1. The world's best reading app

    Get started today. Pick any price for unlimited, ad-free reading.

    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • [user]4 months ago

      This comment was deleted on 9/17/2021

      • DellwoodBarker
        Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
        4 months ago

        👍🏽✌️

    • DellwoodBarker
      Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
      4 months ago

      The crossroads with which we are confronted hence is this one: an open society that unconditionally recognizes everyone as a person with an inalienable dignity and fundamental rights; or a closed society to whose social life one gains access through a certificate whose conditions are defined by certain experts, as envisaged by Plato’s philosopher-kings. Like the latter, whose knowledge claims were debunked by Popper, their present-day descendants have no knowledge that would put them in a position to set such conditions without arbitrariness.

      The problem that comes to light here is an old one. It is also inherent in the purely protective state: in order to protect everyone effectively from violence, the whereabouts of everyone at all times would have to be verifiable; in order to protect everyone’s health effectively from infection by viruses, the physical contacts of everyone at all times would have to be controllable. The problem is the arbitrary definition of negative externalities, against which even classical liberalism and libertarianism aren’t immune; for it is not simply obvious what counts and what doesn’t count as a negative externality.

      It is high time that we become aware of the crossroads at which we stand. Doing so requires a sober attitude that does not allow itself to be clouded by the fears stirred up by the new enemies of the open society; namely the respect and trust in what distinguishes each and every one of us as a rational living being: the dignity of the person, which consists in her freedom of thought and action.