Libertarianism

While I didn't respond to a request on Angry Bear on what Libertarians really believe (because I don't do Platonic definitions and was uninterested in the prospect of the usual squabbles over doctrinal purity). it did clarify my thinking. As always, the most important question to ask about a moral system is the ground value. (The question of the genealogy of the morals is important too, of course, but necessarily ancillary). If a Libertarian believes that choice/freedom is important in itself, as a ground value constituting or compatible with a terminal value, that's an implied definition of justice . If a Libertarian believes choice is important because it leads to the greatest sum of human happiness (or some other terminal value), then their attachment is instrumental. if they believe it's both a terminal value in itself and required for some other terminal value, they're probably fooling themselves out of preference for the first.

Late edit: After recently reading a few essays on contemporary professional discussions on ethics and metaethics, I realize I could have used "deontological" and "consequentialist" above. But, ya know, while I appreciate the value of ethos credentialing, not to mention the value of taxonomies in getting papers cranked out, they really don't add anything to the analysis above. Even apart from the jargon obscuring matters for non-philosophers, it tends to drain the discussion of emotional impact and move away from practical choices. Or should that be "praxis?"