Nozick 's Version Of Libertarianism

Locke and Jefferson have different ways of evaluating government than the Ayn Rand Institute. Both philosophers believe certain rights are inalienable to all of men, but when government starts to renege on its original intent, people as a whole may come together and overthrow the government. For Locke government starts with a civil association, or a group of like-minded people who want to protect themselves from the dangers that could potentially arise in the state of nature. Each individual that enters into civil society consents and the basis of authority is the determination of the people as a whole, better known as popular sovereignty. Back in Locke’s time it was commonly held that popular sovereignty would lead to chaos and frequent rebellion. In spite of this, Locke argues that popular sovereignty is the best guarantee against unwarranted rebellion since the population would collectively determine the appropriate remedy. Locke reasons that if the decision to revolt were left up to the individual that it would “unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.” To support collectivism, Locke says as long as the society lasts the power each individual relinquished upon entering does not revert back to the individual. Therefore, even though the government has collapsed the “commonwealth [is] still preserved” and the notion of popular sovereignty remains intact. Another strong piece to add to this counterargument would be to discuss Locke’s ideas on the individual right to punish. Since there is no common authority in the state of nature, Locke holds that individuals have the right to punish those who threaten their self-preservation and individual freedom. However prior to entering a civil association, individuals forfeit their right to punish and confer it upon the government. Therefore, the use of individual rights and

In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.

The dystopic novel Anthem written by Ayn Rand, published in 1937 and later an American version was released in 1946, offers a perspective on a life that is completely controlled by the government. They offer the population of the area a “freedom”. That “freedom” is actually a false sense of happiness, purpose, and security. However, what if the totalitarianism like government in Anthem is a way to have a stable and effective government? In Anthem by Ayn Rand, the bureaucracy is portrayed as cowardly, controlling, and inefficient; however, the totalitarian government, as it stands in this novel, is actually quite stable, and effective.

The Social Contract Theory is the people give the government authority to protect their rights. The Declaration of Dependence states that no man’s rights can be taken away, but if they are, people have the right to put an end to the government and make a new one. “...With certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” John Locke outlined the natural rights as, "Life, Liberty, and Estate". Jon Locke used estate as one of the natural rights to state that people have the right to make their own particular living and to accommodate their own particular needs.

She uses the character Equality 7-2521 and a society as a way to tell of the danger that can happen in an event where the government was in control. As Equality 7-2521 repeats a saying he says, “We are one in all and all in one, There are no men but only the great WE…” soon after he says, “but it helps me not”(Anthem 19). He discovered and knew from the beginning that there was more to life than just working and thinking as one. Shortly after his discovery is disregarded he then realizes he must think for himself which in turn lead to the his freedom and to the word he longed for “I”. This proves that one must not be dependent of the government because in truth a piece of if not our whole freedom is taken. At the end of the book one learns that one must act on the event before change can be seen. Therefore, I agree with Rand that we as a society must fulfill our own self interest first in order to make something change and get the anticipated result that is expected, therefore programs which assist the less fortunate are to be negatively

Liberty and freedom was conceived differently by the social reformers and the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire. The difference actually emanated in the manner in which the two groups interpreted the suitability of the operation of the economy. While the economy can operate on the basis of capitalism where individualism and private property are the basis of creating wealth, it can also operate on the basis of collectivity, where communism and pooling of the labor and output together forms the basis of wealth accumulation for the society. In this respect, the social reformers such as Edward Bellamy, Henry George, and the Knights of Labor conceived the freedom and liberty to entail the rights of the laborers to earn better wages, work for a few hours and have a legal tender mechanism from the government that was not under the control of the banks . On the other hand, the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire like Herbert Spencer and Andrew Carnegie conceived the liberty and freedom to entail individualism and private property ownership as the basis of

Philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both created systems in what they believed the ideal government should look like. In the Second Treatise on Government, “Locke held that human beings are born with natural rights of life, liberty, and property; they establish the state to protect these rights”. John Locke’s view on government conceptualizes the idea of the natural rights: life, liberty and property. It conveys that every citizen is born with natural rights and that the government is morally obligated to uphold them. By pushing for rights and freedom, Locke convinced people to think about self-upliftment, which establishes that the people should fight for justice. Rousseau, on the other hand brings more of an idea that the government ought to serve the general will, using his social contract. “The clauses of this contract...the total alienation of each associate, together with all of his rights, to a whole community” (The Social Contract). By having a utilitarian approach, Rousseau believes that the general will of the population supercedes every other criteria, meaning that with anything that the government does, it must have the people’s consent. This ideology reinforced ‘no taxation without representation’, as the people began to believe that it is their right to decide what is just. However, none of these ideas could have impacted

The protagonist, Equality 7-252, finds himself in a collectivist state where this type of government is based on the premise that all people live and work for the benefit and the good of everyone else. The leaders, also known as the World Council, is the group that makes decisions for the larger lower class as separated by intelligence or any other valuable trait. These decisions include individual’s names, their occupations, restricting their vocabulary and their education. The establishment of this government resulted in giving up personal rights and the sense of self. In this collectivist state, people are going to tell someone what to do, think and act and take away their free will. They choose and decide what they want and when they want it. A big part of individualism is to question anything or anyone, such as the government but in this collective state, fear is one of the most emphasized themes in the book that Rand shows of many people going along with society’s ideals simply because they are too afraid to stand up for anything else. Individualism gives people the power to voice their opinion, to say what they want and what they need. The most important part of the government is to establish laws based on peoples opinions and their needs/wants. Rather than having these laws be decided by the government and for the goal of equality they want to achieve. This is supported based of Excerpts from John Locke. Locke claims that the most important part of the government is the legislative power because the role of the legislative power is to establish laws that apply to everyone equally and for the good of the people. The purpose of an established government is to care for the good of its people, but the government in Anthem precludes people from their rights. Everyone should have a place or part in the government because no decisions are made

Determinism supporters claim that all consequences are inevitable since conditions are met and nothing else would occur by any chances. And determinism could influence and controlling everything in the universe with causal laws. According to determinism, we could make predictions about the occurrences of certain events or actions of human beings. There three types of determinism that I will discuss in the following, the Hard determinism, Soft determinism and Libertarianism.

Her logic is severely flawed. The biggest thing wrong with her argument is that plain and simple fact that humans are not rational creatures. People often (and even consistently) make quick choices that negatively impact their life in the future. The other gaping hole in her logic is that some people cannot fend for themselves if they are weak, sick, or handicapped. They are ignored by the power majority and are left to suffer and die. Everyone being truly free with absolute liberty in a governmentless “objectivist” society does not work. Those that argue that no government is best have similarly shaped crevasses in their mental picture of their utopia as Ayn Rand did. Everyone wasn’t all nice and sharing like John Locke wanted them to be. If everything was fine and dandy without a government and property was communal, then there would be no government today. A government exists because there was chaos of the human Leviathan of greed and inherent inequality that stems from all humans being unique and fear of the different. There must be checks put in place for the people that get left in the dust by the privileged people creating their new

Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who work best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick shows us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke, who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force

The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self.

Nozick, in contrast with Rousseau, believes that taxation, and its more direct relative, unpaid civic duty, are threats to freedom rather than an extension or requirement of it. Instead he takes a libertarian approach to the issue. Believing the individual freedom and property rights are more important than overall societal utility. As a libertarian, he believes that civic duty violates man’s own property of himself and, by extension, his own time. In its place, Nozick would suggest the use of competition and the free market to fill the gaps that the lack of civic service would leave. While this appears to be sound in theory, there are a number of criticisms that could be applied.

Over this winter semester, we have studied an array of different political philosophies under which a person could relate to. After examining them further I have found that I closely relate to the political philosophy of libertarianism. I associate with this political philosophy because it states that each person owns him or herself, that is something I agree with. Each person should have a right to their own body and be able to do with it what they want. After being able to take a closer look, I have also realized that I agree with a majority of the ideas that a libertarian does. I do believe that a person who is a prostitute should have the right to do with their body as they want and not be legally charged for it. It is that person’s decision

The proclaimed “Father of Liberalism,” John Locke, is an essential figure to study. If not for his sheer amount of philosophical knowledge, then for the profound impact that he has had on the structure of America’s government. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke rejects the status quo and opts for a key principle in government that monarchies simply do not have: a social contract. However, before a social contract is created, people must undergo the state of nature; a place of “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Chapter 2, Section 4). John Locke skillfully uses the state of nature as a starting point to explain how a reasonable government and civil society are created. The state of nature is the essential beginning that any society must take at first. From this, we see the emergence of natural freedoms; our rights to life, liberty, and property; and how a government may limit those for our own benefit.