The sticking point is determining the limits of individual liberty. Even the hardest core Libertarians agree that some lines need to be drawn. They suggest the non-aggression principle as necessary and sufficient. But is it? What would be the criteria for determining this? How would these criteria be selected?
The Enlightened Economist
From Hobbes to Locke – and back again?
Diane Coyle | freelance economist and a former advisor to the UK Treasury. She is a member of the UK Competition Commission and is acting Chairman of the BBC Trust, the governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation
The Enlightened Economist
From Hobbes to Locke – and back again?
Diane Coyle | freelance economist and a former advisor to the UK Treasury. She is a member of the UK Competition Commission and is acting Chairman of the BBC Trust, the governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation
2 comments:
They suggest the non-aggression principle as necessary and sufficient. But is it? Tom Hickey
No, it isn't since one should not be allowed to claim a continent, for example, and then expect government to defend that claim.
I KNOW that because I've read the ENTIRE Bible and arguments to the contrary do not phase me (e.g. Leviticus 25, e.g. Isaiah 5:8, etc.)
Your individual liberty is being decided by public health officials. Try Orwell.
Post a Comment