> Date sent: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:54:28 -0800 (PST)
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: clarification-individualism
ricardo:
> > No, that would be a contradiction in terms: if you act without
> > regards for others, you are infringing upon their individual
> > rights. See Jonh Stuart Mills, On Liberty.
> >
>
Michael:
> Let's see. I buy a Nike or a Disney Product, made by a little girl for
> $.22 an hour in Haiti. John S. Mill would approve. I am not hurting
> these children. I sit back in my life of ease. That's ok. I am not
> hurting anyone. My company sends its toxic waste to Africa (certified by
> Larry Summers) or put it on some Native American lands after giving some
> money to a corrupt leader. But that's ok.
>
> I rely on the invisible hand, behind which all the victims are invisible.
>
> Am I only complict if I attack the victims directly, face-to-face?
>
>
The following words by Mill are well known: "The only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others".
Mill understood, then, that liberty had to be restricted; but how do
we determine when liberty may be restricted? In answering this
question, commentators have noted that Mill moved toward a more
"positive" conception of liberty which recognized the need for the
state to interefere to improve the working conditions of the
poor, and even to promote such goods as truth, rational belief, moral
character and culture.
But really the best critique of the concept of "negative liberty" is
Hegel's, who in dialectical fashion both retained and transcended
Smith's free market within a broader system of human relations and
values.
ricardo
> Michael Perelman> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
