I don't think liberty is the greatest good. A good is something toward which you aim, the end of your intentions and goals. Liberty is understood in two ways: 1) freedom *from* constraints (i.e., the soul's right to breathe), and 2) freedom of the will to actualize itself. The two are closely related but I don't think identical, simply given that the freest person can live a life of luxury without making a single serious decision; he's free in the sense that he can do what he wants, but not free in the sense that he significantly does anything.
Appealing to liberty as the highest good means that each person should be as left alone as possible and able to do what he wants without harming someone else. The latter part is problematic because "harm" is interpreted by libertarians as physical harm, not psychological harm. This might be because many libertarians don't really believe that the will is a finite thing (see the work of psychologist Roy Baumeister for this idea), that because Will Smith can come from nothing and be his own hero that we're all capable of doing this. This heroistic thinking doesn't take into account social influence, family upbringing, socioeconomic status, and so on. It just appeals to the exception and makes it the rule. As Malcolm Gladwell posits, outliers really aren't outliers if you consider the hidden advantages given to them.
To the degree that I'm rich, I'm part of a cohort that's psychologically harming the poor, who receive less for their work relative to me, and with this comes disadvantage in the form of lower SES and all sorts of bad stuff that correlates with it, like family violence, and (ultimately) lack of motivation on the individual in the poor cohort compared to the rich one. So you can't just really leave people alone, given the inequality that inevitably results. The libertarian will disagree, because the libertarian thinks the will can overcome all things. It can't, and a person is responsible insofar as he's response able regarding his choices and environment. There are limitations on human freedom, even if the exception makes it through and becomes a self-made billionaire. And it's bordering on wickedness to blame the individual well beyond his capabilities for not overcoming his limitations. That appeal to responsibility is really the hypocritical rejection of responsibility from those who blame in such a way -- the responsibility of those who have a more fortunate life to help out those who have a less fortunate one. The preachers of responsibility ironically let off the hook those who are most responsible but refuse their responsibility.
Lastly, freedom for its own sake is vacuous, because freedom (in the will sense) always implies freedom toward a goal, a good. To say that freedom is a good doesn't tell you anything, because it doesn't contextualize how this freedom will be used. Obviously the libertarian doesn't value the freedom to rape, but he does value the freedom to participate in a market exchange. Freedom always comes packaged with value. And the values of libertarianism are implicit but clear: let me be free enough to get as much property and income as I can and do what I like without governmental constraint (regulation, taxation). But again we're back at the question of psychological freedom, where the upper echelons of the rich and all the super-rich psychologically limit the poor.
The greatest good isn't liberty. The greatest good is happiness. Each person should be able to attain happiness as much as he reasonably can, but many times you have to limit freedom in order to attain happiness. So the super-rich have to be taxed at a higher rate to make up for the market's unfair treatment of the poorest in society; so corporations have to be fined for externalities so other people have clean air. The point is neither the statist dream of totalitarian constraint nor the anarchist's dream of total freedom through nonexistent government. (And let's not forget that a society without a government is no society at all.) The system that allows for actualization of happiness for the greatest amount of people lies somewhere in the middle.
"But you're for governmental force if you're for taxation or regulation." Well, first of all, libertarians believe in the use of governmental force if their sense of justice (relative to their values) is impinged. Force is inherent in government; without force or the threat of force, you can't govern. Therefore, libertarians must part ways with government completely and embrace anarchism or take back their point. Secondly, nobody is forcing you to do anything if you're free to leave this country.
Appealing to liberty as the highest good means that each person should be as left alone as possible and able to do what he wants without harming someone else. The latter part is problematic because "harm" is interpreted by libertarians as physical harm, not psychological harm. This might be because many libertarians don't really believe that the will is a finite thing (see the work of psychologist Roy Baumeister for this idea), that because Will Smith can come from nothing and be his own hero that we're all capable of doing this. This heroistic thinking doesn't take into account social influence, family upbringing, socioeconomic status, and so on. It just appeals to the exception and makes it the rule. As Malcolm Gladwell posits, outliers really aren't outliers if you consider the hidden advantages given to them.
To the degree that I'm rich, I'm part of a cohort that's psychologically harming the poor, who receive less for their work relative to me, and with this comes disadvantage in the form of lower SES and all sorts of bad stuff that correlates with it, like family violence, and (ultimately) lack of motivation on the individual in the poor cohort compared to the rich one. So you can't just really leave people alone, given the inequality that inevitably results. The libertarian will disagree, because the libertarian thinks the will can overcome all things. It can't, and a person is responsible insofar as he's response able regarding his choices and environment. There are limitations on human freedom, even if the exception makes it through and becomes a self-made billionaire. And it's bordering on wickedness to blame the individual well beyond his capabilities for not overcoming his limitations. That appeal to responsibility is really the hypocritical rejection of responsibility from those who blame in such a way -- the responsibility of those who have a more fortunate life to help out those who have a less fortunate one. The preachers of responsibility ironically let off the hook those who are most responsible but refuse their responsibility.
Lastly, freedom for its own sake is vacuous, because freedom (in the will sense) always implies freedom toward a goal, a good. To say that freedom is a good doesn't tell you anything, because it doesn't contextualize how this freedom will be used. Obviously the libertarian doesn't value the freedom to rape, but he does value the freedom to participate in a market exchange. Freedom always comes packaged with value. And the values of libertarianism are implicit but clear: let me be free enough to get as much property and income as I can and do what I like without governmental constraint (regulation, taxation). But again we're back at the question of psychological freedom, where the upper echelons of the rich and all the super-rich psychologically limit the poor.
The greatest good isn't liberty. The greatest good is happiness. Each person should be able to attain happiness as much as he reasonably can, but many times you have to limit freedom in order to attain happiness. So the super-rich have to be taxed at a higher rate to make up for the market's unfair treatment of the poorest in society; so corporations have to be fined for externalities so other people have clean air. The point is neither the statist dream of totalitarian constraint nor the anarchist's dream of total freedom through nonexistent government. (And let's not forget that a society without a government is no society at all.) The system that allows for actualization of happiness for the greatest amount of people lies somewhere in the middle.
"But you're for governmental force if you're for taxation or regulation." Well, first of all, libertarians believe in the use of governmental force if their sense of justice (relative to their values) is impinged. Force is inherent in government; without force or the threat of force, you can't govern. Therefore, libertarians must part ways with government completely and embrace anarchism or take back their point. Secondly, nobody is forcing you to do anything if you're free to leave this country.
Last edited:
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
