| | First Point:
Liberty, in the sense of freedom of action, is essential any action to be constitutive of eudaimonia (human flourishing, human well-being, survival of man qua man, etc.), and thus to be considered good. A choice that is forced on a person by another person cannot be considered that person's choice, whether or not that would have been their choice anyway. A person therefore has a right to defense of their liberty, life, and property. Thus, others ought to respect our freedom of action, as it insures the possibility of their eudaimonia.
Second Point:
Also, the various virtues are constitutive of eudaimonia. One of those virtues is justice, the properly human (ie; rational) attitude and habit towards physical violence. Discovering what that attitude consists of is the role of natural law. The fact that humans rely on reason to change the resources around them into various goods used to insure survival leads to the natural right to "homestead" unowned property. Mixing one's labor with something unowned makes it, in one sense, a part of yourself. The right to self-defense therefore also applies to one's justly aquired (homesteaded, gifted, or traded) property: anyone who attempts to use your property without your permission is using aggression against you. A person that uses aggressive force against another is trading a more human life for a less human one. Thus, we ought to respect the rights of others, as it insures the possibility of our eudaimonia.
How It All Ties Together:
Using aggressive force ultimately harms both yourself and the person you are aggressing against. The state, a coercive monopoly of the "legitamite" use of force, is inherently aggressive, even Rand's ultra-minimal state. Law does not require a "final arbiter" (this is an example of Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox), for who judges the final judge? Thus, a stateless society is morally superior to a state.
Any comments? :-)
|
|
