“ Stronger feelings – including heartfelt love – turn human beings into demanding busybodies.”
No, definitely not. Love does not include a paternalistic attitude toward the loved one, unless they are actually children (or invalids). It is not love to treat adults as infants.
I don't see a conflict with supporting other people's welfare and being libertarian. You can just notice that people are way better off in capitalist societies than communist ones, and most active laws fail cost-benefit analysis dramatically.
The Golden Rule is commonly cited. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Nope, bad idea. It assumes everyone wants the same thing, or at least that everyone knows that complete strangers want the same thing as they do. Better is "Do unto others nothing" or "Don't do unto others unless they agree to it."
I'm not so conspiratorially-minded to think this Fools Golden Rule is the cause of so much strife. But I sure don't appreciate it.
I agree that the common wording of the Golden Rule is easily open to misinterpretation. I would reword it to something like "Show the same consideration for others' wishes as you would want them to show for yours." Or substitute "rights" for "wishes".
This is a tough one for me. I feel like I would prefer to live in a world where I love and am loved by everyone around me. But I fear you're right that this doesn't actually lead to human flourishing. It makes me very sad to realize this.
“ Stronger feelings – including heartfelt love – turn human beings into demanding busybodies.”
No, definitely not. Love does not include a paternalistic attitude toward the loved one, unless they are actually children (or invalids). It is not love to treat adults as infants.
I don't see a conflict with supporting other people's welfare and being libertarian. You can just notice that people are way better off in capitalist societies than communist ones, and most active laws fail cost-benefit analysis dramatically.
The Golden Rule is commonly cited. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Nope, bad idea. It assumes everyone wants the same thing, or at least that everyone knows that complete strangers want the same thing as they do. Better is "Do unto others nothing" or "Don't do unto others unless they agree to it."
I'm not so conspiratorially-minded to think this Fools Golden Rule is the cause of so much strife. But I sure don't appreciate it.
I agree that the common wording of the Golden Rule is easily open to misinterpretation. I would reword it to something like "Show the same consideration for others' wishes as you would want them to show for yours." Or substitute "rights" for "wishes".
This is a tough one for me. I feel like I would prefer to live in a world where I love and am loved by everyone around me. But I fear you're right that this doesn't actually lead to human flourishing. It makes me very sad to realize this.
Win.