The problems of postlibertarianism: Reply to Friedman

Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 8 (1):85-94 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Jeffrey Friedman presents positive libertarianism as consisting of an objective morality, autonomy, and moral totalism. He then defines postlibertarianism as a consequentialist positive libertarianism. However, Friedman's claim that the choice of moral axioms is unjustifiable, and an equivocation in his use of the term “moral,” makes his presentation of positive libertarianism incoherent. Nor is Friedman successful in grafting consequentialism onto positive libertarianism. The autonomy of positive libertarianism renders consequentialism superfluous, and the ends of the two systems conflict, for positive libertarianism judges people, while the consequentialism of postlibertarianism judges actions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Libertarianism, postlibertarianism, and the welfare state: Reply to Friedman.Jan Narveson - 1992 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 6 (1):45-82.
Libertarianisms: Mainstream, radical, and post.W. William Woolsey - 1994 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 8 (1):73-84.
Dissent from “the new consensus”: Reply to Friedman.Antony Flew - 1992 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 6 (1):83-96.
Postlibertarianism is not libertarianism: Rejoinder to Nove.Jeffrey Friedman - 1992 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 6 (4):605-609.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-10-18

Downloads
14 (#264,824)

6 months
2 (#1,816,284)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Economic consequentialism and beyond.Jeffrey Friedman - 1994 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 8 (4):493-502.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Rejoinder.David Freedman - 1995 - Foundations of Science 1 (1):69-83.

Add more references