|
Deontological libertarianism
|
Deontological libertarianism (also known as rights-theorist libertarianism, natural rights libertarianism, or libertarian moralism[1]) is one of the two ethical view points supporting libertarianism, the other being the consequentialist libertarianism which emphasizes the favorable consequences of liberty.[2][3]
Deontological libertarianism considers moral tenets to be the basis of libertarian philosophy. The primary tenet is the non-aggression principle stating that no human being holds the right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another human being. Many philosophers proclaiming this theory advocate a limited government to protect individuals from any violation of their rights, and to prosecute those who initiate force against others.
However, some others, such as Murray Rothbard advocate the abolition of the state, as they see the state as being institutionalized initiation of force due to taxation. Their view of natural rights is derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. They therefore become anarchists or anarcho-capitalists.[1]
Some libertarians argue that violations of the non-aggression principle could bring the greatest liberty to the greatest number. Rothbard answered this criticism by asserting that the means shouldn't contradict the ends.[4]
Consequentialist libertarians ask "what force endowed me, and every other human being alive, with self-ownership? How does one prove or substantiate its existence?" Murray Rothbard answered this criticism by using process of elimination, whereby he showed that 100% self-ownership is the only logical position.[4] Other deontological libertarians would respond by stating that self-ownership is inherent to human physiology. The Canadian market anarchist philosopher Stefan Molyneux often presents this argument in reference to any proof surrounding the existence of self-ownership.citation needed
Some libertarians may have a conception of libertarianism that is a hybrid of consequentialism and deontology.[2]
References
|
