I don’t usually talk politics, however, if I really have to talk about it, I take the position that the best approach to address the disparity in the USA in wealth and income is to take actions based on the plan that is constructed using the right-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 “every human being is the owner of his or her own life, and so has the freedom to behave in accordance with his or her own preferences, unless such activities infringe on the rights of others” and “the government’s function is to protect human rights, especially the right to liberty, no other function is justified.” However, the government is not having the justification to protect people from themselves brings some criticism to these principles too.
“If one prevents a man from working for the good of society while at the same time providing for the satisfaction of his own needs, then only one way remains open to him: to make himself richer and others poorer by the violent oppression and spoliation of his fellow men.”
― Ludwig von Mises
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, and everyone is free to decide for his own life and no one can impose to another person how to conduct just their decisions. “No one is anyone else’s master, and no one is anyone else’s slave” Also, these principles strengthen the idea that “Other men’s lives are not yours to dispose of”. For any project or desire, if someone does not have enough funds to fulfill his project, that money should not be taken from people by force using political power. Furthermore, libertarianism encourages that “no human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another”. 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 properties without consent, and this applies to human beings not caused by the force of nature (flood, earthquakes, etc). The libertarians support a government that would protect human rights for life, liberty, and property. Supporting the right of 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 of liberty refers to the laws that would not enforce freedom of speech or censoring ideas, books, movies by the government. The right of property should protect people against confiscations, nationalization, robbery, fraud, etc.
“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?”
― Walter E. Williams
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 give to another are reasonable.
They criticize my approach by making these claims and charges as it supported by Nozick who “takes his inspiration from John Locke’s the idea that everyone ‘owns’ themselves and, by mixing one’s labors with the world, self-ownership can generate ownership of some part of the material world.” 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 under a different form, it is still from the same place and the owner is not changed. Furthermore, the criticism motivates this statement arguing that would contribute to the wellbeing and what it shares is just a part of the material world.
However, adopting the self-ownership led to more criticism from egalitarians that states that “leaning theorists generally have opposed Nozick’s form of libertarianism on the grounds that its implementation would lead to potentially vast material inequalities. However, a subset of egalitarians has nevertheless been attracted to the normative strength and implications of self-ownership, concerned that an unconstrained pursuit of equality could pose a danger to people’s rights over themselves and their labor.” In other words, this self-ownership could lead to imbalance and an important gap between the wealthier and the poor would be present.
“… many people must be ruled to thrive. In their selfishness and greed, they see free people as their oppressors. They wish to have a leader who will cut the taller plants so the sun will reach them. They think no plant should be allowed to grow taller than the shortest, and in that way give light to all. They would rather be provided a guiding light, regardless of the fuel, than light a candle themselves.”
― Terry Goodkind
Furthermore, the supporters of left-libertarians contributed to the criticism regarding libertarianism theories, combining” a fundamental commitment to self-ownership with various egalitarian views of how people can come to have rights to use or own elements of the external world. A key principle in these views is that the mere possession of land or natural resources should not be permitted to generate greater wealth for some. An early version of this combination of views can be found in Henry George’s Progress and Poverty (1879), in which he argued for the value of land to be taxed while the value added by people’s work be retained by them.” In other words, it is not enough to pay taxes for the value of land, but also what is produced on that property to be collected. This principle had an exception for the unworked land, but that was excluded from the collection. Because the land belongs to nature, it was 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 “there seems no obvious reason to give strong legal protection to property rights which have arisen through violations of the just principles of acquisition and transfer.” 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 for the transaction made in a fairway.
Also, these principles cannot apply worldwide as exist social. difference “As an empirical claim though, this appears to be false. If we compare countries with less exclusionary property rights (e.g. more taxation) with countries with more exclusionary property regimes, we see no systematic advantage in freedoms or liberties enjoyed by people in the latter countries. (Of course, we do see a difference in the distribution of such freedoms or liberties. In the latter countries, the richer have more and the poorer less, while in the former they are more evenly distributed.)” The laws in different countries don’t allow interference of the outside authorities, as every country is entitled to rule his 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.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
― Ayn Rand
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 favor of libertarianism including Locke who states that “Rational beings agree to surrender a small portion of their freedom but not the right to life, property, representation, and other goods. Individuals are not to become slaves to the STATE.” 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 behavior which harms no one else is strictly the individual’s own affair.” The laws should apply only if the behavior 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 for others, 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 of 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 “no one should be forced by law to help others” because this action of government lowers the level of living wage of practically every person. There are no free services, and everything provided is men made, therefore such actions would favor 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.
“We cannot have a world where everyone is a victim. “I’m this way because my father made me this way. I’m this way because my husband made me this way.” Yes, we are indeed formed by traumas that happen to us. But then you must take charge, you must take over, you are responsible.”
― Camille Paglia