![\"Shotgun](\"http:\/\/farm5.staticflickr.com\/4061\/4432987685_7aa2118038.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nOver at Bleeding Heart Libertarians<\/a>, Jason Brennan, interspersing new text and paragraphs from his book (available on Amazon<\/a>), discusses what makes Libertarianism distinct:<\/p>\n Libertarians are distinct in that they believe each person has an extensive sphere of personal liberty. They have strong rights against being interfered with, coerced, or subjugated. These rights act as side constraints. They forbid intrusions onto others\u2019 lives, even when such intrusions would serve those other people\u2019s good.<\/p>\n \u2026for example, imagine I am a supremely expert life coach. Imagine that I can determine what the happiest and best life for each person would be. Suppose I know with certainty that talented David would do much more good as a doctor than as a beach bum. Suppose I also know with certainty that David would be much happier and better off as a doctor than as a beach bum. However, suppose David wants to be a beach bum. Libertarians say that I cannot force David to become a doctor, despite how good it would be if he did. He has the right to choose his own way of life, even though (we are supposing) that I know with certainty he should make a different choice.<\/p>\n Similarly, even if you have a moral obligation to help the homeless, it doesn\u2019t follow that I may force you to discharge this obligation. Does this mean libertarians are selfish, callous, or indifferent to others\u2019 suffering?<\/p>\n \u2026 even if I believe it is wrong to force you to help the homeless, this does not imply I don\u2019t care about the homeless. In the same vein, if I am unwilling to force to you marry your \u201csoul mate\u201d, that does not mean I am indifferent to your happiness. Rather, it means that there are limits on what I may force you to do, for your good or for the good of others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, but: Who doesn’t<\/em> believe there are limits on what people can be forced to do for the good of others? <\/p>\n There is nothing distinctly libertarian about opposing forced marriage, or forced medical school. Liberals are against that. Conservatives are against that. Progressives are against that. In our culture, very nearly everyone <\/em>is against that. You might as well say that libertarians are distinct because they breath oxygen.<\/p>\n The only thing on Brennan’s list that is distinctly libertarian is that libertarians are against forcing people to help the homeless. And even that isn’t really a fine enough distinction. I’m pretty far left, but even I<\/em> don’t think I have a right to walk up to some random homeowner, club him over the head, steal his housekey, and drop it in the next beggar’s cup I see. The real issue is how people feel about helping the homeless through a marginal increase in taxation.<\/p>\n Libertarians are distinctive, in part, because they and they alone seem to have difficulty perceiving the enormous moral difference between a marginally higher tax rate and forced marriage or doctorhood. ((“They and they alone” is an exaggeration, since some conservatives would agree, but I’d argue that’s an example of how libertarians have influenced conservative thought.))<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Jason Brennan, interspersing new text and paragraphs from his book (available on Amazon), discusses what makes Libertarianism distinct: Libertarians are distinct in that they believe each person has an extensive sphere of personal liberty. They … Continue reading