http://jim.com/hayek.htm

Let me read more of the article ...





Well, all right, but isn't that the whole point? That the boundary
between private and public is in dispute? No one thinks it's a private
affair for one person to murder another person. They think it's one for
society to handle (even monopolizing violence for the state). But what
about abortion? Is this a private or public matter? People seem to
disagree. (I know Hayek doesn't talk about abortion, and the Communists
were not anti-abortion, but it still serves as an example.) One may
think that anti-abortion activists are sticking their noses into
private business; yet Hayek's argument relies on a general agreement of
what is private and what isn't.





But that's exactly the problem - his argument is useless. It's like
saying "people would do the right thing if they knew what it was, so
let me tell them". Which contradicts the core of his "don't tell other
people what is right/wrong" individualism!





As for choice in abortions, same goes for marriage. Why is it a public affair that I marry two women?





If we all agreed on which of our relationships were private and public, it would make ethics trivial.

powered by performancing firefox