Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?
|
I actually encountered that one once. In a conversation I explained that my reading of basic rights is that I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. The person I said it to immediately said "So you have the right to kill someone then?"
I had to go back and repeat myself very slowly three times before it sank in. My right to do what I want doesn't supercede your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As for that text, it's true that restricting the rights of some would enhance the rights of others (i.e. the landowner vs the person who wants to walk there). As a philosophical point I see no problem there - obviously you have one or the other. The problem the author seems to be ignoring is the question of who gets to make these judgements. Of course restricting the one enhances the other, but restricting the landowners rights raises the danger of all rights of ownership. Is this an appeal for communism? The author fails to see the end of that argument. If my right to walk where I please supercedes the property rights of the landowner, does that mean I can walk into his house in the middle of the night and turn on his television? He would like answer that no, my suggestion was extreme; but to me it comes down to a question of degree, just like the "sleep with me for a million pounds/sleep with me for twenty pounds" joke.
I would say that yes, the author of the text is pushing an agenda, and claiming to be centrist while trying to prove Libertarians are on the extreme. I have no problem with someone calling someone an extremist. My problem is with the pot calling the kettle black.