You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: More Libertarian than Anarchy?
In the example of the bus, I cannot see the violation of consent, since by saving someone you haven't hurt them in the process, on the contrary.
When you talk about the elimination of the positive rights, I know where you are coming from, but you still have to convince me that human well-being is desirable. And again, same thing when it comes to taxation and redistribution of justly earned wealth.
"Consent" does not mean "not hurting." People can consent to engaging in activities that hurt one another. (E.g. BDSM or sports fighting like MMA) Suppose that the person in front of the bus is deaf and realizes that I'm trying to push them, and tells me to stop and resists, but I can't explain why I'm pushing them because they're deaf. Clearly, I don't have their consent. Or, perhaps someone took a drug that induces psychosis and wants to die, so they are trying to get hit by the bus. They don't consent to me saving them. Have I done something wrong in violating their consent to save them? I don't think so. Yes, it is okay to push them because I am not hurting them but helping them. That was my point. But it is technically an infringement upon their negative liberty.
As for "taxation and redistribution of justly earned wealth,"... I would say that I only want taxation and redistribution of UNEARNED wealth (and only part of that)...and that UNEARNED wealth is the bulk of corporate profit and capitalist/landlord wealth.