This is part of my “Vlogs” playlist.
The video is part of the “Vlogs” playlist.
I hope to have worked out the audio quirks.
I believe the video medium is more impactful than text or simply audio, and I thought this would be fun. I’ll be uploading content regularly, and I have a couple of other videos up already at my channel.
Utilitarianism cares only about the consequences of institutions, not the intentions of their designers and participants. If a law intended to help the poor actually harms them, utilitarianism would oppose it. On the other hand, if self-interested activity serves the public interest via the invisible hand of the market, utilitarianism would support it.
— Chris Freiman, “Bleeding Heart Utilitarian Libertarianism”
On the surface this seems sound, but even if utility were countable (and it’s not), who would be doing the counting? And while the counting is taking place, should people’s intentions presumed to be correct? Someone might say that a certain policy like immigration controls (perhaps because relevant circumstances have changed) will yield the greatest utility over the span of the next decade, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to in principle oppose it in the interim.
But, as soon as you institute a ‘State,’ an organization whose agents assume control over a particular territory and over the lives of the people within the territory, no matter how ‘limited’ that State organization, what about those people within that territory who disagree with that organization’s control or monopoly of various ‘services,’ or its method of collecting payments for such ‘services’?
— Scott Lazarowitz, “True Libertarianism is Principled and Can’t Be Compromised”
I would turn the question back around. What of people who fundamentally reject the predominant organizations providing rights enforcement in a stateless society? Would the author support coercively pre-empting the enforcement of Marxist conceptions of rights, property, and freedom? If so, how can the author necessarily reject the notion of the state yet support non-state organizations excluding the enforcement of rules of conduct that don’t conform to the prevailing view. With respect to the hypothetical Marxist, wouldn’t that be monopolizing?