Liberty & Virtue - Learn Liberty

Libertarianism Explained: Liberty & Virtue presented by Learn Liberty. Does a free society encourage immoral behavior? Learn More: www.learnliber...
Prof. James Otteson of Yeshiva University argues that moral or virtuous behavior can only grow in a climate of individual liberty. The decisions individuals make can only be called virtuous if they are made freely, without compulsion by someone else. Individuals will make mistakes and may sometimes act viciously, but they can only develop good judgment about moral matters by practicing and making some mistakes, which will only happen in a free society.
SUBSCRIBE:
bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
Website: www.learnliber...
Facebook: / learnliberty
Twitter: / learnliberty
Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP

[@scrappmutt2]

Last, when I was a kid, Jack in the Box had a breakout of E Coli that killed 4 kids. They were cooking to FDA standards. They had several lawsuits and after wind of this got to the public, they damn near went bankrupt and suffered for many years afterwards. They retooled, increased their own cooking standards, and now have better practices (and increased market share) because of it. Moral of the story: informed consumers force companies to adopt higher standards than Gov. entities.

[@MasoudHamada]

Is this an interview because he keeps reading what he's paid to say. No one is taking my soul thank you very much. Great acting by the way.

[@haineko1101]

"resources that would be better used else where"
Who is to be the judge of this? And how far and deep does the implicit control of resources extend? Consider this carefully.

[@scrappmutt2]

Second, even without these inspectors, an individual if educated to be a wise consumer (which is partially the gov's role) will not indulge in lousy products. Where you're coming from is the stand point that educating them is impossible, hence we need the central few to regulate the decisions of the masses. Where I'm coming from, I know unwise consumers exist and it's a problem, but limiting the choices of all consumers should not be the answer.

[@formerevolutionist]

I agree with this idea almost completely. Freedom without accountability equals wickedness. People should be free to make poor judgments, but they should be held accountable for their actions. However, what about moral standards? How do we judge what is right and what is wrong? In the book of Judges the Israelites had forsaken God's laws and "did what was right in their own eyes." This led to punishment from God.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

formerevolutionist
Through a Hobbesian lens; contractarianism.
If you're harming someone's life or property, it's probably wrong.

[@scrappmutt2]

I'm saying you're philosophy on the role of government in one's life is one that will bring you to tyranny. People are not sheep in need of a shepherd. Government is meant to be a service, not a regulator of a person's freewill in matters outside the do no harm principle.

[@mzmaj7]

@fonzonzonz The difference is in the means and the result. Do you want society to spontaneously evolve virtuous behavior through regular human interaction? That's free accountability. Or do you want someone's arbitrary view of virtuous behavior? That's imposed nudging.
Remember that nudging and accountability will usually achieve opposing goals. After all, what would be the point of government-imposed nudging if a free society achieves the same results?

[@daobagua]

@UncleIrv Anyone who thinks the nanny state should exist is not, by definition, a libertarian.
I agree that both decriminalization of drugs and dismantling of the nanny state are good ideas.
Cheers.

[@RhymesWithPorridge]

What about teaching? It provides some freedom to make mistakes, plus accountability (grades), but there is also an instructor who tells you how to do it correctly, providing significant "nudges" in the correct direction.

[@hadi8561]

I think at community college level education and below that seems to be the method, but there is a big difference, at least today in universities where professors give you the freedom to think for yourself. The other day one of my professors told me that they designed the class so that students can learn to think logically. I think at an institution where teachers are invested in their students and they really care about their growth, they will find that the best way to teach them how to do something correctly is allowing them to learn that themselves. By encouraging self learning through logical thinking.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I care and in a different way also don't care if the person who wants to commit murder, create a financial scam, eat objectively unhealthy and become fat, etc doesn't do so because they're virtuous but doesn’t do it instead because they don't want to suffer external consequences or because its easier not to do so.
I'm implementing and enforcing those laws regardless.
I would prefer the person to be virtuous. I would also prefer mankind not to need any laws and instead just be virtuous. However, that is not compatible with man's condition. The law being articulately explained and enforced can shape or reinforce social and Moral views. Especially if they're taught to be respected and why in the home. Regardless if some still end up rejecting them on a personal basis.
All law does is inforce some type of morality, that's why it's law or not. It's a myth to claim law is morally neutral. That has never been the case.

[@LairOTech]

Correct!

[@scrappmutt2]

First, the Gov doesn't have to do this on our behalf. For instance, Underwriters Lab is to electronics what the USDA and FDA is to food, and it's private sector. Few retailers sell electronics lacking the UW stamp due because they would bare part of the liabilities related to the product. You still can, but you'll be hard pressed to find many who do. Why you don't want the Gov forcing the regulation is best summed up by this video: watch?v=di_7aBLVn3Q

[@scrappmutt2]

Search this: "Tesco, which saw its shares slump following the horsemeat discovery, has announced it will become the first supermarket chain to perform DNA tests on its meat products". This goes back to my third point: "informed consumers force companies to adopt higher standards than Gov. entities."
Oh, and I read /watch more news all day everyday and have never read an Ayn Rand book, Don't stereotype.

[@fonzonzonz]

Is accountability, though, solely used for the purpose of nudging someone in the right direction? I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the two concepts; can someone explain?

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

fonzonzonz
You should look up Moral Luck

[@DoubleBob]

Are these polemic, rhetorical questions or poorly formulated normal ones?

[@scrappmutt2]

I tried the McRib because it looked tasty, indeed the advertising worked in presenting the product. But, I found out that the McRib is absolutely horrible tasting and will likely never buy it again, despite the amount of "brainwashing ads" I may be subjected to. Some people like it, that's there prerogative. But I don't need a society to help me decide on my choice of sandwich. I, and most everyone else, can pretty well do that on our own.

[@scrappmutt2]

So you're saying the great unwashed masses need to be regulated into healthy living. Is that what society and laws were established for? Social engineering by an elite few or even the tyrannical majority? When was the last time you were mass manipulated into eating a hamburger at McDonalds? Or am I wrong, and most assuredly none of this applies to you; you know better than most, right?