joefromchicago wrote:I'm not saying that it's a realistic choice, I'm saying that it's the choice posed by natural rights theorists.
... most of whom wrote when being ungoverned still
was a realistic choice. Locke cites several example of people living in a state of nature with each other. Now that this choice is no longer realistic, I feel quite comfortable not buying your "implicit consent" argument and still be a Semi-Lockean. (Which was the question you originally asked.)
joefromchicago wrote: Now, it's true that utilitarians and natural rights theorists would probably both agree that rules allowing the ownership of private property are a good idea, but they arrive at that shared conclusion by radically different paths.
So what? Once I'm satisfied that two models of something lead to the same practical conclusions about that something, I am also satisfied that they are consistent with one another. Maybe this is a peculiar spleen of me coming from my background in physics, where a belief in Platonic truth would drive you insane. But nothing so far has shown to me that I should give up this approach outside of physics.
joefromchicago wrote:That's like saying that not making a choice isn't a choice.
No, it's like saying there's a moral difference between actively doing harm to someone and not preventing harm. Of course the government is making a choice.
joefromchicago wrote:If the government adopts laissez faire libertarianism, then it rules out all other choices. For instance, there's not much room for communism or socialism in a state that has adopted libertarianism as its socioeconomic model.
There are plenty of socialist kibbutzim in Israel. I'm pretty confident there are still some socialist intentional hippie communities in America. I see no reason why socialists in a libertarian state couldn't create similar islands of socialism on the basis of free association. And if the membership of these associations doesn't grow into the millions, it's because too few people really are socialists. It isn't because the government made socialism illegal, or even impractical to pursue.
Now try the opposite thought experiment: a community of libertarians opting out of the modern welfare state, instead governing itself under the rules of 19th century American law. This is strictly impossible today, because America has adopted (a diluted version of) social democracy as its government philosophy.
