Fame!

Thanks to MythoPoet’s Mirror and De Gustibus for the links.  De Gustibus makes an excellent point that many persons calling themselves libertarians argue from a utilitarian standpoint, rather than a natural law standpoint. I believe that these folks are ultimately very harmful to the libertarian cause, and are, in fact, paleo-conservatives, not actual libertarians. That’s an extreme statement that tends to get me in trouble, and I don’t have the time or inclination to defend it right now, but I do think it’s the case.

For an outstanding brief refutation of utilitarian libertarianism, check out this article by Tom Palmer. Here’s a taste:

all consequentialists believe in “objective morality”: for they believe in cause and effect, in observable regularity in the world…. Consequentialism rests on the belief that consequences can be observed and associated with causes and that, if one wishes to obtain good consequences or avoid bad ones, there are actions that can be taken or avoided. The system of rules or principles generated on the basis of such observed regularity is a system of “objective morality.” The alternative would be a system of arbitrary will, randomness, or magic. Consequentialists believe in objective morality just as much as do “moralists….” But consequentialism as such, i.e., always seek good consequences or the best consequences, does not tell us what the “good” or the “best” is…. The formal structure of consequentialism cannot answer the question of what is good or bad, or of for whom or to whom the consequences are to be considered good or bad. Shall we consider what is good for me, or for my friends, or for people like me, or for most people, or for everyone? And who counts as a person?