Zwolinski And Libertarianism

However, the myth that it’s fair and equal to take from one and give to another persists and that’s because socialist economics seeks to create reality using an abstract, a belief. Surviving modernity requires knowledge and understanding of political ideologies, specifically progressivism; (the greatest source of terror and death in the 20th century), containing a toxic mixture of elite political rule of bureaucratic technocrats, bankers and big business; otherwise termed liberal fascism.

To Hayek, strong state intervention restricts the freedom of individuals. His concept of freedom is without coercion and he is clear that people can only be coerced by other people and not by circumstance. Those who are unemployed or those who are living in poverty do so because of the market’s function of rewarding those with certain skills and penalizing those without. For Hayek, while these people may be suffering, they are not coerced because the market is an impersonal mechanism. (Blakeley and Clarke, p. 353) It is only constraint of freedom by people that is damaging. According to him, any intervention from the state to regulate society, however well intentioned the motives, will inevitably lead to coercive government, and ultimately a loss of freedom. Hayek views inequality as natural because they are a result of the differences in innate human nature. It is his view that some people are just more gifted than

In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith celebrated capitalist society. The central thesis of The Wealth of Nations is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of no governmental interference, or laissez-faire, and free trade. In Smith's view, the production and exchange of goods can be stimulated, and a consequent rise in the general standard of living attained, only through the efficient operations of private industrial and commercial entrepreneurs acting with a minimum of regulation and control by governments. To explain this concept of government maintaining a laissez-faire attitude toward commercial endeavors, Smith proclaimed the principle of the "invisible hand": Every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious. The division of labor is another crucial component of capitalist society. According to Smith, division of labor benefits society in three ways:

“The class of the wholly property laws, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is class of the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.” As we know that “The communism is a theoretical statement of the conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.” It is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat. There were no such labor and rich people cannot own any worker. In society everybody have his or her own farmland, but all the production is owned by the state. How much food each person will get is depending on how much food they contributed to the country. In the idea of communism everybody has to share, and there are no such individual secrets. All the people should have the same interests. According to the research few students at Stanford University did, “in a communist society, the individual’s best interests are indistinguishable from the society’s best interest. Thus the idea of an individual freedom is incompatible with communist ideology. The reason to hold an individual speech and information rights would likely be met only in certain instances rather then across time. Making the default a lack of freedom.” Not only share and have same interest, they also share their benefit together. Communist focuses on the benefits to society instead of individual. All the land was

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

Then, he moves on to explain his view of the proletariat; they are slaves for property, which is

Milton Friedman believed a free-market system, in which goods and services are exchanged and controlled by individuals and privately-owned businesses without government authority, was the only way to achieve personal freedom. Adam Smith, a 18th century philosopher and economist, held the belief that in a free society, the role of government should be limited to the protection of the people, the administration of justice through the court system, and the maintenance of all public resources. Adam Smith developed the concept of the “invisible hand” theory, which says within a society that is free of government interference, individuals can pursue actions out of their own self-interest, and the collective result of this

His explanation of poverty is represented by Conflict Theory of Poverty. Poverty is caused by the inequality, and capitalism. He thinks capitalism needs poverty and without poverty capitalism cannot exist. Therefore, there will always be class conflicts. The top one percent of the wealth will always control the market system and the working class will always rely on the wealthy for wages.

Friedrich von Hayek views about government were the opposite. Hayek believed that in the pursuit of prosperity, society’s attempts at central planning will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. He believed that central planning was inherently undemocratic because the people of a nation would be subject to the will of a small minority, becoming a means for the ruling minority in service of “social welfare.” Hayek also postulated that socialism would be inferior to a democracy for assuring equality. The competition of the free market also would provide superior regulation to the economy because the market would adjust without input from any authority, unlike the coercive nature of central planning. Hayek stated that the only way to improve the

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia develops his central idea called the ‘entitlement theory.’ This concept states that redistribution of goods is only considered justified if it has the consent of the owner of the holdings. He mentions here that the only State that is justified in carrying out any duties is the ‘minimal state.’ The minimal State is one that is only limited to the enforcement of of contracts and protection of individuals, etc. Any more intervention from the State, according to Nozick, is a violation of right against the people. The purpose of this essay is to examine Nozick’s argument against redistributive taxation to prove that eliminating taxation means getting rid of public education. I will argue that the right of education is embedded as one of the services that is essential to the development of society and that without the funding for it, it will cease to exist. Using Charles Taylor’s argument, that choices are necessary for autonomy, I show how education gives rise to better autonomy for in the individual. Thus, allowing for the growth and development of the community.

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

In the 1960’s Milton Friedman was known to say “there’s no such thing as a free lunch. “If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the

Unlike Keynes, Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, points out that any form of government intervention is dangerous and leads to serfdom. He argued that central government planning leads to serfdom or servitude which destroys personal freedom. Society has tried to ensure continuous prosperity by centralized planning which leads to totalitarianism. For example, socialism was supposed to be a means of assuring equality through restrain and servitude whereas democracy seeks equality in liberty-personal freedom and economical freedom. On the other hand, planning which is coercive is the least method of regulation where as cooperation of free market is superior because it is the only method that can adjust our activities with each other without the intervention of the authority. Furthermore, he argued that central planning is undemocratic because it imposes the will of the minority upon the majority. In pursuing their centralized goals, they take money or properties of the majority thus, destroying individual freedom. In addition, centralized planning reduces the individual to merely a means to be used by the authority as well as, giving away individual’s economic liberty. Unlike centralized planning, an open society offers more personal and economical freedom even to the very poor. He concluded by saying “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it

Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes

The planning that Hayek refers to goes back to an enforceable legal system in addition to the tools needed for a free marketplace. Hayek states that even with a capitalistic society, there should be a safety net. He points out that new technology often displaces workers from their jobs. Part of this safety net would include unemployment benefits which would provide a basic standard of living. Hayek believes in this type of security for the people since the economy can oscillate greatly. ¡§¡Kthe very necessary efforts to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.¡¨ (Hayek 135).