Philosoblog's recent entry is "Moral Equivalence". I hope you enjoy it.

Another note on libertarianism. Some tidying to do:

Philosoblog has received keen criticism from Tisnot. He objects to my argument against libertarianism because he rejects the premise that the Good Samaritan has no right to pass by the injured man. Here is the argument for that premise.

It would be wrong to pass by the injured man. Therefore, the Samaritan has no right to do so.

As well, it follows that the injured man has a right to aid.

Libertarians and Tisnot think that there may be things you ought to do, but you have a right not to do them. But there is no meaning in the idea of something you ought to do but have a right not to do. It would be wrong not to do it. So, how could you have a right not to do it? Libertarians have never answered that question. They stir a witch's brew of mysterious semantics, in which our obligations are different from things we don't have a right not to do. It's a murky and occult business, and no one really knows the recipe. Better stick to common sense.