Thank you for introducing us to Edmund Opitz. Individualism is a vitally important topic. Ultimately, will we not all be judged individually versus collectively?

Thank you for introducing us to Edmund Opitz. Individualism is a vitally important topic. Ultimately, will we not all be judged individually versus collectively?

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I also had never heard of Rev. Optiz or his writing. Although I was disappointed that he spent more time criticizing alternative viewpoints than explaining and defending his own, I do think that he had some valuable insights.

For example, in the opening series of letters between John C. Bennett and himself, he asked regarding the possibility of private monopolies, “Can you name an instance of any person or groups possessing an advantage at the expense of someone else where government is not working actively on behalf of the exploiter – or at least passively by neglecting its proper duty of defending all men equally against invasions of their rights?” This is a question that, by cutting the dialogue shot, Bennett never answered. Indeed it is one that I’ve never seen an answer for. It is a philosophical dead end for supporters of state-intervention in economics.

The powerful refrain in Rev. Optiz’s thought seems to be that the moral principles by which individuals are judged should also apply when individuals act on behalf of government; that for the government ethics “cannot be reduced to convenient and inconvenient.” This refrain is seems quite undeniable. It is a shame that more people do not follow this logic.

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I also had never heard of Rev. Optiz or his writing. Although I was disappointed that he spent more time criticizing alternative viewpoints than explaining and defending his own, I do think that he had some valuable insights.

For example, in the opening series of letters between John C. Bennett and himself, he asked regarding the possibility of private monopolies, “Can you name an instance of any person or groups possessing an advantage at the expense of someone else where government is not working actively on behalf of the exploiter – or at least passively by neglecting its proper duty of defending all men equally against invasions of their rights?” This is a question that, by cutting the dialogue shot, Bennett never answered. Indeed it is one that I’ve never seen an answer for. It is a philosophical dead end for supporters of state-intervention in economics.

The powerful refrain in Rev. Optiz’s thought seems to be that the moral principles by which individuals are judged should also apply when individuals act on behalf of government; that for the government ethics “cannot be reduced to convenient and inconvenient.” This refrain is seems quite undeniable. It is a shame that more people do not follow this logic.