3 added 447 characters in body
source | link

(Since it seems to have confused at least one person, Libertarianism per se is a political philosophy and not an ethics. Whether your ethics should override politics in any given situation is another point, for another time.

If Libertarianism is the framing, this is a political philosophy question, and it is not so much about Person A's individual action, but about whether the social contract should allow for it as an approved option.

I am adopting a notion of social contract, in which social contracts that make it difficult to be ethical should be avoided in principle as they are too hard on the populace psychologically.)

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his absolute right to personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some gift of clairvoyance that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

You need some more complex and humane method of negotiating the local social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler. It needs to somehow accommodate a majority opinion on various things, including deprivation and health.

Most mature social contracts we have encountered do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, even if they manage not to die in spite of you, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should. We will declare you temporarily outside our contract, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his absolute right to personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some gift of clairvoyance that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

You need some more complex and humane method of negotiating the local social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler. It needs to somehow accommodate a majority opinion on various things, including deprivation and health.

Most mature social contracts we have encountered do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, even if they manage not to die in spite of you, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should. We will declare you temporarily outside our contract, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

(Since it seems to have confused at least one person, Libertarianism per se is a political philosophy and not an ethics. Whether your ethics should override politics in any given situation is another point, for another time.

If Libertarianism is the framing, this is a political philosophy question, and it is not so much about Person A's individual action, but about whether the social contract should allow for it as an approved option.

I am adopting a notion of social contract, in which social contracts that make it difficult to be ethical should be avoided in principle as they are too hard on the populace psychologically.)

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his absolute right to personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some gift of clairvoyance that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

You need some more complex and humane method of negotiating the local social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler. It needs to somehow accommodate a majority opinion on various things, including deprivation and health.

Most mature social contracts we have encountered do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, even if they manage not to die in spite of you, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should. We will declare you temporarily outside our contract, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

2 added 161 characters in body
source | link

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his absolute right to personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce ourour chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some magical gift of clear sightclairvoyance that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

How can he make his argument? YouYou need some more complex and humane method of negotiating the local social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler. It needs to somehow accommodate a majority opinion on various things, including deprivation and health.

Most mature social contracts we have encountered do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, even if they manage not to die in spite of you, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should. We will declare you temporarily outside our contract, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some magical gift of clear sight that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

How can he make his argument? You need some more complex method of negotiating the social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler.

Most mature social contracts do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his absolute right to personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some gift of clairvoyance that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

You need some more complex and humane method of negotiating the local social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler. It needs to somehow accommodate a majority opinion on various things, including deprivation and health.

Most mature social contracts we have encountered do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, even if they manage not to die in spite of you, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should. We will declare you temporarily outside our contract, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.

1
source | link

You don't need anything that elaborate to defeat Libertarianism.

The problem with Libertarianism is already captured in Nozick's concession that violence may be necessary to secure personal property.

If the rest of us decide to adopt a different set of rights, which do not include absolute rights to personal property, the only way the Libertarian can have his personal property is through violence.

The violence required on his part is no more noble than the violence we would assert to enforce our chosen set of rights. But he seems to think that he has the sole right to determine the legal structure, by some magical gift of clear sight that makes his chosen set of minimal rights more trustworthy than any other.

How can he make his argument? You need some more complex method of negotiating the social contract than absolute fiat based on what comes naturally to a toddler.

Most mature social contracts do contain the equivalent of the legal standard of depraved indifference. If you keep water from someone dying of thirst, you are not welcome to be an American, because our social contract compels some actions, whether or not Libertarians think it should, and we will imprison you and keep you from your private property.