is not a claim applies to procedural rights as well as substantive rights. Tom may feel safer if all suspicious-looking people are routinely seized and searched. But in the world of classical liberalism, Tom's need to feel safe is not a justification for initiating force against all suspicious-looking people.

Modern liberals are not of this mind however. Modern liberals are of a collectivist mind. Where needs become valid claims.

It is worth noting that all forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected this classical notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for the architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.

Despite the fact that 20th century collectivists opposed the classical liberal concept of rights, very rarely did they attack the notion of "rights" as such. Instead, they often tried to redefine the concept of "right" in a way that virtually eviscerated any meaningful notion of liberty.

FDR in his 1944 State if the Union Address called for a "Second Bill of Rights" in an attempt to redefine the meaning of rights. This attempt included the following "new" rights:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
* The right of every family to a decent home.
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
* The right to a good education.

Sound familiar?

Now the redefining of rights as FDR defines them differs from the classical view of rights in that:

They imply positive obligations on the part of others. When Roosevelt says people have the right to "earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation," he does not mean that people have the right to work hard (extra hours if necessary) to earn money to buy what they need. Instead, he means that other people (including potential employers, consumers, other workers, etc.) have an obligation to insure each worker's wage is sufficiently high. Similarly "the right of every farmer to ... a decent living" does not mean farmers have the right to work the land and produce sufficient output. Instead it means others are obliged to act in a way that insures the farmer's minimum income. In general, your "right to a useful...job" implies others are obligated to provide that job if you can't find one on your own. Your "right ... to a decent home" implies others are obligated to provide you with a home if you cannot otherwise obtain one. And so forth.

Each individual's positive obligations are notoriously unclear. Consider all of the ways in which you could potentially violate a farmer's "right" to a decent income. You might buy groceries on sale, or at a discount outlet, instead of paying a higher price. You might buy cheaper substitute products (corn instead of soybeans or vice versa). You might grow some crops in your own backyard instead of buying items at the supermarket. You might buy some land and become a farmer yourself - thereby increasing output and depressing overall market prices. You might change your diet and not buy the farmer's output at all. Clearly the list is almost endless, as is the list of things you might do to increase the farmer's income. One thing is certain: From the statement that a farmer has a "right to a decent income" there is no way for any of us to determine what precisely our positive obligations are.

As a practical matter, only government action could insure such rights. Even if you could figure out how your actions might help the farmer, you would by no means be home free. In Roosevelt 's view, everyone has the right to earn a decent income. So in the very act of helping the farmer, you might be hurting someone else. Whenever you buy from A at the expense of B, you help the employees of A at the expense of the employees of B - and vice versa. Indeed, every transaction you make - every act of buying and every act of selling - potentially violates one of Roosevelt 's "rights." As a practical matter, therefore, Roosevelt 's rights could be observed only if all of us ceded much of our liberty to make economic decisions to the government. And the amount of power that would have to be ceded would be enormous.

They imply virtually unlimited government power with respect to the economy. Incredibly vague rights imply incredibly vague obligations, and, if nothing else, all of Roosevelt's rights are very, very vague. Hence if government is to act as the agent for all of us, the potential scope for action would be enormous. In fact, Roosevelt believed that there was no economic decision - no act of buying or selling or producing - that government should not be able to regulate. Thus in implementing Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights one would at the same time be eliminating all of the economic rights that classical liberals thought people had. That is, implementation of Roosevelt 's scheme would eliminate the right of every individual to pursue his own happiness - at least in the marketplace.

Roosevelt was among the most collectivist (anti-individual rights) president the United States has ever had. And not just in the economic realm. Although Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson before him had suspended constitutional rights in the time of war, Roosevelt went further than any president before or since. On his orders Japanese Americans were rounded up and forced into detention camps (for no other reason than the fact that they were of Japanese ancestry) for the duration of World War II.

The above link goes on to describe the source of rights in classical terms but I will end here.

The question this post poses to you "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

If different, what characteristics of rights mentioned above do and do not apply to economic liberty?

 

[editec]

Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

I think it very obvious that civil liberties and economic liberties are sympatico, and that without economic liberty one cannot truly have civil liberty.

In theory, these ideas are easily understood and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism can agree on that in principle.

But in practice, those theories are not so clear as I suspect you think they are.

Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

If you tell me YES, then please define what benchmarks you think a moral society should use to justify (what we can both agree will be a) VIOLATION of that individual's fundamental economic right.

 

[LOki]

Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

I suspect that the lack of common ground is a lack of common moral ground.

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
--Lysander Spooner​

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
--Lysander Spooner​

 

[johnrocks]

I used to call myself a "staunch conservative" so when I was told I was a liberal a few years ago, I almost had a cardiac arrest. I too am a proud classical liberal!

 

[xsited1]

So you're a Liberal, not a Libtard.

Famous Libtards: Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Boxer, Kennedy, Frank, etc.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

I think it very obvious that civil liberties and economic liberties are sympatico, and that without economic liberty one cannot truly have civil liberty.

In theory, these ideas are easily understood and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism can agree on that in principle.

But in practice, those theories are not so clear as I suspect you think they are.

Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

If you tell me YES, then please define what benchmarks you think a moral society should use to justify (what we can both agree will be a) VIOLATION of that individual's fundamental economic right.

To add to editec's post:

From my perspective, the good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa. Is that collectivism? From the classic liberal point-of-view, if you're granted liberty to the limit that it doesn't infringe on others' rights, what do you think of the following:

Rocky Mountain National Park's northeastern boundary has passed along the border of an old ranch. To access this secluded and undeveloped area of RMNP, the owners' of the ranch had previously allowed an easement where the public could drive along the road that runs through their prpoerty to a parking lot just inside the park boundary. Recently, however, the ranch owners' or new owners' have revoked the easement. The NPS had to reroute a road around the ranch, close the old parking lot, and build a new one, further impacting the wilderness of this area. The ranch owners' rights of private property superceded the public's interest in protecting wilderness. A few people benefit by not allowing traffic on their road (which really isn't that big of a deal in reality), and all of us who believe in protection of wildlands and who wish to visit that corner of RMNP were adversely affected. And millions of tax dollars, of which too few are budgeted for the NPS, were used to continue to meet the mission of the NPS.

What do you think about this:
Global warming is generally, scientifically accepted. Whether or not it is man-made is not the issue. Whether or not humankind is accelerating natural global warming is the issue. The burning of carbon-based fuels most likely is accelerating global warming. If so, and we don't slow global warming, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future. And I think, all of us agree that foreign oil consumption reduces the US's security. And I think it is well acknowledged that no amount of domestic oil production is going to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation of oil, then, it would seem, should be a priority in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and attempt to slow global warming. So, should you be allowed to drive a hummer? Should companies be allowed to use styrofoam?

As a so-called liberal, it is my opinion that we should institute a ban on styrofoam because, not only are there ecological alternatives, it isn't recyclable and adds to the acceleration of global warming. And all vehicles should meet stricter emission and fuel economy standards. If it isn't possible for some vehicles to meet those standards (which I think is subjective), then those vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be operated or manufactured in the US. In this case, to me, the interests of the public supercede those of a much smaller number individuals. Some people's livelihoods would be negatively affected, but in the end, its better for us all and the subsequent generations.

Do you think that is collectivism?

 

[LOki]

To add to editec's post:

From my perspective, the good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa.

If good is served for each individual, "the good of the whole" (whatever the fuck that might be) doesn't have to be considered.

Is that collectivism?

Absolutely.

From the classic liberal point-of-view, if you're granted liberty to the limit that it doesn't infringe on others' rights, what do you think of the following:

Rocky Mountain National Park's northeastern boundary has passed along the border of an old ranch. To access this secluded and undeveloped area of RMNP, the owners' of the ranch had previously allowed an easement where the public could drive along the road that runs through their prpoerty to a parking lot just inside the park boundary.

This sems rather generous; or did they charge a toll?

Recently, however, the ranch owners' or new owners' have revoked the easement.

This is their right.

The NPS had to reroute a road around the ranch, close the old parking lot, and build a new one, further impacting the wilderness of this area.

No they didn't. They couls have just left it alone.

The ranch owners' rights of private property superceded the public's interest in protecting wilderness.

Cutting off public access to that wilderness served the "public's interest" (whatever the fuck that is) in protecting wilderness.

A few people benefit by not allowing traffic on their road (which really isn't that big of a deal in reality), and all of us who believe in protection of wildlands and who wish to visit that corner of RMNP were adversely affected.

Nobody wishing to protect wildland were affected in the least, and those who wished to visit the RMNP were inconvenienced.

And millions of tax dollars, of which too few are budgeted for the NPS, were used to continue to meet the mission of the NPS.

Now fewer tax dollars are needed to clean up after and support a bunch of freeloaders.

What do you think about this:
Global warming is generally, scientifically accepted. Whether or not it is man-made is not the issue. Whether or not humankind is accelerating natural global warming is the issue. The burning of carbon-based fuels most likely is accelerating global warming. If so, and we don't slow global warming, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future.

Also, if we don't burn carbon-based fuels, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future.

And I think, all of us agree that foreign oil consumption reduces the US's security. And I think it is well acknowledged that no amount of domestic oil production is going to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation of oil, then, it would seem, should be a priority in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and attempt to slow global warming. So, should you be allowed to drive a hummer? Should companies be allowed to use styrofoam?

Yep.

As a so-called liberal, it is my opinion that we should institute a ban on styrofoam because, not only are there ecological alternatives, it isn't recyclable and adds to the acceleration of global warming.

So says you. If it's really in each of our best rational interest to not use styrofoam, then we can all act in our rational self interest and stop using it.

But so long as the benefits of styrofoam use outweigh the speculative harm posed by the practice, you have no business pointing a gun at someone and telling them that hemp styrofoam is illegal.

And all vehicles should meet stricter emission and fuel economy standards.

Only if that's what we all want.

If it isn't possible for some vehicles to meet those standards (which I think is subjective), then those vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be operated or manufactured in the US.

Since it's subjective, you have no business tellling me whatto drive, and more than I have any business telling you what to drive.

In this case, to me, the interests of the public supercede those of a much smaller number individuals.

I demand that this "public interest" be produced so that i can ascertain for myself exactly what it is. I want no propaganda contibutions from the likes of you; I want guarantees that you don't coach this "public interest" in the responses to questions regarding what "the public interest" is. Do this, and we'll discuss the merits of "the public interest."

Some people's livelihoods would be negatively affected, . . .

HOLD ON a minute there Jasper! you said, and I quote: ". . . he good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa."

. . . but in the end, its better for us all and the subsequent generations.

Except, of course, those you, and those like you, choose to be . . . ahem . . ."negatively affected," yes?

Do you think that is collectivism?

Yes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

I think it very obvious that civil liberties and economic liberties are sympatico, and that without economic liberty one cannot truly have civil liberty.

In theory, these ideas are easily understood and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism can agree on that in principle.

But in practice, those theories are not so clear as I suspect you think they are.

Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

If you tell me YES, then please define what benchmarks you think a moral society should use to justify (what we can both agree will be a) VIOLATION of that individual's fundamental economic right.

Procedural rights often do set aside one civil rights. the obvious example is the legal search and seizure of an innocent persons property and/or person in the attempt to arrest a guilty party.

So yes, at times, with sufficient legal cause, one's economic rights may be set aside. But I would add that any person whose right of property ownership be denied by the government's seizure of said property be given remuneration equal to the market value of said property and also an amount reasonable to cover any and all costs incurred due to the loss of his rights and possibly loss of income due to the loss of property if applicable.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

Characteristics of Procedural Rights. As noted, the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the rights that flow from all the rules of evidence that courts enforce - these are examples of procedural rights. Procedural rights have at least four characteristics of interest:

1. They are less fundamental than substantive rights. Indeed, the reason for establishing procedural rights is to protect substantive rights.
2. They are conventional. Whether the legislature has one house or two, whether we vote once a year or once every six months, whether we have three branches of government or four or five - all these are decisions to be made. And one decision is not necessarily superior to any other. Despite the fact that these rights are conventional, many of them are nonetheless constitutional. The Founders did not want them to be easily changed.
3. They imply positive obligations. Unlike fundamental substantive rights (which imply only negative obligations), procedural rights imply positive obligations. For example, the right to vote obligates others (government officials) to provide a polling booth, set aside a day for voting, print up ballots, etc. The right to a trial by jury obligates others (government officials) to empanel jurors, provide a judge, make a court house available, etc.
4. They are the result of a balancing of interests. Because procedural rights create positive obligations, arguably, they cannot be secured without the exercise of force or the threat of force. Governments are thus empowered to make people do things which they might otherwise not do in order to secure such rights (including, for example, collecting taxes from unwilling taxpayers). For this reason, the securing of procedural rights requires a delicate balancing between the value of the substantive rights they are designed to protect and the danger of violating these rights in the very act of attempting to protect them.

 

[johnrocks]

NCPA is a great site!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

In response to Loki:

So, to put it in my own words, the first remark you made is basically: The good of the whole doesn't matter as long as each individual has it good? Do you think that is the current situation in our government/society/economy now? An honest question, not an attack.

In regards to the National Park comments: The NPS's mission is to preserve land, but also to make those lands accessible to all Americans. In order to meet their mission guidelines they did have to continue to provide access to the Lumpy Ridge section of the park (a popular place for tourists, rock climbers, outdoors enthusiasts, etc.). Considered wilderness under the Wilderness Act, all national parks are "preserved", but not for their inherent value, but for wilderness value for Americans. Although I ethically agree with you in the preservation of wildlands is best done through it being completely left alone, national parks don't follow that philosophy completely. But that is beside the point.

I think our misunderstanding comes down to: What is the public interest? Is one definable? Who designates it, if it is? Upon what should these public interests be based? What do you think? I haven't really considered this question, but would appreciate your input.

You wrote that we should stop using styrofoam if the public wants to, that we shouldn't ban certain vehicles which don't meet agreed upon standards (currently hypothetical) unless the public wants to. My coming question is convoluted in the least: If it can never be determined that the acceleration of global warming is human caused, or that there is nothing humankind to do to slow a natural acceleration of global warming, but, that it IS happening (meaning the public can't be convinced that global warming is happening and that there is a concrete need to do something about it), and that dependence on foreign oil poses a risk to national security, but the public doesn't WANT to conserve oil by banning styrofoam (and other petroleum products) and enforcing stricter feul efficiency standards, what should we do as a society? Accept that life sucks, we screwed up the world, now deal with it? Or, have the government tell us: "Hey, sorry everyone, no more styrofoam, gas guzzlers, etc. etc. Its for your own good."?

What are the ramifications of each answer? We all pay $20 a gallon for water in the future? Widespread famine? Increased wars over natural resources? Or, we live in a semi-authoritarian republic (Or do we already?) but with a potentially less-impacted environment? Are there other, better alternatives? I'd rather the governments of the world ban carbon-based fuels and non-reusable products that allow us to conserve our dwindling natural resources, but I'm hardly a wise man or an expert.

 

[sitarro]

Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

I think it very obvious that civil liberties and economic liberties are sympatico, and that without economic liberty one cannot truly have civil liberty.

In theory, these ideas are easily understood and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism can agree on that in principle.

But in practice, those theories are not so clear as I suspect you think they are.

Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

If you tell me YES, then please define what benchmarks you think a moral society should use to justify (what we can both agree will be a) VIOLATION of that individual's fundamental economic right.

To add to editec's post:

From my perspective, the good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa. Is that collectivism? From the classic liberal point-of-view, if you're granted liberty to the limit that it doesn't infringe on others' rights, what do you think of the following:

Rocky Mountain National Park's northeastern boundary has passed along the border of an old ranch. To access this secluded and undeveloped area of RMNP, the owners' of the ranch had previously allowed an easement where the public could drive along the road that runs through their prpoerty to a parking lot just inside the park boundary. Recently, however, the ranch owners' or new owners' have revoked the easement. The NPS had to reroute a road around the ranch, close the old parking lot, and build a new one, further impacting the wilderness of this area. The ranch owners' rights of private property superceded the public's interest in protecting wilderness. A few people benefit by not allowing traffic on their road (which really isn't that big of a deal in reality), and all of us who believe in protection of wildlands and who wish to visit that corner of RMNP were adversely affected. And millions of tax dollars, of which too few are budgeted for the NPS, were used to continue to meet the mission of the NPS.

What do you think about this:
Global warming is generally, scientifically accepted. Whether or not it is man-made is not the issue. Whether or not humankind is accelerating natural global warming is the issue. The burning of carbon-based fuels most likely is accelerating global warming. If so, and we don't slow global warming, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future. And I think, all of us agree that foreign oil consumption reduces the US's security. And I think it is well acknowledged that no amount of domestic oil production is going to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation of oil, then, it would seem, should be a priority in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and attempt to slow global warming. So, should you be allowed to drive a hummer? Should companies be allowed to use styrofoam?

As a so-called liberal, it is my opinion that we should institute a ban on styrofoam because, not only are there ecological alternatives, it isn't recyclable and adds to the acceleration of global warming. And all vehicles should meet stricter emission and fuel economy standards. If it isn't possible for some vehicles to meet those standards (which I think is subjective), then those vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be operated or manufactured in the US. In this case, to me, the interests of the public supercede those of a much smaller number individuals. Some people's livelihoods would be negatively affected, but in the end, its better for us all and the subsequent generations.

Do you think that is collectivism?

Shouldn't we stop allowing back country hiking, climbing, out of bounds skiing and other activities that cause rescue attempts to happen and thousands of gallons of gasoline, many hours of manpower and lives of the rescuers wasted?

 

[Diuretic]

The rehabiliation of the language has begun. Good to see someone acknowledge that liberalism is about the freedom of the individual as laid out by a string of post-Enlightenment philosophers, the most noted being J.S. Mill. The classic liberal believed in individual freedom and economic freedom, although I'm not sure Mill was a full-on believer in laissez-faire capitalism. And while Adam Smith was an economic liberal he would be horrified at what has been perpetrated by the economic collectives known as "corporations".

Irony on irony. The most powerful collectives the world has ever seen, corporations, are treated by the law as individuals. Right there is the greatest con job in history.

As for the philosophers here pulling apart individualism and collectivism. The extreme individualists are always brought down by the fact of interdependence. That's the reality of modern life.

 

[LOki]

In response to Loki:

So, to put it in my own words, the first remark you made is basically: The good of the whole doesn't matter as long as each individual has it good?

I have no idea what "the good of the whole" is, but if each individual that comprises the whole of all individuals has it good . . . are you able to grasp the calculus?

On the otherhand, if we get concerned with "the good of the whole" (whatever the fuck that is) the good of individuals seems to be a secondary benefit.

If all the individuals are taken care of, all the groups of individuals are also taken care of--no matter how you wish to group them.

Do you think that is the current situation in our government/society/economy now? An honest question, not an attack.

The existence of "special interest groups" and that no group should have special influence, should clue you in to how I view the current situation.

I think our misunderstanding comes down to: What is the public interest?

I think there's no such thing. It's a mythical beast designed to frighten you into doing whats best for the shaman who knows "the public interest".

Is one definable?

Sure, but it's irrelevent.

Who designates it, if it is? Upon what should these public interests be based? What do you think? I haven't really considered this question, but would appreciate your input.

How about this: There's no such thing as "the public interest." There are only the interests of each and every individual. Take care of them, and you don't have to consider some farcicle "public interest."

You wrote that we should stop using styrofoam if the public wants to, . . .

No I didn't.

. . .that we shouldn't ban certain vehicles which don't meet agreed upon standards (currently hypothetical) unless the public wants to.

I didn't say that either.

I said we shouldn't ban the use of things people want to use, and we don't need to ban the use of anything that no-one wants to use. Case in point, styrofoam and Escalades.

Personally, I don't use styrofoam whaen there's something better available, and I don't drive an SUV. But the should I require these thing, you have no business making them unavailable to me by force--I don't give a fuck what you want.

My coming question is convoluted in the least: If it can never be determined that the acceleration of global warming is human caused, or that there is nothing humankind to do to slow a natural acceleration of global warming, but, that it IS happening (meaning the public can't be convinced that global warming is happening and that there is a concrete need to do something about it), and that dependence on foreign oil poses a risk to national security, but the public doesn't WANT to conserve oil by banning styrofoam (and other petroleum products) and enforcing stricter feul efficiency standards, what should we do as a society?

Drive SUVs and burn coffee cups to keep warm.

Accept that life sucks, we screwed up the world, now deal with it? Or, have the government tell us: "Hey, sorry everyone, no more styrofoam, gas guzzlers, etc. etc. Its for your own good."?

There's ususally a pretty good reason you'd have to FORCE people to "do what's good for them." The reason is that it's NOT REALLY "what's good for them."

What are the ramifications of each answer? We all pay $20 a gallon for water in the future?

If that's what it's worth, I'm fine with it.

Widespread famine?

Considering how famine is never a function of insufficient food, but rather always a function of not getting food, famines are always caused by governments--so again, when the public interest take precednce over the individuals that comprise that public, those individuals suffer. It's better to take care of people, and the public takes care of itself.

Increased wars over natural resources?

All wars are predicated upon the notion that it is morally justifiable to steal--you know, in the public interest.

Or, we live in a semi-authoritarian republic (Or do we already?) but with a potentially less-impacted environment? Are there other, better alternatives? I'd rather the governments of the world ban carbon-based fuels and non-reusable products that allow us to conserve our dwindling natural resources, but I'm hardly a wise man or an expert.

I'd rather live as a human being.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Shouldn't we stop allowing back country hiking, climbing, out of bounds skiing and other activities that cause rescue attempts to happen and thousands of gallons of gasoline, many hours of manpower and lives of the rescuers wasted?

No, we should just stop rescuing people in the wilderness. Go into the wilderness at one's own peril. And there are already laws about out of bounds skiing. In the climbing community, this is a current issue. Should we rescue climbers? Kinda takes the fun out of it...