[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]

Tibor Machan, "Does Libertarianism Imply the Welfare State?", Res Publica III/2 (1997), 131-148: Classical liberal or libertarian polity champions negative liberty as the primary public good, yet some - most notably James P. Sterba - have argued that this is misleading. In fact, it is maintained, since negative liberty is defended on grounds that it serves the purpose of enabling citizens - by ridding them of intentional coercion by others - to pursue their flourishing or happiness, if they are economically or otherwise incapable of acting for this goal, such negative liberty is of no value to them. Thus before they can be expected to reasonably defend negative liberty, they require, also, a measure of positive freedom - i.e., some provisions that will enable them to take advantage of such negative liberty. In the present essay Tibor Machan examines the more recent development of this argument and argues that it is flawed because it confuses a moral point that is sound - namely, that in emergency situations taking provisions from another may bee the right thing to do - with a political point that is unsound - namely, having the basic right to taking provisions from others. The reasoning invoked to move from the moral to the political is, Machan argues, invalid. So, in fact, classical liberalism or libertarianism does not lend support to the welfare state. e-mail: Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com

[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]