Some Critical Comments on Long 2013: "Why Libertarians Believe There is Only One Right"

In Explaining Libertarianism: Some Philosophical Arguments. Buckingham, England: The University of Buckingham Press. pp. 85-94 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This essay explains various significant errors, imprecisions, and omissions concerning libertarianism in Long 2013. The “right not to be aggressed against” is not, as such, the libertarian right because the ‘right to liberty’ must be that right (although not being aggressed against can charitably be interpreted as equivalent). There are non-libertarian rights, but they don’t override the right to liberty. Unsupported assumptions are inevitable because justifications are impossible. Rights should not be “defined” but, rather, morally and metaphysically theorised—with criticism permanently invited. Moral and legal permissibility need to be clearly distinguished. The conceptions of “aggression” and “force” are normative and confused. It is possible to advocate the right to liberty on no grounds whatsoever and also to conjecture that liberty (deontologically) and welfare (consequentially) are systematically compatible in practice for theoretical and causal reasons. The rejection of positive rights is “privileging” and not “conceptual”. Libertarian property needs to be derived from an explicit, non-normative, theory of libertarian liberty. Long 2013’s overall account is “mysterious” and “one-sided”.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-05-30
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Leviathan.Hobbes, Thomas

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
40 ( #42,059 of 47,273 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #36,520 of 47,273 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.