[lit-ideas] Re: Food for thought
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:12:41 +0700
Walter O. wrote:
"A more general ethical and political question this issue raises is
whether the liberal state has a right (obligation?) to prevent people
from knowingly inflicting harm upon themselves. Is negative freedom
really all that a liberal state should be guided by in legislating
law? Or is the establishment and enforcement of conditions required
for a virtuous, healthy and prosperous life also within the legitimate
mandate of the state?"
It seems to me that a functioning liberal democratic state requires
'the establishment and enforcement of conditions required for a
virtuous, healthy and prosperous life', and so cannot only legislate
negative freedoms. At a certain point, economic and social
inequalities necessarily create political inequalities, which in turn
undermine democratic practices. It is, therefore, in the interests of
the liberal democratic state to establish a social safety net that,
for example, provides for the unemployed and educates all citizens.
Put differently, in order to establish the political conditions of
citizens who are free and equal, the state may legislate positive
rights.
However, it seems to me that there is a difference between legislating
rights that have as their purpose the establishment of the conditions
for a well-functioning liberal democracy, and legislating rights that
aim towards establishing the conditions for particular forms of a
virtuous, healthy and prosperous life. Smoking may prove to be an
unacceptable financial burden on providing universal healthcare, and
taxed accordingly, but it would be illiberal to use the state as a
means for getting people to stop smoking. Racism obviously undermines
the liberal political principle of 'free and fair', but it would be
illiberal to use the state as a means for producing acceptable
beliefs. Laws regarding 'hate crimes' strike me as illiberal attempts
to use the coercive powers of the state to punish people for holding
particular beliefs, as opposed to the simple crimes they commit.
Admittedly, high rates of tax on cigarettes and restrictions on racist
speech in public forums have similar effects to punishing smokers and
racists, but the goal of a liberal democracy should not be to stop
people from smoking or holding racist beliefs. Rather, the goal ought
to be one of establishing the conditions necessary for a virtuous,
healthy and prosperous life, all the while keeping the details of such
a life limited to what is minimally acceptable.
So, my answers to Walter's list are for the liberal democratic state
to tax gambling, alcohol, cigarettes and snack foods, provide medical
services to anyone in need, including the obese and medically
negligent, be proud that parents can opt out of educational programs
that they consider objectionable, and avoid at all costs any talk of
the state having rights concerning the minds and bodies of citizens.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
