<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liberal Virtue and the Common Good</title>
	<atom:link href="http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/02/liberal-virtue-and-the-common-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/02/liberal-virtue-and-the-common-good/</link>
	<description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/02/liberal-virtue-and-the-common-good/#comment-6057</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=751#comment-6057</guid>
		<description>This virtue as constrained self-interest maximisation might be the ur-American view, but it&#039;s not really Lockean. The structure of the Second Treatise suggests that Locke regards the pursuit of the kind of self-interest that would need constraint following from the invention of money as a kind of secular Fall, whilst the quite explicit separation of liberty and licence should also be read as tying human fulfillment to a set of moral obligations, which might not be in our narrow self-interest at all. This is without mentioning the actual theory of property rights at all. The restraint is required to maximise self-interest insight is Hobbes&#039;s, and I would be surprised if anyone wanted to be tarred with that brush.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This virtue as constrained self-interest maximisation might be the ur-American view, but it&#8217;s not really Lockean. The structure of the Second Treatise suggests that Locke regards the pursuit of the kind of self-interest that would need constraint following from the invention of money as a kind of secular Fall, whilst the quite explicit separation of liberty and licence should also be read as tying human fulfillment to a set of moral obligations, which might not be in our narrow self-interest at all. This is without mentioning the actual theory of property rights at all. The restraint is required to maximise self-interest insight is Hobbes&#8217;s, and I would be surprised if anyone wanted to be tarred with that brush.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/02/liberal-virtue-and-the-common-good/#comment-6055</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=751#comment-6055</guid>
		<description>This virtue as constrained self-interest maximisation might be the ur-American view, but it&#039;s not really Lockean. The structure of the Second Treatise suggests that Locke regards the pursuit of the kind of self-interest that would need constraint following from the invention of money as a kind of secular Fall, whilst the quite explicit separation of liberty and licence should also be read as tying human fulfillment to a set of moral obligations, which might not be in our narrow self-interest at all. This is without mentioning the actual theory of property rights at all. The restraint is required to maximise self-interest insight is Hobbes&#039;s, and I would be surprised if anyone wanted to be tarred with that brush.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This virtue as constrained self-interest maximisation might be the ur-American view, but it&#8217;s not really Lockean. The structure of the Second Treatise suggests that Locke regards the pursuit of the kind of self-interest that would need constraint following from the invention of money as a kind of secular Fall, whilst the quite explicit separation of liberty and licence should also be read as tying human fulfillment to a set of moral obligations, which might not be in our narrow self-interest at all. This is without mentioning the actual theory of property rights at all. The restraint is required to maximise self-interest insight is Hobbes&#8217;s, and I would be surprised if anyone wanted to be tarred with that brush.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anger Management</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/02/liberal-virtue-and-the-common-good/#comment-6056</link>
		<dc:creator>Anger Management</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=751#comment-6056</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;THE PURSUIT OF SELF-DESTRUCTION&lt;/strong&gt;

Here&#039;s an argument that deserves comment. In a column for the Wall Street Journal, historian Darrin M. McMahon argues that when Jefferson declared man&#039;s right to the pursuit of happiness, what he meant was man&#039;s right to sacrifice himself for the good ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>THE PURSUIT OF SELF-DESTRUCTION</strong></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an argument that deserves comment. In a column for the Wall Street Journal, historian Darrin M. McMahon argues that when Jefferson declared man&#8217;s right to the pursuit of happiness, what he meant was man&#8217;s right to sacrifice himself for the good &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

