There is some discussion of libertarianism at the Crunchy Con blog, which refers to this essay by Joe Carter over at Culture11. John Schwenkler also comments.
It seems to me that libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism--how much does it diverge from it? Libertarianism provides limits on government, and some basis for those limits, epistemological (some sort of skepticism or agnosticism about the human good) and ethical (respect for freedom or rights). The question is whether that basis is legitimate and acceptable in itself, or if it is an unreasonable imposition.
I was thinking a little bit about the right to privacy tonight. Some have appealed to a supposed 'right to privacy' in order to strike down laws making certain behaviors illegal and so on. It seems to me that the permitting of some actions (or the imposition of certain restraints on law and government authority) can have a different and valid justification in law. For those who believe in a right to privacy, we should ask: Does the right to privacy rely upon a distinction between private and public spheres? Is it defined only by the rights it engenders, or the actions it protects or justifies? How is it distinguished from subsidiarity (or some other principle) or the protection of a proper individual autonomy (which again, can be defined through the possession of other rights)?
As for depriving one of liberty without due process--apparently this has been understood as being applicable to both punishment and legislation. (It would seem that the 14th Amendment originally written to cover both.) What sort of legal philosophy is underpinning the 14th Amendment?
No comments:
Post a Comment