Today if I agree with Alvaro Velásquez, a columnist wrote today that who think that being libertarian means only defend private property and free enterprise are wrong. Freedom has many implications and around it, the consistency between theory and practice is a moral and scientific .
Many critics of the philosophy of freedom, of classical liberalism and libertarianism (as you prefer to call it) believe that liberalism is itself a matter of economics, believe that this is only the power to use, enjoy and enjoy what is proper, and believe that it is only the possibility of undertaking. Velásquez is right to stress that freedom means much more and that consistency is needed.
agree with those who warn that the defense of the philosophy of freedom is an ethical issue, and is explained as follows: the fundamental choice that every human being is to live or die. If you choose the second option, there is nothing to discuss; but if you choose the first, take into account that human beings live is doing qua human beings. Living, then, is not only exist but to live fully. An orchid, a chicken and an amoeba exist in terms of the Greek word zoe , but human beings live in terms of the Greek word bios , because not only exist, but individuals are human beings and have circumstances teleological . And only live fully if our actions, choices and decisions are safe from arbitrary coercion of others pressure removes the individual as a thinking which has a intrinsic value and making it a mere instrument in achieving the purposes of another . Friedrich A. Hayek also is very clear in saying that freedom does not mean possession of all goods, or the absence of all evil . So freedom is a moral impertativo dignified human life, and morally good is something that does not prevent human life qua human life .
The consistency between theory and practice is also a valuable observation Velásquez. A liberal principle, classical liberal or libertarian is that, in social relations, collective interests should not prevail over individual rights . If someone says libertarian, but argues the opposite, because then it is not libertarian. It's the opposite of that that if something walks like a duck, you duck down, duck beak and makes quack like a duck, then duck. Is that if something walks like a duck, has feathers, duck, duck-billed has not and does wow, like a dog, maybe not duck.
From another perspective, another top liberal, classical liberal or libertarian is the equality of all before the law , and if it were the case someone claims to be libertarian, but considers relevant or useful a few exceptions or privileges, because then it is not libertarian. The fact is that the parties do not contradict the whole. And so, you can not criticize the liberatrianismo, or libertarians, for ideas that will not hold libertarianism, or actions that would not a libertarian.
The philosophy of freedom has enormous ethical, legal, aesthetic and economic, and so it is unfair, and intellectually dishonest "box on the right to have, or freedom of enterprise. And so it is very wise observation Alvaro Velásquez.
0 comments:
Post a Comment