I am with you on the notion that something more than baseline rights-based principles is needed to convince some people—especially those largely unmoved by philosophical arguments.
Nonetheless, baseline rights-based principles are sine qua non. People must understand the baseline. If they do not, then any virtue ethics they develop will be built upon quicksand.
Even the terminology matters. Words like Mill's "harm" are so easily gamed by people. "Your micro-aggression/speech/facecrime harms me." Next thing you know, "harm" becomes actionable, and—just as the postmodernists wanted—the harm is determined by each person's "personal narrative."
Arguments in favor of the NAP may seem overdone to those who have heard them a zillion times, but there are plenty of people who have yet to hear the good news! So that remains one important front in the fight for human liberty.
Good and creative dialogue.
I am with you on the notion that something more than baseline rights-based principles is needed to convince some people—especially those largely unmoved by philosophical arguments.
Nonetheless, baseline rights-based principles are sine qua non. People must understand the baseline. If they do not, then any virtue ethics they develop will be built upon quicksand.
Even the terminology matters. Words like Mill's "harm" are so easily gamed by people. "Your micro-aggression/speech/facecrime harms me." Next thing you know, "harm" becomes actionable, and—just as the postmodernists wanted—the harm is determined by each person's "personal narrative."
Arguments in favor of the NAP may seem overdone to those who have heard them a zillion times, but there are plenty of people who have yet to hear the good news! So that remains one important front in the fight for human liberty.
No doubt. It's not either/or but yes/and. My critique of libertarians is that they lost ground with too much either/or thinking.
It is entirely a fair critique!