From what I understand, you offer a kind of rule-utilitarian justification for libertarian principles (i.e. libertarian rules are those that maximize aggregate welfare). Is this fair? By contrast, most libertarians go a stronger, deontic "natural rights" route. This camp tends to see your view as too soft on the possibility of state intrusion if the cost-benefit analysis works out. Do you disagree with this characterization?
This position also makes libertarianism rise or fall on an empirical hook: the actual ability for libertarian rules to maximize welfare. What's your strongest go-to empirical evidence of this claim? (I'm not convinced that consequentialism implies a libertarian social structure, but I'm open to the possibility in principle.)
And do you think it is ever justified to subordinate efficiency to the service of some other normative value (e.g. distributional effects)?
determinism11 karma
From what I understand, you offer a kind of rule-utilitarian justification for libertarian principles (i.e. libertarian rules are those that maximize aggregate welfare). Is this fair? By contrast, most libertarians go a stronger, deontic "natural rights" route. This camp tends to see your view as too soft on the possibility of state intrusion if the cost-benefit analysis works out. Do you disagree with this characterization?
This position also makes libertarianism rise or fall on an empirical hook: the actual ability for libertarian rules to maximize welfare. What's your strongest go-to empirical evidence of this claim? (I'm not convinced that consequentialism implies a libertarian social structure, but I'm open to the possibility in principle.)
And do you think it is ever justified to subordinate efficiency to the service of some other normative value (e.g. distributional effects)?
View HistoryShare Link