I disagree that this is a fully general argument and I think the phrase “a quick welfare race-to-the-bottom whereby people can be subjected to anything as long as there is something to gain” is tendentious and hostile.
I do generally support letting people take ‘bad’ options which they reflectively endorse as their least-bad choice in the imperfect world we actually live in; AlphaAndOmega has gone into depth on the specific ‘bad’ option of performing migrant labour in Qatar. I can’t speak for AlphaAndOmega, but I’m also a libertarian and have strong moral objections to stopping consenting adults making their own choices which don’t affect anyone else.
But here are some things people might be subjected to which I don’t support, and which this “fully general” argument doesn’t support:
Anything nonconsensual
Deceiving people into giving consent
Things which have large negative externalities on non-consenting third parties
Getting minors or the mentally handicapped to ‘consent’ to things they are not equipped to understand
I suspect that you are pattern-matching us against some other argument that is not quite the one we’re making. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you—would you like to elaborate on your concerns?
Your representation of my views is accurate. I am not maximally libertarian, but I lean that way. I would call myself a classically liberal minarchist with strong libertarian-sympathies, and I am happy to endorse everything you have said.
Everyone I spoke to, seemed to me, to be a reasonably rational and well-informed adult, adjusting for education and background. Alongside the absence of concerning statements (absence of evidence is evidence of absence for Bayesians), I did not hear any positive statements about Qatar that would have had me question if that individual had concerningly over-optimistic beliefs.
I disagree that this is a fully general argument and I think the phrase “a quick welfare race-to-the-bottom whereby people can be subjected to anything as long as there is something to gain” is tendentious and hostile.
I do generally support letting people take ‘bad’ options which they reflectively endorse as their least-bad choice in the imperfect world we actually live in; AlphaAndOmega has gone into depth on the specific ‘bad’ option of performing migrant labour in Qatar. I can’t speak for AlphaAndOmega, but I’m also a libertarian and have strong moral objections to stopping consenting adults making their own choices which don’t affect anyone else.
But here are some things people might be subjected to which I don’t support, and which this “fully general” argument doesn’t support:
Anything nonconsensual
Deceiving people into giving consent
Things which have large negative externalities on non-consenting third parties
Getting minors or the mentally handicapped to ‘consent’ to things they are not equipped to understand
I suspect that you are pattern-matching us against some other argument that is not quite the one we’re making. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you—would you like to elaborate on your concerns?
Your representation of my views is accurate. I am not maximally libertarian, but I lean that way. I would call myself a classically liberal minarchist with strong libertarian-sympathies, and I am happy to endorse everything you have said.
Everyone I spoke to, seemed to me, to be a reasonably rational and well-informed adult, adjusting for education and background. Alongside the absence of concerning statements (absence of evidence is evidence of absence for Bayesians), I did not hear any positive statements about Qatar that would have had me question if that individual had concerningly over-optimistic beliefs.