The Rudeness of Justice Theory

For quite a long time, I have followed libertarianism, and even now libertarianism still occupies a significant place in my philosophy. But when you study libertarianism and listen to what libertarians say, it becomes fairly clear why libertarianism is not popular with the general public. Today, I want to talk about that.

Put simply, the libertarian theory of justice can be reduced to the NAP. NAP stands for the Non-Aggression Principle: if another person does not inflict property, physical, or bodily harm on me (the last of which is also included in property, but let us separate it for easier understanding), then that person is free to do whatever they want. In Korean, it is also called the principle of non-aggression. My own theory of justice is not very different from the NAP. I, too, believe that as long as one does not cause property, physical, or bodily harm to others, one should be free, and others should be as well.

Let us apply the NAP to a simple example. In a free society, we are guaranteed freedom of expression. In other words, whatever I say is purely my freedom. If I slander someone, that is my freedom; if I mock someone, that is my freedom. Libertarianism does not define psychological harm as harm. Since psychological harm is an extremely subjective area, if it counts as harm simply because the person involved claims to have been harmed, then by extending that logic, all individual speech could be banned. But this is exactly the point at which libertarians make others frown. Having freedom of speech does not mean one ought to blurt out just anything about other people. For example, let us assume that a person named A transitioned from male to female. A wants others to refer to A as “she.” Then some people will call A “she,” while others will continue to call A “he” as before. In a free society, regardless of A’s wishes, people are free to refer to A however they see fit.

But this is where the error arises. Libertarians focus so excessively on “freedom of expression” that instead of emphasizing “the freedom to call others as I wish,” they end up emphasizing “the freedom to make others feel bad.” Of course, in a free society, there is freedom to call A “that guy,” but libertarians often give off the nuance that one should call A “that guy.” It is as if they think that doing so is a form of resistance to political correctness. But think about it: respecting another person’s wishes is a most basic matter. If A wants to be called “she,” then just call A “she.” Doing so does not infringe on my freedom in any way. Of course, that does not mean the state should enact a law requiring people to call A “she.” Far from it. My point is simply this: even without coercion, can we not just call each other what we want to be called? It is not that difficult. On the contrary, libertarians’ extreme resistance to political correctness creates in ordinary people an aversion to freedom itself.

There is something libertarians must always keep in mind when spreading their ideology. Just because something should not be legally mandated does not mean one should behave however one pleases. I want libertarians to be a gentlemanly group that shows people basic respect. If libertarianism is to spread to the general public, it must first adopt that attitude. If someone wants to be called something, then call them that—is that really so difficult? Respect for others is the beginning of everything. If you do not show respect yourself, how can you argue that the law should not compel it? I hope libertarians will advocate a moral philosophy that has some basic decency.

Original title: 싸가지 없는 정의론

Author: Nam-ung Kim

Date: 2019-11-28

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=17&idx=22094