# Ethical Libertarianism



## PK1

I propose a political philosophy that emphasizes two ideals:

*1*) Complete freedom to individuals that does not negatively impact other individuals within society, and
*2*) Fairness or fair opportunities for ALL individuals.

I realize concepts of freedom & fairness are not clear-cut, and that’s why these general ideas are initially referred to as “ideals” or a starting point for “*ethical libertarianism*”.

I am very open to constructive criticism or other comments ...
.


----------



## fncceo

You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.

Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

fncceo said:


> You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.
> 
> Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.


Can you give an example?


----------



## fncceo

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.
> 
> Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example?
Click to expand...


Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'.  However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.

Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.


----------



## PK1

fncceo said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.
> 
> Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'.  However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.
> 
> Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.
Click to expand...

You have an excellent point.
My view of “individual freedom” and “fairness” among individuals is tilted toward initial equality, followed by earned equity.
Motivational development among individuals (both individual skills & respect for others) should be rewarded for the benefit of ALL.
 .


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

fncceo said:


> Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'. However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.
> 
> Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.


I think I understand the point you're making but I don't agree with it fully but only because I don't agree that an unequal outcome will be "unfair".

The dictionary defines fairness as "impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination".

If person A works harder than person B and gains more because of the effort put into their life, education and whatever goals they've set for themselves that's not unfair even though the outcomes may be unequitable.

If person C puts in no work at all or just a minimal amount but because of certain attributes or advantages they were born into (wealth, family connections like legacy programs for getting into college, nepotism, etc.) they are essentially handed everything they want and need while Persons A & B obtain only those things for which they have worked, the outcome is both inequitable and unfair (but such is life).

If person D works just as hard as person A but no matter how hard he works he can't make headway because of individuals undermining his efforts by violating certain laws prohibiting discrimination or other workplace regulations, etc. that's neither fair or equitable.

If person E has a disability however is able to work but only in a limited capacity, is it unfair to make accomodations in order to provide him/her with the same opportunity to be a productive member of society same as everyone else?

Etc. etc.

I like your illustration though


----------



## Tehon

fncceo said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.
> 
> Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'.  However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.
> 
> Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.
Click to expand...

In order to create a level playing field for all we should necessarily outlaw inheritance. Only then can we take appeals to fairness of opportunity seriously.


----------



## Windparadox

PK1 said:


> I propose a political philosophy that emphasizes two ideals:
> *1*) Complete freedom to individuals that does not negatively impact other individuals within society, and
> *2*) Fairness or fair opportunities for ALL individuals.
> I realize concepts of freedom & fairness are not clear-cut, and that’s why these general ideas are initially referred to as “ideals” or a starting point for “*ethical libertarianism*”.I am very open to constructive criticism or other comments .


`
Theoretically, we should already have #1, which is liberty. The U.S. Constitution allows for Civil Liberties. The Supreme Court decides many cases on a western legal axiom; balancing between the freedom for a person to do as they please VS any possible harm that freedom may cause. 

#2 will be a tough nut to crack, as already mentioned here. I adhere to the "*Justice as Fairness*" theory as proposed in an essay by John Rawls, to wit;

"Rawls arranges the principles in 'lexical priority', prioritizing in the order of the Liberty Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. This order determines the priorities of the principles if they conflict in practice. The principles are, however, intended as a single, comprehensive conception of justice—'Justice as Fairness'—and not to function individually. These principles are always applied so as to ensure that the "least advantaged" are benefited and not hurt or forgotten." - *Source*,​`


----------



## Tehon

PK1 said:


> I propose a political philosophy that emphasizes two ideals:
> 
> *1*) Complete freedom to individuals that does not negatively impact other individuals within society, and
> *2*) Fairness or fair opportunities for ALL individuals.
> 
> I realize concepts of freedom & fairness are not clear-cut, and that’s why these general ideas are initially referred to as “ideals” or a starting point for “*ethical libertarianism*”.
> 
> I am very open to constructive criticism or other comments ...
> .


I can save you a lot of trouble since it has already been worked out. 

Marxists Internet Archive

You're welcome.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Dang. How did I not see this thread. Good thread.


----------



## Slade3200

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'. However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.
> 
> Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand the point you're making but I don't agree with it fully but only because I don't agree that an unequal outcome will be "unfair".
> 
> The dictionary defines fairness as "impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination".
> 
> If person A works harder than person B and gains more because of the effort put into their life, education and whatever goals they've set for themselves that's not unfair even though the outcomes may be unequitable.
> 
> If person C puts in no work at all or just a minimal amount but because of certain attributes or advantages they were born into (wealth, family connections like legacy programs for getting into college, nepotism, etc.) they are essentially handed everything they want and need while Persons A & B obtain only those things for which they have worked, the outcome is both inequitable and unfair (but such is life).
> 
> If person D works just as hard as person A but no matter how hard he works he can't make headway because of individuals undermining his efforts by violating certain laws prohibiting discrimination or other workplace regulations, etc. that's neither fair or equitable.
> 
> If person E has a disability however is able to work but only in a limited capacity, is it unfair to make accomodations in order to provide him/her with the same opportunity to be a productive member of society same as everyone else?
> 
> Etc. etc.
> 
> I like your illustration though
Click to expand...

Are you a golfer? If so, how do you feel about the handicap system?


----------



## JWBooth

PK1 said:


> I propose a political philosophy that emphasizes two ideals:
> 
> *1*) Complete freedom to individuals that does not negatively impact other individuals within society, and
> *2*) Fairness or fair opportunities for ALL individuals.
> 
> I realize concepts of freedom & fairness are not clear-cut, and that’s why these general ideas are initially referred to as “ideals” or a starting point for “*ethical libertarianism*”.
> 
> I am very open to constructive criticism or other comments ...
> .


As long as it doesn’t violate the NAP, go for it


----------



## denmark

PK1 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to change many people's definition of fairness.  The traditional meaning of fairness means fairness of opportunity.  The modern version is fairness of outcome.
> 
> Any attempt to enforce fairness of outcome will lead inevitably to unfairness into society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traditional fairness consists of a 'level playing field for everyone'.  However, since everyone isn't born/nurtured with equal abilities to succeed, the outcome will be unfair.
> 
> Modern notions of fairness dictates that the outcome be equitable, which mandates an unequal distribution of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have an excellent point.
> My view of “individual freedom” and “fairness” among individuals is tilted toward initial equality, followed by earned equity.
> Motivational development among individuals (both individual skills & respect for others) should be rewarded for the benefit of ALL.
> .
Click to expand...

This seems to reflect the “Golden Rule”.
Unfortunately, it’s an ideal that many egotistical or unempathic people don’t have.
However, it that not what social laws (government) are for, to serve ALL the people?


----------



## DustyInfinity

I always find it odd that it is hard to sell the concept of equal opportunity and personal liberty.  Someone always screams anarchy and what about the roads, lol.


----------



## JWBooth

mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, covet not your neighbor’s spouse or possessions

pretty simple


----------



## Slade3200

DustyInfinity said:


> I always find it odd that it is hard to sell the concept of equal opportunity and personal liberty.  Someone always screams anarchy and what about the roads, lol.


In what way are you trying to sell the personal liberty argument?


----------



## DustyInfinity

That's a good question.  I am obviously not doing it right.  Seems to me that control should be local, by state, and then national in that order with very little overlapping and waste.  I think people should provide for themselves whenever possible, and not look to the government as a provider.  Nothing fancy, just a common view of small government and an empowered people.


----------



## JWBooth

Taxation _IS _theft


----------



## Oddball




----------

