sc94597 on 11 April 2014
| Mr Khan said: "Because of the potential to harm others?" That's it in a nutshell. Society determines which are public goods and public bads, and activities that have shown a tendency to create public bads ought to be regulated. There can be no absolute which says that non-aggression alone absolves individuals of their responsibility to society, because unintended consequences are abundant, and if society can head off these unintended consequences before they occur, so much the better. Absolute liberty (even keeping the non-aggression principle in place) does not lead to absolute happiness, and finding the balance between individual good and public good is an eternally ongoing process, but one that we should not shirk in the name of absolutes. |
And the potential good that might arise from that freedom? Is that irrelevant? What about the positive externalities? How does society calculate what is good and bad? I think this balance is found by spontaneous order, not by central democratic planning.
I don't believe in "absolute happiness", there will always be other emotions. That is human nature.
