Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being optional--particularly when doing business.
>That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment of social >responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have to do anything for our >neighbors because the universe will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). >Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism. Well, how do you define what a moral principal is? I'd argue it is an axiom of a system of ethics. Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics, but that does not keep it from being an ethical system. You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals. You can either posit them explicitly, or implicitly. Personally, I prefer explicit, because the principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
