Comments on: Mythbuster: Libertarianism and Unchosen Obligations

By: Mythbuster: Libertarianism and Unchosen Obligations — Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Mythbuster: Libertarianism and Unchosen Obligations — Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:18:52 +0000

[...] Cross-posted at The Libertarian Standard. [...]

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:27:10 +0000

Callahan clarified in the comment section of Roderick’s blogpost that he only meant unchosen, enforceable positive obligations. But the clarification only makes it more difficult to understand what the big deal is. Roderick, Richard Garner, and I have some good responses to Callahan’s example of feeding children in the comment section of Roderick’s post.

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:49:28 +0000

Stephan,

Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was disagreeing with Wirkman’s criticism of libertarianism with regard to children and his suggestion of a basic right to sustenance (with a corresponding unchosen, enforceable positive obligation). Seems to open the door to at least a minimal welfare state. And as you say, it is unnecessary in order for libertarianism to adequately deal with parental obligations to children.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:11:36 +0000

Geoff, you don’t think parents have obligations to their children? I think it’s not unchosen–children with rights and dependencies arise from voluntary behavior. Are you saying Aristotelean ethics is inconsistent with duties to one’s children?

By: Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:02:44 +0000

Thanks Wirkman.

The quoted Walsh argument sinks into a sort of weird mysticism that would prevent any rational disentangling of the generally agreed-upon obligations one grows up with.

I agree.

I don’t agree with your assessment of libertarianism with regard to children though. But then, I come at the right to liberty from the direction of Aristotelian virtue ethics

By the way, Roderick Long has weighed in on Callahan’s post as well.

By: Wirkman Virkkala

Wirkman Virkkala — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:59:42 +0000

I referenced your first argument on my critique of Callahan, on Wirkman Netizen. Though I rake Callahan and his admired Walsh through more coals than did you, I may have more areas of substantive agreement with him than you and Stephan. Still, there’s something quite dangerous in his attack on libertarianism. The quoted Walsh argument sinks into a sort of weird mysticism that would prevent any rational disentangling of the generally agreed-upon obligations one grows up with.

By: Geoffrey Plauche

Geoffrey Plauche — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:52:27 +0000

RT @libstandard: New blogpost: The Libertarian Standard » Mythbuster: Libertarianism and Unchosen Obligations | http://bit.ly/93FsaM

By: Geoffrey Plauche

Geoffrey Plauche — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:52:27 +0000

RT @libstandard: New blogpost: The Libertarian Standard » Mythbuster: Libertarianism and Unchosen Obligations | http://bit.ly/93FsaM

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:51:29 +0000

Excellent post. Re positive obligations, I discuss this in “How We Come To Own Ourselves.” Libertarians deny that there are enforceable, positive obligations that are “unchosen”. But committing a crime or tort gives rise to positive obligations that result from voluntary action. If you push someone in a lake who cannot swim, you have an obligation to rescue. And arguably if you procreate and bring a child into the world, you incur positive obligations to the child. But these are not “unchosen.”

Moreover it is not incompatible with libertarianism to argue for unchosen (but unenforceable) positive obligations, such as the obligation to be charitable or polite or a good son.