Comments on: On the Moral Necessity of Liberty http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/13/on-the-moral-necessity-of-liberty/ The largest, most active political society in Cambridge Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/13/on-the-moral-necessity-of-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Gavin Rice Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:58:01 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=305#comment-68 Indeed I did Hugo. However, it is my view that Hugh and I are essentially in agreement: I do not believe that the state is capable of enforcing morality effectively or correctly. Perhaps my article was a little misunderstood: what I was attempting to challenge is the idea that a libertarian society will inevitably be a good one. This is plainly not the case; a libertarian society could be good (if communities and individuals practise the virtues and are willing to talk openly about right and wrong) or it could be awful, if the underlying philosophy of libertarians (i.e. what I term "garden fence" theory) becomes individuals' approach to life. In short, big government doesn't create a good society, but small government won't necessarily either, since "life, liberty and property" are (I have argued) insufficient. It is the responsibility of people, not the state, to bring about a moral society. The only difference is that with smaller government the state is less likely to be enforcing bad (immoral) things that are damaging to society, and therefore individuals and communities will be freer to pursue moral ends. My challenge was to a liberal ideology of how humans ought to behave, not to the idea of smaller government. Indeed I did Hugo. However, it is my view that Hugh and I are essentially in agreement: I do not believe that the state is capable of enforcing morality effectively or correctly. Perhaps my article was a little misunderstood: what I was attempting to challenge is the idea that a libertarian society will inevitably be a good one. This is plainly not the case; a libertarian society could be good (if communities and individuals practise the virtues and are willing to talk openly about right and wrong) or it could be awful, if the underlying philosophy of libertarians (i.e. what I term “garden fence” theory) becomes individuals’ approach to life.

In short, big government doesn’t create a good society, but small government won’t necessarily either, since “life, liberty and property” are (I have argued) insufficient. It is the responsibility of people, not the state, to bring about a moral society. The only difference is that with smaller government the state is less likely to be enforcing bad (immoral) things that are damaging to society, and therefore individuals and communities will be freer to pursue moral ends. My challenge was to a liberal ideology of how humans ought to behave, not to the idea of smaller government.

]]> By: Hugo Hadlow http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/13/on-the-moral-necessity-of-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Hugo Hadlow Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:30:12 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=305#comment-67 Gavin, didn't you say <a href="http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/05/26/what-was-the-hfe-bill-really-for/#comment-48" rel="nofollow">something similar</a>?: "The state cannot be a moral enforcer, because it will inevitably result in being an immoral enforcer." Gavin, didn’t you say something similar?:

“The state cannot be a moral enforcer, because it will inevitably result in being an immoral enforcer.”

]]>