Wednesday, May 18, 2016

A Criticism of World Peace or of Government?

If we had world peace, who would build the roads?

One should be in favor of anarchy or a critic of world peace. I see no third way. Government has to use violence to exist. Taxation may not be theft, but violence is how it makes sure tax money keeps coming in. There's nothing peaceful about that.

If you flipped a switch and got world peace right now, there would be virtually no revenue for which to build roads, and there would be no mechanism for enforcing minimum wage. It's not like world peace changes people such that they voluntarily contribute money for social projects.

Rights based libertarians have adopted a deontological view of liberty. To take away someone's liberty is wrong. We should all have all the liberty and never have it taken away. Not all sin is the taking away of liberty (libertinism), but any taking away of liberty is sin (libertarianism).

I wonder if libertarians grasped for the wrong moral principle, and if liberty doesn't resonate with non-libertarians as well as the ideal of peace. If someone asks why you're a libertarian, and you say liberty, they might well roll their eyes. But if someone asks why you're a libertarian and you say, it's the only way we can have peace, they may respect that a little more.

Thinking of Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations, Care is a moral foundation that resonates across the political spectrum, while liberty was so prevalent that Haidt only added it as an afterthought. So if libertarians connected up their ideology with the care foundation through peace, which logically it is connected up with, it may be rhetorically more persuasive.