Kevin,

Your point that coercive means are sometimes justified is the justification
usually used for minarchism as opposed to anarchism.  Robert Nozick's
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a good philosophical analysis of this
territory.  Whether a minimal state is morally justifiable is a fascinating
topic, but I doubt that any state is justified in using coercive means to
cultivate "correct behavior" or character, beyond prohibiting trespass
against the person or property of others.  That way lies tyranny.

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Ft Monroe & public funds

Sam--

On the issue of the necessity of government coercion:  libertarians are
correct, of course, that all governments are founded on coercion.  They may
or may not be correct that coercion is always unethical.  Sometimes,
perhaps, governments are justified in using coercive means in order to
prevent an even greater harm.

On this issue, it may be worth your while to consult the "Tully" essays,
written by Alexander Hamilton at the time of the Whiskey Rebellion in the
summer of 1794.  Hamilton points out that government resort to the use of
force is a bad thing, to be avoided if possible.  But he also points out
that there is a larger public good to be found in upholding the rule of law
(on which, it seems to me, markets depend).  Precisely because it is a bad
thing for governments to resort to force, Hamilton argues that it is a
responsibility of citizens to uphold the law voluntarily.

Notice, however, that in making this argument, Hamilton is suggesting that
the character of citizens matters, and that it is a matter of public
responsibility for public men to model correct behavior.  In turning to this
problem--to the cultivation of the dispositions and character of citizens
necessary to sustain a thriving and ethically decent republican
polity--Hamilton points us to issues that, it seems to me, libertarian
theory addresses poorly.

From a small R republican perspective, we should support a public history
site at Fortress Monroe if by doing so, we make a contribution to
cultivating citizens with the right character and disposition necessary to
sustain a republican form of government.


Warm regards,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:34:00 -0500
>From: Sam Treynor <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: Ft Monroe & public funds  
>To: [log in to unmask]

>But even if the Hayekian point were wrong, the libertarian argument that
>government depends on the initiation of force, and the initiation of force
>is morally wrong, would still deny the right of government to impose its
>will on private free markets.
>
>Sam Treynor
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1743 - Release Date: 10/24/2008
8:33 AM

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html