Errors of intervention

October 29, 1999

Alan Ryan makes two crucial mistakes about the supposed "weakness of the libertarian case" ("Counting the cost of feeling free", THES, October 22).

First, he asserts that "property rights require more than non-intervention by others, as they must be transferableI". In libertarian terms, however, "non-intervention by others" means persons other than any involved in some (unimposed) personal or property interaction. There is no "intervention" in the implied impositional sense.

Second, the "idea that government exists to protect negative rather than positive rights has to be given up" - not because of Ryan's error, but because the state exists precisely for "intervention" with persons and their property rights. States make no serious attempt to avoid doing this, and they must immediately cease to be states (ruling and taxing) if they were to avoid it.

J. C. Lester

Centre for Practical Philosophy

Middlesex University

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October