The best sentence I read today

So showing that the state is not legitimate need not entail that it is morally indefensible.

That’s from Will Wilkinson and for those of you on EST I read it yesterday.  The whole post is interesting.


Lots of loving of the state going on on the libertarian blogs lately.

Between your 'hearasy' yesterday, Wilkinson's defense of positive rights today, and yesterday's Wilkinson post cited here, not to mention's Bob Barr loving, I'm not getting nearly my daily dose of fire and drum pounding rage. . .

Not that you guys aren't all correct and perfectly reasonable, I could just use someone going after the state instead of saying how great it is.

I'd say it's the best bit of doublethink I've read today. The rest of the post could be used as a defense of totalitarianism.

Shoot, whenever I am lazy and don't preview the post, a typo slips through. Above I meant to say:

You can admit that the State is immoral, shrug and say, "But life s*cks, I'd rather be oppressed by George Bush than Attila the Hun." But that's not the same as morally defending the presidency.

Nah man, he's just saying that legitimacy does not exhaust everything about what is right.

An illegitimate government presiding over nothing but awesomely happy, fulfilled, prosperous people is presumably (in his rendering) preferable to a legitimate government presiding over unhappy, morose people in decrepit poverty.

To some of us, that is obviously true, and to some of us, obviously false. To others it's maybe hard to say.

I certainly agree with his pluralistic take on morality: there is no one metric or one final, simple prioritization of precisely defined values that can be said to encapsulate all of my moral beliefs. Sometimes I even [gasp] make it up as I go along. I think this is human, natural, and healthy.

Au contraire! A Libertarian abiding by a 'statist' government because they have a better standard of living than if they lived in a nation that is achingly to anarchism yet is violent and dirt-poor invariably waters down his argument. Does anyone take an Environementalist who drives a car to a protest for air pollution, who opposes nuclear power plants in a way that coal power plant take its place, etc.? Or a Marxist yabbering on about the plight of the worker yet dutily turn up for work on time and holds a well-paid position?

So what this brilliant sentence boils down to is that government might actually have some benefit even if it doesn't operate by unanimous consent?

Does showing it illegitimate prove it morally defensible?

'“justified† just means “best for flourishing.†'

Sure, this is how the powerful justify the systems that allow them to flourish.

Many people now use the Internet to do business, after receiving the business should be the best as far as possible, to allow customer satisfaction. But some Internet companies, not to start on your money to begin with, so on and then close the first half, resulting in Juankuan flee. Not only did not complete the project, customers would also like to once again spend money and time to decoration. Dear Customer: This is no guarantee as the company not to find the.

Comments for this post are closed