Libertarianism in Terms of Its Conceptual Implications - Essay Example

?Libertarianism People have always equated happiness with freedom. As embodied in modern politics, entertainment media, and even in business principles, freedom provides the individual with the capacity to optimize his potentials. This definitive view on freedom gave birth to more specific ideologies, such as artistic freedom, political freedom, and academic freedom. All of these reinforce the natural right of people to do what they want, for as long as the actions taken do not wreak harm on other beings, and more importantly, on other people. Since the term ‘doing what is wanted’ is conceptually and practically ambiguous, as the inclination toward the good and the avoidance of the bad have been subjected to people’s own reasoning and interpretation, the society has drafted rules that aimed at controlling the behavior of people. Soon, these rules became laws—meant to maintain peace and order in the society. They serve as concrete guidelines on people’s actions, and as constant reminders that bad actions merit legal sanctions. As laws continue to develop in nature and content, it became more prescriptive and controlling of people’s actions. As response, numerous ideologies have emerged—primarily aiming at reviving the essence of freedom. One of these ideologies is called libertarianism. On this essay, we will examine libertarianism in terms of its conceptual implications. After which, we will provide an analysis to be able to recommend needed alterations to strengthen its position. Libertarianism, as defined in the official website called Libertarianism, posits that man fully owns himself, and in effect, has the right to determine his own happiness. Self-ownership starts with the acknowledgement of the self as a separate and self-governing entity. The recognition of this specific uniqueness leads to an understanding of one’s intrinsic worth as a person—thus, human dignity. Through human dignity, man strives to know himself and to actualize his self-difference vis-a-vis other men. Knowledge of self leads to the construction of self-identity, which is crucial in the definition of its ultimate want. Human dignity is reinforced in identity formulation since it further separates man from other men. Since the process of identity formulation is intra-personal, its fulfillment rests heavily on the concrete actions taken to change the self actually. In this light, through the actions taken, the ideal self-identity is slowly converted to a realistic self-image. Image is created not by the deciding self but by the judgment of other selves. It is on this logic that the core teachings of libertarianism are grounded. It underscores man’s responsibility in constructing his self-identity and in the actualization of this identity through concrete actions. In short, libertarianism places man at the center of his happiness. In order to strengthen the conceptual implications of libertarianism, freedom is infused. Libertarianism posits the right of each man to complete freedom. Complete freedom, in this sense, pertains to the absence of external control. Thus, man not only has the right over his own life, but also has the right against any unwilled external control. Willing becomes an operative word in this sense since the responsibility to control or to lose control over one’s life is determined ultimately by the self. Thus, for as long as there is consent, man may be subject to the control of other men. Slavery, in short, is approved by libertarianism if it becomes a consequence of free choice. Through this conceptual exploration of libertarianism, it is obvious that freedom is emphasized as the state of doing whatever one wants, for as long as it does not create harm on other people. However, careful analysis of its argumentation can help in spotting some of its logical fallacies. The major fallacy is grounded on the definition of the human person. Although man is defined as a free being—who is able to decide for his own happiness and must therefore be free from any unwilled imposition of other men—freedom must be understood not only in the context of being free from, but more importantly on being free for. With this logic, it can be said that there is a moral responsibility that is inherently present in the acknowledgement of man as a free being. Moral responsibility underscores man’s action to attain happiness. However, emphasis must be given on the kind of happiness that is willed. Using the logic of libertarianism, happiness becomes a choice that is free from any moral implication. Thus, there is no good or bad judgment for the self, for as long as the action taken is thought to be good. In short, the value of an action is anchored on the subjective judgment of the deciding self. In this context, an evil act can be morally accepted if the self deems it to be good. This reasoning becomes problematic since the intrinsic quality of an act is replaced by its corresponding consequence. It has to be noted, however, that this distorted view of freedom directly bastardizes the essential definition of man. In the example of slavery, man may be subject to other men’s control if there is consent. Self-ownership, ironically, is found on the loss of control over oneself since happiness is attained in this way. Therefore, we can now say that although libertarianism makes sense in positing that man is the agent responsible for his own life, emphasis must be given on what this responsibility is ultimately for. Thus, we define happiness not merely as a state of complete freedom from unwilled impositions, but as a state of personal excellence. Through this definition, we are directly claiming the responsibility of man to do the good act, since it is only through good acts that man truly becomes happy. This concept is shared by Aristotle in his definition of true happiness. The question now rests on whether the self makes the right judgment in choosing the good act, since it is obvious that the self may be wronged in deeming the bad act as good. For this matter, the quality of an act must be evaluated in three key areas, claimed by St. Thomas Aquinas. This three-pronged approached in valuing an act is called sources of morality. Thus, for an act to be good, it must be good in the self’s intent (the primary mover for willing and eventually doing an act); the object itself (the inherent quality of an act that describes it as good or bad); and its direct or indirect circumstance (the effect is has on other selves). Through the sources of morality, we are able to widen our view of freedom, since it is geared toward the attainment of a good end. In conclusion, we then say that freedom truly has a corresponding responsibility. There is a need to shed light on the fine line between uncontrolled action and responsible action, and we must always side with the good. We must remember that it is only through the good actions that we can truly be liberal. References: “Libertarianism”. Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2011. Stanford University Press, 2011. Web. 24 October. 2011. Read More