Libertarianism
Ideology:
- Has to do with what respects human freedom and self-ownership. It defends an anti
authoritarian position. Libertarianism is centered on individual human beings and
their dignity and freedom, but not per se on their happiness.
- Libertarians favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulations, not in the
name of economic efficiency, but in the name of human freedom. The central claim is
that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty – the right to do whatever we want
with the things we own, provided we respect other people right do the same
- The libertarian rejects three types of policies and laws that states commonly
enact:
1. No Paternalism: Libertarians oppose laws to protect people from harming
themselves. A good example is motorcycle helmet laws. Libertarians argue
that such laws violate the right of the individual to decide what risks to
assume. As long as no third parties are harmed, and as long as motorcycle
riders are responsible for their own medical bills the state has no right.
2. No Moral Legislation: oppose using the coercive force of law to promote
notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority.
Prostitution may be morally objectionable to many people, but that does not
justify laws that prevent consenting adults from engaging in it.
3. No Redistribution of Income or Wealth: rules out any law that requires some
people to help others, including taxation for redistribution of wealth.
a. Robert Nozick View
i. Distributive justice depends on two requirements
1. Justice in Initial Holding: asks if the resources you
used to make your money were legitimately your in the
first place.
2. Justice in Transfer: asks if you made your money
either through free exchanges in the marketplace or from
gifts voluntarily bestowed upon you
3. IF the answer is yes to both you are entities to what
you have
- Liberal Neutrality (neutral government): the case for liberal neutrality arises from
the need for tolerance in the face of moral and religious disagreements. “Which moral
judgements are true, all things considered, is not a matter for political liberalism,”
Rawls writes. To maintain impartiality between competing moral and religious
doctrines, political liberalism does not “adress the moral topics on which those
doctrines divide”
, - The demand that we separate our identity as citizens from our moral and
religious convictions means that, when engaging in public discourse about
justice and rights, we must abide by the limits of public reason.
- Not only may the government not endorse a particular conception of the
good: citizens may not even introduce their moral and religious convictions
into a public debate about justice and rights. For if they do and if their
arguments prevail, they will effectively impose on their fellow citizens a law
that rests on a particular moral and religious doctrine.
- The attempt
- Obligation and Consent: on a liberal conception, obligations can arise in only two
ways. As natural duties that we owe to human beings as such, and as voluntary
obligations that we incur by consent.
- Natural duties: are universal, we owe them to persons as persons, as rational
beings, the duty to treat people with respect, to do justice, to avoid cruelty
and so on. Since they arise from an autonomous will or hypothetical social
contract, they do not require an act of consent.
- Voluntary obligation: are particular, not universal, and arise from consent.
Liberal justice requires that we respect people's rights, not that we advance
their good. Whether we must concern ourselves with the good of other people
depends on weather, and with whom, we have agreed to do.
- Obligations of solidarity (narrative conception): are particular, not
universal; they involve moral responsibilities we owe without consent, not to
rational beings as such, but to those with whom we share a certain history.
The moral weight derives instead from the situated aspect of moral reflection,
from a recognition that my life story is implicated in the stories of others
Critique Against Libertarianism:
❖ Main critique: from a philosophical view centered on human rights, it has evolved
into an ideology protecting the privileges of the strong and powerful from
attempts at redistribution of wealth.
❖ (Some) Libertarians conveniently forget
❖ The very concept of self-ownership is a social construct
❖ Value is a social construct
❖ Society is key to wealth-creation (by moderating transaction costs)
❖ Libertarianism often ignores imbalances of power
❖ What is freedom?
➢ To which extent is an individual's choice free, and to which extent is an
individual's choice determined by necessity?
, ❖ Libertarian Response:
➢ Taxation is not as bad as forced labor: why should the state force you to
make that choice? Some people like watching sunsets while others prefer
activities that cost money. Why should people who prefer leisure be taxed less
than those who prefer activities that cost money?
➢ The poor need the money more: this is a reason to persuade the rich to
support the needy through their own free choice. It does not however, justify
FORCING the right people to give money to charity.
➢ Micheal Jordan Does not play alone: Jordans success indeed depends on
other people. But these people have already been paid the market value of
their service.
➢ People are not really taxed without consent: as we have a right to vote
this can be viewed as true. However, even though I vote against tax laws, they
might still pass and then I am still being forced.
➢ Micheal Jordan is Lucky: if this is the case, then he does not own his talent,
and to a certain extent he does not own that part of himself. This raises the
question, who then DOES own those talents?
Differences Libertarianism and Utilitarianism:
- Libertarianism: do what respects human freedom and self-ownership. Centered on
the individual human beings and their dignity and freedom, but not necessarily on
their happiness.
- Utilitarians: do what does the most good and the least harm. Centered on an
abstract notion of happiness/utility/good, not on individual human beings.
- Difference in method for ethical evaluation of actions/behavior:
- Utilitarianism: look at the consequences of actions and behavior
- Libertarianists
- Kant: Look at the movie inspiring actions/behavior.
Similarities Libertarianism and Utilitarianism:
❖ Both schools are in-opposition to some pre-existing moral views:
➢ Utilitarianism opposes the view that actions can be inherently bad or good.
Instead, the ethical values are grounded in the consequences they bear
➢ Libertarianism defends an anti-authoritarian position: there are basic
human rights that no authority, no state, no institution should deny or
stamp on.
Ideology:
- Has to do with what respects human freedom and self-ownership. It defends an anti
authoritarian position. Libertarianism is centered on individual human beings and
their dignity and freedom, but not per se on their happiness.
- Libertarians favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulations, not in the
name of economic efficiency, but in the name of human freedom. The central claim is
that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty – the right to do whatever we want
with the things we own, provided we respect other people right do the same
- The libertarian rejects three types of policies and laws that states commonly
enact:
1. No Paternalism: Libertarians oppose laws to protect people from harming
themselves. A good example is motorcycle helmet laws. Libertarians argue
that such laws violate the right of the individual to decide what risks to
assume. As long as no third parties are harmed, and as long as motorcycle
riders are responsible for their own medical bills the state has no right.
2. No Moral Legislation: oppose using the coercive force of law to promote
notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority.
Prostitution may be morally objectionable to many people, but that does not
justify laws that prevent consenting adults from engaging in it.
3. No Redistribution of Income or Wealth: rules out any law that requires some
people to help others, including taxation for redistribution of wealth.
a. Robert Nozick View
i. Distributive justice depends on two requirements
1. Justice in Initial Holding: asks if the resources you
used to make your money were legitimately your in the
first place.
2. Justice in Transfer: asks if you made your money
either through free exchanges in the marketplace or from
gifts voluntarily bestowed upon you
3. IF the answer is yes to both you are entities to what
you have
- Liberal Neutrality (neutral government): the case for liberal neutrality arises from
the need for tolerance in the face of moral and religious disagreements. “Which moral
judgements are true, all things considered, is not a matter for political liberalism,”
Rawls writes. To maintain impartiality between competing moral and religious
doctrines, political liberalism does not “adress the moral topics on which those
doctrines divide”
, - The demand that we separate our identity as citizens from our moral and
religious convictions means that, when engaging in public discourse about
justice and rights, we must abide by the limits of public reason.
- Not only may the government not endorse a particular conception of the
good: citizens may not even introduce their moral and religious convictions
into a public debate about justice and rights. For if they do and if their
arguments prevail, they will effectively impose on their fellow citizens a law
that rests on a particular moral and religious doctrine.
- The attempt
- Obligation and Consent: on a liberal conception, obligations can arise in only two
ways. As natural duties that we owe to human beings as such, and as voluntary
obligations that we incur by consent.
- Natural duties: are universal, we owe them to persons as persons, as rational
beings, the duty to treat people with respect, to do justice, to avoid cruelty
and so on. Since they arise from an autonomous will or hypothetical social
contract, they do not require an act of consent.
- Voluntary obligation: are particular, not universal, and arise from consent.
Liberal justice requires that we respect people's rights, not that we advance
their good. Whether we must concern ourselves with the good of other people
depends on weather, and with whom, we have agreed to do.
- Obligations of solidarity (narrative conception): are particular, not
universal; they involve moral responsibilities we owe without consent, not to
rational beings as such, but to those with whom we share a certain history.
The moral weight derives instead from the situated aspect of moral reflection,
from a recognition that my life story is implicated in the stories of others
Critique Against Libertarianism:
❖ Main critique: from a philosophical view centered on human rights, it has evolved
into an ideology protecting the privileges of the strong and powerful from
attempts at redistribution of wealth.
❖ (Some) Libertarians conveniently forget
❖ The very concept of self-ownership is a social construct
❖ Value is a social construct
❖ Society is key to wealth-creation (by moderating transaction costs)
❖ Libertarianism often ignores imbalances of power
❖ What is freedom?
➢ To which extent is an individual's choice free, and to which extent is an
individual's choice determined by necessity?
, ❖ Libertarian Response:
➢ Taxation is not as bad as forced labor: why should the state force you to
make that choice? Some people like watching sunsets while others prefer
activities that cost money. Why should people who prefer leisure be taxed less
than those who prefer activities that cost money?
➢ The poor need the money more: this is a reason to persuade the rich to
support the needy through their own free choice. It does not however, justify
FORCING the right people to give money to charity.
➢ Micheal Jordan Does not play alone: Jordans success indeed depends on
other people. But these people have already been paid the market value of
their service.
➢ People are not really taxed without consent: as we have a right to vote
this can be viewed as true. However, even though I vote against tax laws, they
might still pass and then I am still being forced.
➢ Micheal Jordan is Lucky: if this is the case, then he does not own his talent,
and to a certain extent he does not own that part of himself. This raises the
question, who then DOES own those talents?
Differences Libertarianism and Utilitarianism:
- Libertarianism: do what respects human freedom and self-ownership. Centered on
the individual human beings and their dignity and freedom, but not necessarily on
their happiness.
- Utilitarians: do what does the most good and the least harm. Centered on an
abstract notion of happiness/utility/good, not on individual human beings.
- Difference in method for ethical evaluation of actions/behavior:
- Utilitarianism: look at the consequences of actions and behavior
- Libertarianists
- Kant: Look at the movie inspiring actions/behavior.
Similarities Libertarianism and Utilitarianism:
❖ Both schools are in-opposition to some pre-existing moral views:
➢ Utilitarianism opposes the view that actions can be inherently bad or good.
Instead, the ethical values are grounded in the consequences they bear
➢ Libertarianism defends an anti-authoritarian position: there are basic
human rights that no authority, no state, no institution should deny or
stamp on.
