Mill was a odd one out to be honest for the exact reason you stated, he's sitting in the middle. I've always found it hard to read and fully understand his work. Altho they are indeed not mutually exclusive many theists after Mill and betham have constructed more solid theories.scspkr99 wrote:Not in the sense that you are using libertarianism. The fact you've quoted Nozick confirms this. I am a consequentialist who agrees with classic defences of liberty.nitz wrote:There is much libertarianism in this thread. One of their core key concepts is the freedom the live in the way they want with very little regulation, in the worlds the Nozick himself " A nighwatch state". Thus, by advocating my food choice and lifestyle choice is mine and mine alone hits a key connect of libertarianism. Do you do not want people telling them what to do how to to do it. Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice .
You've created a false dichotomy between consequentialism and libertarianism. Consider that J.S. Mill wrote both Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Utilitarianism is the de facto consequentialist ethical framework and On Liberty starts the conversation of what authority the state is able to exercise over it's people.
These are not mutually exclusive frameworks, we can consider a persons agency over herself apriori until the exercise of such liberty infringes on others where it becomes necessary to suppress a greater harm to society. I start from a defence of personal liberty and end with an evaluation of the cost, so consequences, to society.
I can defend smoking, drinking and eating badly on consequentialist and libertarian grounds. I can contend, and would, that the suppression of such freedoms as allowing people to choose what to eat, or smoke or drink have worse consequences than allowing people the freedom to choose and some of them choosing badly.
I'm also okay with punitively taxing those activities, we do with smoking and drinking, and I'm pretty sure this isn't consistent with modern libertarianism.
Well in relation to smoking. If you at the Hedonism approach then surely smoking should be allowed to max all pleasure of all smokers. But then if you look at from it the overall outsell of utilitarianism, then it would seem not, because max pleasure for max people (unity) but at the same time not to cause suffering. They want a win win first, before a win lost situation. So back to smoking, if one smokers dies the suffering of the entire family would be far greater than his single own pleasure. It's a trickily complex area of law theory. If you add Rawls to the problem (abeit its a justice question then) its an completely different world
Also remember the point of taxing in libertarianism - Nozick when as far as to say it;s slavry! When use you the word modern how modern exactly. libertarianism in general, especially in the classical sence, do not like the taxing of them and disutautive justice for that matter as well! So giving money from the rich to the poor via tax. Again, each author has there own take - there is not wrong or right answer. Hence why can say X supported by said author, whilst i can at Y supported by said author. The beauty of legal theory.
