Either rule consequentialism collapses into act consequentialism or its not really consequentialism at all.

Either rule consequentialism collapses into act consequentialism or its not really consequentialism at all.

I’ve aways disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals have a right to discriminate against others based on race.

As I recall, you’ve also disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals should have a legal right, but would be committing a moral wrong, to discriminate against others based on country of origin.

I’ve aways disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals have a right to discriminate against others based on race.

As I recall, you’ve also disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals should have a legal right, but would be committing a moral wrong, to discriminate against others based on country of origin.

I agree with your perspective that “a regime of strong negative rights is the best guarantee of positive liberty,” and in your assessment that “this is really an empirical question about what really does maximize individuals’ chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives.” Although such goals are highly subjective in nature, it does seem safe to say their chances face a net opportunity loss when confronted with an organized belief that the aspirant is inherently worthless, and that such beliefs therefore represent “clear evils.”

Perhaps I misunderstand the positions, but it would seem to me that an argument which categorically prohibits all coercion necessarily permits all voluntary association, an ugly manifestation of which could be some form of “structural discrimination”. You said that you are ambivalent about the state stepping in – but why? How could voluntary association – however structured – be more harmful than the coercion of government regulation – however “ticky-tack”? After all, as you and others at Reason are well aware, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force..” Without this force (e.g. in the form of a century of Jim Crow laws), racism, sexism, etc. are just ideas that, like all others, must stand ultimately on their own merits – which, of course, they can’t.

As a self identified decent person concerned with liberty, I also agree with the responsibility to denounce, “if not actively tear down” (assuming sans coercion) “racist beliefs and norms that enable liberty-killing structural discrimination.” However, I also believe that among the most pernicious liberty-killing beliefs and norms is the status quo opposite to our shared perspective about negative rights. Whatever the intention, Government almost always couches its’ intervention as “attempts to guarantee the worth of our liberties”. The belief and norm that to so save us from ourselves is the just purview of Government enables such horror shows as the “drug war”. It seems clear that this belief strikes much closer to the root of liberty than beliefs which foster discrimination, as I am sure that any individual – whatever their race, gender, creed – would readily consider the four walls of the prison cell a far greater obstacle to their “chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives.”

Lastly, you say that “serious forms of structural discrimination are much worse for liberty than certain kinds of coercion,” and that “Libertarians make themselves look ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone.” To my mind, for reasons mentioned, all forms of structural discrimination are serious. However I disagree in principle, again for reasons mentioned, that they are worse – let alone much worse – than “certain kinds” of coercion. There is only one kind of coercion: “persuasion” through force or threats of force. As for libertarians looking “ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone,” I can only say that from what I’ve seen, they more accurately and often say that everyone is as fully and equally free as possible so long as this is the case.

Ron Paul has a clear track record as a decent person concerned with liberty. Whatever incidental enabling his negligence or supposed closet racism* has provided for liberty-killing racist beliefs (*his repeated reference to racism as “an ugly form of collectivism” and a “spiritual malady”, as well as his repeated championing of MLK, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, etc. as heroes, suggest a piss-poor record as a closet racist), it clearly pales in comparison to the enabling that his voluminous efforts, over decades, have provided for beliefs which promote that very positive individual liberty you believe “most worth caring about”.

I agree with your perspective that “a regime of strong negative rights is the best guarantee of positive liberty,” and in your assessment that “this is really an empirical question about what really does maximize individuals’ chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives.” Although such goals are highly subjective in nature, it does seem safe to say their chances face a net opportunity loss when confronted with an organized belief that the aspirant is inherently worthless, and that such beliefs therefore represent “clear evils.”

Perhaps I misunderstand the positions, but it would seem to me that an argument which categorically prohibits all coercion necessarily permits all voluntary association, an ugly manifestation of which could be some form of “structural discrimination”. You said that you are ambivalent about the state stepping in – but why? How could voluntary association – however structured – be more harmful than the coercion of government regulation – however “ticky-tack”? After all, as you and others at Reason are well aware, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force..” Without this force (e.g. in the form of a century of Jim Crow laws), racism, sexism, etc. are just ideas that, like all others, must stand ultimately on their own merits – which, of course, they can’t.

As a self identified decent person concerned with liberty, I also agree with the responsibility to denounce, “if not actively tear down” (assuming sans coercion) “racist beliefs and norms that enable liberty-killing structural discrimination.” However, I also believe that among the most pernicious liberty-killing beliefs and norms is the status quo opposite to our shared perspective about negative rights. Whatever the intention, Government almost always couches its’ intervention as “attempts to guarantee the worth of our liberties”. The belief and norm that to so save us from ourselves is the just purview of Government enables such horror shows as the “drug war”. It seems clear that this belief strikes much closer to the root of liberty than beliefs which foster discrimination, as I am sure that any individual – whatever their race, gender, creed – would readily consider the four walls of the prison cell a far greater obstacle to their “chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives.”

Lastly, you say that “serious forms of structural discrimination are much worse for liberty than certain kinds of coercion,” and that “Libertarians make themselves look ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone.” To my mind, for reasons mentioned, all forms of structural discrimination are serious. However I disagree in principle, again for reasons mentioned, that they are worse – let alone much worse – than “certain kinds” of coercion. There is only one kind of coercion: “persuasion” through force or threats of force. As for libertarians looking “ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone,” I can only say that from what I’ve seen, they more accurately and often say that everyone is as fully and equally free as possible so long as this is the case.

Ron Paul has a clear track record as a decent person concerned with liberty. Whatever incidental enabling his negligence or supposed closet racism* has provided for liberty-killing racist beliefs (*his repeated reference to racism as “an ugly form of collectivism” and a “spiritual malady”, as well as his repeated championing of MLK, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, etc. as heroes, suggest a piss-poor record as a closet racist), it clearly pales in comparison to the enabling that his voluminous efforts, over decades, have provided for beliefs which promote that very positive individual liberty you believe “most worth caring about”.