POLITICS and values (was: morality)

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> The discussion of " Liberalism " has made me decide it falls

> into camp #1 -- it is based on a value system, not on a set

> of goals (except that the goal is to fulfill the value system,

> mainly letting every do what they want as much as possible,

> to broadly paraphrase).

Liberalism can be developed from a utilitarian perspective or from a

moral perspective. I tend to avoid arguing from the latter, partly

because I find the practical economic case for liberalism so compelling,

and partly because there are people like you who believe that

infringements upon individual rights can be justified by whatever social

good they hope to accomplish with them.

While many liberals tend to emphasize one or the other, you very rarely

find anyone who accepts one but not the other. When someone understands

the economic case for liberalism, he will accept it as moral, partly

because it works, and partly because at some level, most people realize

that initiation of force is a necessary evil at best. Once they realize

that it's not necessary, all that's left is evil. Conversely, people who

think that liberalism would have dire consequences tend to rationalize

the initiation of force as a necessary evil or even a positive good.

As much as I value freedom in and of itself, I value the peace and

prosperity which result from it as much or more. In my mind, a large

part of the moral superiority of liberalism comes from the good that it

produces, just as a large part of the evil of plunder and socialism

comes from the economic and cultural decay which it produces. If I had

the misfortune to inhabit a hypothetical world where things worked

differently--where a society could not prosper except through plunder

and socialism--I cannot honestly say how I would deal with that.

Truthfully, I cannot imagine such a world.

> So, I've learned as much as I need to about the philosophy --

> mainly that it IS a philosophy, not science.

Liberalism qua liberalism may be a philosophy, but the same is true of

your beliefs about how policy should be oriented towards maximizing

" GNH, " and of any other political beliefs. Economic theory, which tells

us how and why liberalism produces promotes prosperity, is a positive

science which is free of value judgments.

> You don't have to abide by my values, that is the point.

But you want to force us to abide by some subset of your values. *That*

is the point. You want to force us to give up a portion of the

hard-earned fruits of our labor (which, when you think about it,

essentially means taking a portion of our lives) to help you to achieve

your goals, which you've chosen in accordance with your values. You may

also want to force us to abstain from certain peaceful, consensual

transactions for the same reason--I'm not sure about that. If you want

to argue that for some reason it's okay for you to force us to abide by

your values, then feel free to do so. Don't try to deny the obvious,

though. If you honestly did not want to force us to abide by your

values, you would, by definition, be a libertarian.

> I don't want to abide by Chris's values either.

All I want from you is that you stop trying to force us to abide by your

values. I'm perfectly happy to let you live your life in peace,

according to your values, as long as you give me the same courtesy, and

I'm sure that agrees.

You're trying to frame this as a question of whether everyone should be

forced to abide by our values or by yours (or perhaps even as a question

of whether everyone should be forced to abide by our values or by some

set of goals which you believe to be objectively good, rather than a

product of your values). This is inaccurate. The only question on the

table is whether you should be able to impose a certain subset of your

values upon us. There is no question of us imposing our values on you.

In fact, , and I don't even have the same values.

's a devout Catholic and I'm an atheist. is an

environmentalist and I'm a technophile. We can all coexist peacefully,

though, because none of us has any desire to impose our values on the

others. For whatever reason, though, that's not enough for you. You have

some grand plan for society which requires our participation, and if we

won't give it voluntarily, you're willing and eager to take it by any

means possible. You may think that that's acceptable, but, speaking in a

purely objective and value-free sense, you're the agressor here.