Values File

Values File

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ww.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n5-1.html Libertarianism is not at base a metaphysical theory about the primacy of the individual over the abstract, much less an absurd theory about "abstract individuals." Nor is it an anomic rejection of traditions, as Kirk and some conservatives have charged. Rather, it is a political theory that emerged in response to the growth of unlimited state power; libertarianism draws its strength from a powerful fusion of a normative theory about the moral and political sources and limits of obligations and a positive theory explaining the sources of order. Each person has the right to be free, and free persons can produce order spontaneously, without a commanding power over them. LIBERTARIANS CANNOT OPPOSE NOTION OF SHARED VALUES Tom G. Palmer, "Myths of Individualism", CATO Policy Report, September/October 1996 Vol. XVIII No. 5, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n5-1.html A moment's reflection makes it clear that claims that libertarians reject "shared values" and the "common good" are incoherent. If libertarians share the value of liberty (at a minimum), then they cannot "actively oppose the notion of 'shared values,'" and if libertarians believe that we will all be better off if we enjoy freedom, then they have not "given up on the possibility of 'a common good,'" for a central part of their efforts is to assert what the common good is! SLHS Value File Lesser of Evils Good: Necessity Defense Invoking the necessity defense requires meeting six criteria John Alan Cohan, STETSON LAW REVIEW, Spring 2006, p. 909 The doctrine of necessity has been expressed in numerous ways, but in this discussion, the Author will apply a comprehensive six-prong test that must be met in order for someone to invoke the defense. The defendant must prove that (1) he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; (4...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 11/20/2013.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online