Post by Gelare on Nov 18, 2007 13:38:43 GMT -5
Libertarianism
"With liberty and more liberty for all."
Welcome, students, to the first lesson of Philosophy 101 – Survey of Moral and Political Philosophy. My name is Gelare, and you probably all know me as the Dean of the Royal Academy of Uantir, but I am also the professor for this class. If any of you have further questions for me, or want to discuss the material I'm going to present further, please use the associated discussion thread for this lecture. With that out of the way, let's get started with the lesson.
The Bare Bones
"I've got the only right I need."
Libertarianism is one of the easier schools of philosophical thought to understand, which is why I've chosen it for the first topic. To start with, you should observe the following: government sucks. You should find this fairly obvious. They take your money without your consent, and they spend it on wasteful projects catering to special interest groups that seem like they could have been better designed by a five-year old. I won't harp on this point for too long, since everyone has their own gripes with their government. But complaints are different from injustices. Let's see if we can get from point A to B.
Libertarians tend to be interested in one, basic, primary right. This is usually something like a right to property, which says that people are and ought to be the sole masters of their property – and yes, my life is my property. By what authority can some government bureaucrat tell me how to live my life or spend my money? It's absurd! It's my stuff – it belongs to me, not somebody else, and I'm the one who gets to choose what I do with it. We human beings are blessed with this ability to make choices for ourselves, and no one should be allowed to take away our right to exercise our free will!
Some might find this point suspect, so let's provide an example to show there's no artifice here.
The Baker, the Tailor, and the Boomstick Maker
"Say hello to my little friend."
Let's say there's this world with one baker and one tailor. The baker has his bread and the tailor has his clothes. However, the tailor does not have any bread, and as it turns out, the baker has some spare. So the tailor asks the baker for some bread, please. The baker has three options at this point:
1) Give the tailor some bread out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nothing in return (charity).
2) Give the tailor some bread in return for some clothes (free market).
3) Don't give the tailor any bread.
In the third case, the tailor will starve and die, which is bad, obviously. But now we'll throw in a third person, who we'll call the taxman. The taxman doesn't make any products per se, but he does have this nifty contraption we'll call a gun, with which he can enforce the peace. In this case, option 3 turns to this:
3*) Don't give the tailor any bread. The taxman comes and takes the baker's bread and gives it to the tailor.
This redistribution of wealth is the basis for tax systems throughout the world. But note what happened here: the taxman took the baker's bread – his bread, that he made, spending hours of his time doing so. If it had been just the baker and the tailor, and the tailor beat up the baker and stole his bread, there would be no doubt in our mind as to the moral status of these two men: the baker was wronged, because the tailor took his property. But suddenly we have the taxman take the bread away, and all of a sudden it becomes okay for him to steal the baker's property instead? That's completely absurd, and more important, it's a violation of the baker's right to property.
We're going to change the example a bit further, now. Instead of a tailor, we have a cripple. The cripple cannot produce any goods for trade, and thus the option 2, the free market, is no longer available. The baker still has his right to property, and can choose either charity or can deny the cripple bread. It would no doubt be morally good of the baker to give some of his bread as charity, but we cannot require it of him – it's still his bread and his alone, and if he doesn't want to give it up we can say mean things about him behind his back, but we can't do anything about it. In this case, would it be justified for the taxman to come in and redistribute the bread?
The same rights violation takes place in both cases, and we cannot say that the cripple has a right to the bread, any more than the tailor did, because for the cripple or the tailor to have a right to the bread, they must accordingly have the right to take it from the baker. The right to have something, which necessarily involves taking that something from somebody, is called a positive right. In libertarianism, no one has these. Instead, the entirety of moral space is composed of negative rights, i.e. the right to live your life according to your own choice and not be messed with. A negative right is so called because in order for it to be fulfilled, somebody just has to not do something, like not take your bread. A positive right requires somebody to do something, such as make bread for you to take. Positive rights necessarily infringe on the right to property, and so the libertarian will say that, no, the taxman cannot come and give the baker's bread to the cripple, even if this means the cripple will starve. The right to property is inviolable.
Living in the Free World
"I'll give you a sheep for two chickens."
So we've seen that libertarianism has some very attractive points: namely, the government gets the (bad word) out of our business and our money, and we can live life however we like. However, it has also made us feel a little uncomfortable. If we can't make the baker give us his bread, how do we get to eat? How does stuff even happen in a libertarian society? Adam Smith fans rejoice: we're taking this one to the marketplace.
We each have the right to do whatever we like with our property, and so we can sell that property to others if we so choose. In fact, there are a lot of good reasons for us to do so: I can get a lot of use out of a loaf of bread, but I can't turn it into clothes. What I can do, though, is trade that loaf of bread for clothes. There are actually a lot of reasons why trade is good, but the obvious answer is this: trade wouldn't happen if both parties didn't think they'd be better off after the exchange than before. (For more on this, I encourage you to check out my upcoming course on economic theory.) Of course, we all know that trade does happen, to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars each year all across the world.
In fact, a free marketplace is the most efficient way of making people happy that we can think of. Every trade that happens makes people better off, and with everyone acting in their own self-interest, the net result is that everyone is better off. Even better, if you want to buy more things, you'll work smarter or harder or longer to get the money to trade for it, so the free market actually has incentives for people to produce as much as possible, and the more stuff there is, the better off people are – prices go down and standard of living goes up. It's quite marvelous, really. For all these reasons and more, libertarians advocate a free market, one mostly free of government intervention, so that people can voice their opinions on what should be done with their money by the way they buy things. If people want cars, producers will supply them. If people want electricity, firms will build power plants. The invisible hand of the market will make sure people get what they want – and they don't need no stinking government to do it for them, and waste money in the meantime.
There is one exception, though, to the Libertarianism embargo on government. See, there's one thing every country needs that the market can't easily provide.
War and Peace
"Monty, some strange men are here. They say they come from a place called Spain, and they carry such interesting things with them."
Granted, if I trade you some bread for some clothes, we're both better off. But if I beat you up and take the clothes, I'm better off still! Another reason why trade takes place, aside from both parties being better off, is that both parties aren't sure they'd win the resulting conflict of arms if they tried to take the stuff by force. As it turns out, very often people do take stuff by force, and when entire countries do that it's called war.
Now, before we go any farther, we need to see why defense can't also be provided by the marketplace. There's certainly an incentive for every person to be reasonably trained in use of firearms – isn't that enough? Everyone can protect their own homes, and this way, in the aggregate, the whole country is defended. Well, that doesn't work so well. If I come in with my invading force and take Johnny's house, I only encounter one person as resistance – easy as pie for my soldiers to dispose of. I can then systematically move to each house in the neighborhood, killing one person per home, and expanding my empire at a prodigious rate.
Well, people are going to realize this (probably after the first time it happens), and they'll band together. They'll make local militia forces that band together to defend the homes of everyone in their community, or they'll hire a private security firm to protect their neighborhood. My invading force is going to be stopped in its tracks.
Until I use missiles.
Public Goods and Bads
"I really hate that guy. That guy, right there. Let's blow up his house, just his."
Let's say most of a town has bought into a contract with a security force to defend them, but one guy hasn't. I then send a missile at the house of this one guy. The collateral damage is going to blow up large portions of the town. The security personnel have to stop my missile, even though it's going at the guy who doesn't have a contract with them. It turns out that defense is a public good, one that can't be efficiently provided or allocated on a person-by-person basis, and one that can't be easily denied to people who don't buy into it. Other, more easily recognizable public goods include grazing fields in the olden days and air nowadays. Companies spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, but everyone has to live with the consequences. (For more on this, check out my upcoming economics class.)
However, while consumers can voice their preferences in the market by not buying the goods of companies that pollute like there's no tomorrow, they can't really do the same with security, since you can't tell the invading Mongol horde to bugger off by not buying their stuff. In this case, the service is, "Not stabbing you in the face," and the method of buying it is by hiring security guys to stab them in the face first and with greater violence. The crux of the matter is, people band together into countries for protection, and so a libertarian nation needs a national defense force. Libertarians are fine with this, as providing security creates an environment in which one can best exercise one's autonomy, and depending on hardcore the libertarian is, he or she might throw in a police force and a legal system for dealing with fraud and other things that can mess up the free market.
Still, you'll find a lot less malice toward a government that only spends money to protect its citizens than you will toward a government that taxes the hell out of people to build a bridge to nowhere. Libertarians don't say no government, they say as little government as possible, a night watchman government. Apart from maintaining the sovereignty of people as masters of their own lives and property, there's also the side benefit of the fact that the less tax there is, the faster a country will grow, increasing standard of living along with it. Libertarianism is simple, elegant, and appealing, and virtually nonexistent in governments today. After all, who is going to say, "You know, I think my department really has enough money, let's not ask for more so we can save a bunch of people we don't even know a couple bucks." Yet it is considerably more popular among philosophers like Engelhardt, Sade, and Lomasky, politicians like Ron Paul (which may explain his impressive fundraising numbers), disaffected college students, and such notable personages as Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson.
Falling Through the Cracks
"I can't offer you this chemotherapy, as it's a bit out of your price range. How about a hearty handshake and a pat on that back instead?"
But this is a philosophy class, and we're not done yet. We've left someone behind: the cripple in the earlier examples. When last we saw him, he had been hung out to dry by the free market, since he had no skills of his own with which to contribute, and if we don't do something, he, like millions of people each year, will starve to death. What does libertarianism offer us as a solution?
1) Charity can come from the marketplace. The reason why companies raise money for causes isn't so that their executives can have a warm, fuzzy feeling, it's so that they can slap a pink ribbon on their product and shout, "Look at us, we're being socially responsible!" In doing so, they drive up sales, and everybody wins. Without government mucking things up, companies would actually compete to see who could be the most charitable.
2) Altruism has value. When you toss a dollar bill in the Salvation Army's pail, you actually do get a warm fuzzy feeling from the knowledge that you've done good in the world, the person ringing the bell thanking you for your generous contribution, blah blah blah – the point is, people today do give away chunks of their money for worthy causes simply because they like to, and that's great. No one's right to property has been violated – people are choosing to donate, rather than being taxed – and everybody wins. In this case, the trade taking place is your dollars for their fuzzies. How sweet.
3) Get a job, ya bum. Apart from the fact that an economy without three trillion dollars of government intervention gumming up the works will more efficiently direct itself to full employment, we live in a global age where you can always just take a ride in a plane, train, or automobile and go somewhere else where there is work. Few people are truly so lacking in ability as to be unable to find any employment. Quit complaining and do something about it.
Don't Mess With Me
"I'll take a Big Mac, a large fries, and two hookers to go, please."
Up until now I've focused on the political aspects of libertarianism, mainly because it's more interesting to discuss and less likely to devolve into a name-calling match. But while we're here, we should give the moral side of it a look too, so here we go.
The right to property means you get to choose what you do with your life, your body, and your stuff, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to property. But free trade reigns supreme here, so what does that mean? Well, it means you can sell your body, literally and figuratively. Prostitution is totally fine, as is selling your kidney to buy that big-screen TV you've been looking at. Drugs are no problem, which means smoking marijuana is quite legal. The same goes for alcohol (no more danger of prohibition), cigarettes, caffeine (and let me be the first to say, thank goodness for that drug), LSD, cocaine, and heroin. Designer babies would be all the rage, gay marriage is fine, snake marriage is fine, marriage of a man to his bicycle is fine (and really, mazal tov to them, I'm sure they'll make a lovely couple).
Some students will have more or fewer problems with the above list, and that's fine, I just want to clarify what libertarianism as a moral philosophy entails. It may well be that you have no problem with it at all, in which case we've found you a philosophy. Take note, this isn't anarchy, though. Violent crime will still get your behind handed to you by the night watchman state, since it does interfere with other peoples' rights to do what they like with themselves. Same goes for things like drunk driving and smoking in some public places, as well as theft and fraud, which interfere with the all-important marketplace. Little government doesn't mean no government, and few laws doesn't mean lawless.
The End of All Things
"One thousand four hundred and nine dollars I don't have to give to Uncle Sam, one thousand four hundred and ten dollars I don't have to give to Uncle Sam…"
The U.S. federal budget is around 3 trillion dollars, but a night watchman state could easily survive on less than a third of that. Congratulations, your taxes just went down by 70% just by being a libertarian. But there are some thorns and knots that come along with this view, and dealing with them while still maintaining the all-important right to property may be tough. What do you think, students? Is libertarianism right up your alley, or does something about this not sit right with you? Take it to the class discussion thread. I'll see you all next class, when we discuss the accountant's dream, utilitarianism!
"With liberty and more liberty for all."
Welcome, students, to the first lesson of Philosophy 101 – Survey of Moral and Political Philosophy. My name is Gelare, and you probably all know me as the Dean of the Royal Academy of Uantir, but I am also the professor for this class. If any of you have further questions for me, or want to discuss the material I'm going to present further, please use the associated discussion thread for this lecture. With that out of the way, let's get started with the lesson.
The Bare Bones
"I've got the only right I need."
Libertarianism is one of the easier schools of philosophical thought to understand, which is why I've chosen it for the first topic. To start with, you should observe the following: government sucks. You should find this fairly obvious. They take your money without your consent, and they spend it on wasteful projects catering to special interest groups that seem like they could have been better designed by a five-year old. I won't harp on this point for too long, since everyone has their own gripes with their government. But complaints are different from injustices. Let's see if we can get from point A to B.
Libertarians tend to be interested in one, basic, primary right. This is usually something like a right to property, which says that people are and ought to be the sole masters of their property – and yes, my life is my property. By what authority can some government bureaucrat tell me how to live my life or spend my money? It's absurd! It's my stuff – it belongs to me, not somebody else, and I'm the one who gets to choose what I do with it. We human beings are blessed with this ability to make choices for ourselves, and no one should be allowed to take away our right to exercise our free will!
Some might find this point suspect, so let's provide an example to show there's no artifice here.
The Baker, the Tailor, and the Boomstick Maker
"Say hello to my little friend."
Let's say there's this world with one baker and one tailor. The baker has his bread and the tailor has his clothes. However, the tailor does not have any bread, and as it turns out, the baker has some spare. So the tailor asks the baker for some bread, please. The baker has three options at this point:
1) Give the tailor some bread out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nothing in return (charity).
2) Give the tailor some bread in return for some clothes (free market).
3) Don't give the tailor any bread.
In the third case, the tailor will starve and die, which is bad, obviously. But now we'll throw in a third person, who we'll call the taxman. The taxman doesn't make any products per se, but he does have this nifty contraption we'll call a gun, with which he can enforce the peace. In this case, option 3 turns to this:
3*) Don't give the tailor any bread. The taxman comes and takes the baker's bread and gives it to the tailor.
This redistribution of wealth is the basis for tax systems throughout the world. But note what happened here: the taxman took the baker's bread – his bread, that he made, spending hours of his time doing so. If it had been just the baker and the tailor, and the tailor beat up the baker and stole his bread, there would be no doubt in our mind as to the moral status of these two men: the baker was wronged, because the tailor took his property. But suddenly we have the taxman take the bread away, and all of a sudden it becomes okay for him to steal the baker's property instead? That's completely absurd, and more important, it's a violation of the baker's right to property.
We're going to change the example a bit further, now. Instead of a tailor, we have a cripple. The cripple cannot produce any goods for trade, and thus the option 2, the free market, is no longer available. The baker still has his right to property, and can choose either charity or can deny the cripple bread. It would no doubt be morally good of the baker to give some of his bread as charity, but we cannot require it of him – it's still his bread and his alone, and if he doesn't want to give it up we can say mean things about him behind his back, but we can't do anything about it. In this case, would it be justified for the taxman to come in and redistribute the bread?
The same rights violation takes place in both cases, and we cannot say that the cripple has a right to the bread, any more than the tailor did, because for the cripple or the tailor to have a right to the bread, they must accordingly have the right to take it from the baker. The right to have something, which necessarily involves taking that something from somebody, is called a positive right. In libertarianism, no one has these. Instead, the entirety of moral space is composed of negative rights, i.e. the right to live your life according to your own choice and not be messed with. A negative right is so called because in order for it to be fulfilled, somebody just has to not do something, like not take your bread. A positive right requires somebody to do something, such as make bread for you to take. Positive rights necessarily infringe on the right to property, and so the libertarian will say that, no, the taxman cannot come and give the baker's bread to the cripple, even if this means the cripple will starve. The right to property is inviolable.
Living in the Free World
"I'll give you a sheep for two chickens."
So we've seen that libertarianism has some very attractive points: namely, the government gets the (bad word) out of our business and our money, and we can live life however we like. However, it has also made us feel a little uncomfortable. If we can't make the baker give us his bread, how do we get to eat? How does stuff even happen in a libertarian society? Adam Smith fans rejoice: we're taking this one to the marketplace.
We each have the right to do whatever we like with our property, and so we can sell that property to others if we so choose. In fact, there are a lot of good reasons for us to do so: I can get a lot of use out of a loaf of bread, but I can't turn it into clothes. What I can do, though, is trade that loaf of bread for clothes. There are actually a lot of reasons why trade is good, but the obvious answer is this: trade wouldn't happen if both parties didn't think they'd be better off after the exchange than before. (For more on this, I encourage you to check out my upcoming course on economic theory.) Of course, we all know that trade does happen, to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars each year all across the world.
In fact, a free marketplace is the most efficient way of making people happy that we can think of. Every trade that happens makes people better off, and with everyone acting in their own self-interest, the net result is that everyone is better off. Even better, if you want to buy more things, you'll work smarter or harder or longer to get the money to trade for it, so the free market actually has incentives for people to produce as much as possible, and the more stuff there is, the better off people are – prices go down and standard of living goes up. It's quite marvelous, really. For all these reasons and more, libertarians advocate a free market, one mostly free of government intervention, so that people can voice their opinions on what should be done with their money by the way they buy things. If people want cars, producers will supply them. If people want electricity, firms will build power plants. The invisible hand of the market will make sure people get what they want – and they don't need no stinking government to do it for them, and waste money in the meantime.
There is one exception, though, to the Libertarianism embargo on government. See, there's one thing every country needs that the market can't easily provide.
War and Peace
"Monty, some strange men are here. They say they come from a place called Spain, and they carry such interesting things with them."
Granted, if I trade you some bread for some clothes, we're both better off. But if I beat you up and take the clothes, I'm better off still! Another reason why trade takes place, aside from both parties being better off, is that both parties aren't sure they'd win the resulting conflict of arms if they tried to take the stuff by force. As it turns out, very often people do take stuff by force, and when entire countries do that it's called war.
Now, before we go any farther, we need to see why defense can't also be provided by the marketplace. There's certainly an incentive for every person to be reasonably trained in use of firearms – isn't that enough? Everyone can protect their own homes, and this way, in the aggregate, the whole country is defended. Well, that doesn't work so well. If I come in with my invading force and take Johnny's house, I only encounter one person as resistance – easy as pie for my soldiers to dispose of. I can then systematically move to each house in the neighborhood, killing one person per home, and expanding my empire at a prodigious rate.
Well, people are going to realize this (probably after the first time it happens), and they'll band together. They'll make local militia forces that band together to defend the homes of everyone in their community, or they'll hire a private security firm to protect their neighborhood. My invading force is going to be stopped in its tracks.
Until I use missiles.
Public Goods and Bads
"I really hate that guy. That guy, right there. Let's blow up his house, just his."
Let's say most of a town has bought into a contract with a security force to defend them, but one guy hasn't. I then send a missile at the house of this one guy. The collateral damage is going to blow up large portions of the town. The security personnel have to stop my missile, even though it's going at the guy who doesn't have a contract with them. It turns out that defense is a public good, one that can't be efficiently provided or allocated on a person-by-person basis, and one that can't be easily denied to people who don't buy into it. Other, more easily recognizable public goods include grazing fields in the olden days and air nowadays. Companies spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, but everyone has to live with the consequences. (For more on this, check out my upcoming economics class.)
However, while consumers can voice their preferences in the market by not buying the goods of companies that pollute like there's no tomorrow, they can't really do the same with security, since you can't tell the invading Mongol horde to bugger off by not buying their stuff. In this case, the service is, "Not stabbing you in the face," and the method of buying it is by hiring security guys to stab them in the face first and with greater violence. The crux of the matter is, people band together into countries for protection, and so a libertarian nation needs a national defense force. Libertarians are fine with this, as providing security creates an environment in which one can best exercise one's autonomy, and depending on hardcore the libertarian is, he or she might throw in a police force and a legal system for dealing with fraud and other things that can mess up the free market.
Still, you'll find a lot less malice toward a government that only spends money to protect its citizens than you will toward a government that taxes the hell out of people to build a bridge to nowhere. Libertarians don't say no government, they say as little government as possible, a night watchman government. Apart from maintaining the sovereignty of people as masters of their own lives and property, there's also the side benefit of the fact that the less tax there is, the faster a country will grow, increasing standard of living along with it. Libertarianism is simple, elegant, and appealing, and virtually nonexistent in governments today. After all, who is going to say, "You know, I think my department really has enough money, let's not ask for more so we can save a bunch of people we don't even know a couple bucks." Yet it is considerably more popular among philosophers like Engelhardt, Sade, and Lomasky, politicians like Ron Paul (which may explain his impressive fundraising numbers), disaffected college students, and such notable personages as Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson.
Falling Through the Cracks
"I can't offer you this chemotherapy, as it's a bit out of your price range. How about a hearty handshake and a pat on that back instead?"
But this is a philosophy class, and we're not done yet. We've left someone behind: the cripple in the earlier examples. When last we saw him, he had been hung out to dry by the free market, since he had no skills of his own with which to contribute, and if we don't do something, he, like millions of people each year, will starve to death. What does libertarianism offer us as a solution?
1) Charity can come from the marketplace. The reason why companies raise money for causes isn't so that their executives can have a warm, fuzzy feeling, it's so that they can slap a pink ribbon on their product and shout, "Look at us, we're being socially responsible!" In doing so, they drive up sales, and everybody wins. Without government mucking things up, companies would actually compete to see who could be the most charitable.
2) Altruism has value. When you toss a dollar bill in the Salvation Army's pail, you actually do get a warm fuzzy feeling from the knowledge that you've done good in the world, the person ringing the bell thanking you for your generous contribution, blah blah blah – the point is, people today do give away chunks of their money for worthy causes simply because they like to, and that's great. No one's right to property has been violated – people are choosing to donate, rather than being taxed – and everybody wins. In this case, the trade taking place is your dollars for their fuzzies. How sweet.
3) Get a job, ya bum. Apart from the fact that an economy without three trillion dollars of government intervention gumming up the works will more efficiently direct itself to full employment, we live in a global age where you can always just take a ride in a plane, train, or automobile and go somewhere else where there is work. Few people are truly so lacking in ability as to be unable to find any employment. Quit complaining and do something about it.
Don't Mess With Me
"I'll take a Big Mac, a large fries, and two hookers to go, please."
Up until now I've focused on the political aspects of libertarianism, mainly because it's more interesting to discuss and less likely to devolve into a name-calling match. But while we're here, we should give the moral side of it a look too, so here we go.
The right to property means you get to choose what you do with your life, your body, and your stuff, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to property. But free trade reigns supreme here, so what does that mean? Well, it means you can sell your body, literally and figuratively. Prostitution is totally fine, as is selling your kidney to buy that big-screen TV you've been looking at. Drugs are no problem, which means smoking marijuana is quite legal. The same goes for alcohol (no more danger of prohibition), cigarettes, caffeine (and let me be the first to say, thank goodness for that drug), LSD, cocaine, and heroin. Designer babies would be all the rage, gay marriage is fine, snake marriage is fine, marriage of a man to his bicycle is fine (and really, mazal tov to them, I'm sure they'll make a lovely couple).
Some students will have more or fewer problems with the above list, and that's fine, I just want to clarify what libertarianism as a moral philosophy entails. It may well be that you have no problem with it at all, in which case we've found you a philosophy. Take note, this isn't anarchy, though. Violent crime will still get your behind handed to you by the night watchman state, since it does interfere with other peoples' rights to do what they like with themselves. Same goes for things like drunk driving and smoking in some public places, as well as theft and fraud, which interfere with the all-important marketplace. Little government doesn't mean no government, and few laws doesn't mean lawless.
The End of All Things
"One thousand four hundred and nine dollars I don't have to give to Uncle Sam, one thousand four hundred and ten dollars I don't have to give to Uncle Sam…"
The U.S. federal budget is around 3 trillion dollars, but a night watchman state could easily survive on less than a third of that. Congratulations, your taxes just went down by 70% just by being a libertarian. But there are some thorns and knots that come along with this view, and dealing with them while still maintaining the all-important right to property may be tough. What do you think, students? Is libertarianism right up your alley, or does something about this not sit right with you? Take it to the class discussion thread. I'll see you all next class, when we discuss the accountant's dream, utilitarianism!