Social and political philosophy is a branch of philosophy that explores and examines various theories, ideas, and concepts concerning the organization and functioning of society, as well as the nature and scope of political power and governance. It seeks to understand and analyze fundamental questions related to social order, justice, equality, freedom, rights, and the relationship between individuals and the state. This field of philosophy investigates the moral, ethical, and political principles that shape social institutions, public policies, and the dynamics of human interaction within a societal framework. By exploring different philosophical perspectives, social and political philosophy aims to provide insights into the foundations and implications of our social and political systems, guiding discussions and debates on matters of collective well-being and the ideal organization of human societies.

I take the position that the best approach to address the disparity in the USA in wealth and income is to take action based on the plan that is constructed using the libertarian principle. These principles support the idea that distribution is fair if everyone is entitled to the assets they have under the allocation, according to the complete distributive justice concept. According to these principles each individual has sovereignty over their own life and therefore possesses the liberty to act in accordance with their own desires, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. The government’s role is to safeguard human rights, particularly the freedom to act, and has no other valid function. However, the government is not having the justification to protect people from themselves brings some criticism to these principles too.  

The reasons why I think that this is the best approach are that libertarianism supports the idea that no one is enslaved to a master, everyone is free to decide for his own life and no one can impose on another person how to conduct just their decisions. Also, these principles strengthen the idea that we don’t have the right to control or make decisions about the lives of others. For any project or desire, if someone does not have enough funds to fulfil his project, that money should not be taken from people by force using political power. Furthermore, libertarianism encourages that It is not right for anyone to be forced to be dependent on another person’s life. In other words, the work, and products of someone, should not be used by the government in helping others, or demand it as his own. These principles support human rights and their choices to live the life as they choose, to give equal chances to liberty and prosperity of an individual, to work and to continue his life, and to have the rights for his property. Therefore, no one can be entitled to take someone’s life or his property without consent, and this applies to human beings not caused by the force of nature (flood, earthquakes, etc).  

Libertarians support a government that would protect human rights for life, liberty, and property. Supporting the right to life, means the legislation would protect humans against the use of force by others, and laws against killing or all kinds of physical violence. The right to liberty refers to the laws that would not enforce freedom of speech or censor ideas, books, or movies by the government. The right to property should protect people against confiscation, nationalization, robbery, fraud, etc.  

There are those who do not share my position. They think that these laws should protect people from themselves and others harming, and the welfare laws, from taking from one individual and giving to another are reasonable.  

They criticize my approach by making these claims and charges as supported by Nozick whose inspiration stems from John Locke’s concept that each person has self-ownership and ownership of a portion of the material world that can be achieved through personal labour mixed with the environment. This criticism supports the idea of sharing the resources with others, because in their opinion what is taken from the material world even though appears in a different form, is still from the same place and the owner is not changed. Furthermore, the criticism motivates this statement arguing that would contribute to the well-being and that what is shared is just a part of the material world.  

However, adopting self-ownership led to more criticism from egalitarians. That states that most proponents of leaning theories have disagreed with Nozick’s version of libertarianism due to concerns that it could result in significant economic disparities. However, there is a group of egalitarians who appreciate the ethical principles of self-ownership and worry that uncontrolled efforts to achieve equality could threaten individuals’ autonomy and their rights to their own labour. In other words, this self-ownership could lead to imbalance and an essential gap between the wealthier and the poor would be present.  

Furthermore, the supporters of left-libertarians contributed to the criticism regarding libertarianism theories, combining the primary belief in this ideology that individuals have the right to own themselves, and there are different equal viewpoints on how individuals can obtain the right to use or own things in the outside world. One significant aspect of these principles is that possessing land or natural resources should not result in unequal wealth distribution. A historical example of this belief system can be found in Henry George’s book Progress and Poverty (1879), where he proposed that land value should be taxed and the value added by people’s labour should remain with them. In other words, it is not enough to pay taxes for the value of land, but also for what is produced on that property to be collected. This principle had an exception for the unworked land, which was excluded from the collection. Because the land belongs to nature, it supported the idea that the land should not produce more for some, and therefore what was extra should be taxed.  

The right of property was criticized as well supporting the idea that it is not clear why property rights that have been obtained through unjust methods of acquisition and transfer should be afforded significant legal protection. In other words, if a property was in possession of someone through disobeying the laws, that estate would not be the beneficiary of the same rights as a just one. The protection should apply only to the transaction made in a fairway. 

Also, these principles cannot apply worldwide as they exist socially. However, when we examine it from an empirical perspective, it seems untrue. Countries with less restrictive property rights, which may have higher levels of taxation, do not demonstrate a systematic benefit in terms of the freedoms and liberties experienced by their people compared to countries with more restrictive property systems. Nevertheless, there is a difference in how these freedoms are distributed, with citizens in countries with stricter property rules having more freedom and those in less exclusionary countries having less, particularly when it comes to the disparity in wealth. The laws in different countries don’t allow interference from outside authorities, as every country is entitled to rule its own place the way they want. In those countries, the wealthy have more resources, whereas the underprivileged have less. A change in these aspects would change drastically the construction of that country as well as its laws and principles. 

I respond to those who do not share my position with these claims and reasons supporting the libertarianism principles. I will support my ideas in favour of libertarianism including Locke who states that Intelligent creatures consent to give up some of their liberty, but they still want to keep their rights to life, property, representation, and other benefits. People should not be forced into servitude by the government. In other words, even though libertarians accept the support of a government that would apply some rules, the main condition is to not impose those rules against individuals. 

The actions that do not cause harm to others are solely the responsibility of the individual. The laws should apply only if the behaviour can be harmful to others, for example getting intoxicated is not something that laws should be enforced, however, driving in this state can be a threat to others, so it is necessary to be avoided and enforced by law. Also, the use of drugs is not considered illegal if they do not harm others. However, the use is not the problem, but an addict would do robberies to provide for his supply and to stop these actions when there is no cure for the dependence looks like a lost game from the beginning. The laws should apply only if there are aggressions from individuals, not provided using drugs. Another objection applies to the fact that compelling individuals through legislation to assist others should not be imposed because this action of government lowers the level of living wage of practically every person. There are no free services, and everything provided is man-made, therefore such actions would favour some people and disadvantage others that spent their lives working and missing their free time and families. If someone voluntarily offers some of his products, is different than enforcing to give without consent.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *