preview

Arguments Against Libertarianism

Decent Essays
Open Document

Libertarianism is the social-political philosophy that emphasizes autonomy, freedom of choice, and individual rights above all else. Its name comes from Liberty - as in a liberty to act as a morally autonomous agent without public or private interference. Although Libertarianism holds a generally skeptical view of political government, it does not entirely argue for anarchism. Libertarianism does argue for a limited government, not necessarily limited in its actual physical size or scope, but rather limited in its ability, and power, to interfere into the aforementioned autonomy of a moral citizen. There are many schools of thoughts within Libertarianism. The purpose of this paper is not to give a defense of a specific Libertarian philosophy, …show more content…

Some may characterize this as private property, but private property is merely an example of this. It is fair, for example, that if individual A works really hard building a treehouse, individual A gets to enjoy the benefits of that treehouse. In a less materialistic perspective, if individual A puts in the labor to educate themselves, then individual A gets to enjoy the benefits of being educated. Reaping the fruits of one's labor is also a moral necessity. If I had no guarantee that I will not get what I fully deserve, (including property) then why put any input at all. Therefore, a state must defend what their citizens labor for. Libertarianism argues that we have the power to acquire property rights, I argue that this power is a moral need. A state cannot violate the fruits of individual labor, even when this violation may be beneficial to the whole. Again, private property is but an example of this. John Rawls, a 20th century philosopher, argues the same. A personal property right is essential for citizens to have moral capabilities and the ability to respect themselves. Without a guaranteed protection of the fruits of labor there would be no incentive to pursue personal goals, argues Rawls. Moral capability, I argue, should be considered a first principle. If a …show more content…

As was argued before, it is wrong for a state to impose moral values (even if those values are right). Even more so, to do so creates inequality. Take the contemporary policy debate of whether an income bracket should be taxed lower or higher. Conservatives may argue for a lower tax on certain, and liberals may argue for higher tax on the rich. Both are wrong and unfair, and will only create inequality. It is wrong, and immoral, to target a single group based on materialistic attributes such as income. One cannot be selected for more harsher or lenient treatment based on how much money one makes. It should be equal for everyone as it is the only fair position of not having a law benefit one group because of X or Y trait or characteristic. I disagree with Rawl’s progressive taxation arguments. If a person, born equally into a society with equal opportunity, happens to make more money than the rest, he or she should not be taxed any differently. For doing so would allow the state to impose a restriction on an autonomous citizen that had not fault in virtue of making more or less money. Equal representation under the law, and tax code, should be what is fair. Inequalities are bound to arise, and Rawl’s concern of them is a fair one, but to impose a penalty on a demographic because of X characteristic is unfair. The law should be equal to all. Libertarianism advocates for equality, as

Get Access
Related
Get Access