Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!grkermit!chris
From: chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights and Morality
Message-ID: <455@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jun-83 17:18:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.455
Posted: Mon Jun 27 17:18:26 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jun-83 01:47:04 EDT
References: <212@houxa.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 15

Tom Craver's objection (If I may be allowed to assume he holds the common
libertarian view) to a moral standard based on the "common good" is simply
that the "common good" is an ill-defined concept.  The only ways I've ever
seen it defined is either as whatever the majority votes for or as "I say
[or everybody knows] that [this proposal I favor] is for the common good."
The request that you use a basis other than the common good mostly means
that you should be more specific than either of these styles of argument.

The Libertarian argument for government begins with an argument for
individual rights.  These rights are [claimed to be] necessary in order for
an individual to be able to work productively and be able to count on being
able to enjoy the benefits of the labor.  That claim is what you need to
argue about in order to convince libertarians that their concept of a just
government is incomplete or bad in some other way.