Libertarian Position in a Welfare State: Rights of Ownership - Essay Example

Part. 1: Introduction Should welfare state have morality as defined in the libertarian position? Welfare state is a state that thinks about and helps in the well being of its people. It helps to accomplish physical, social, moral and other wells for the benefit of its people. In the USA according to the tenth amendment in the constitution every state has individual rights towards well beings which means that every state has to look for its peoples’ benefit (Howard, 2007, p.73-74). Morality is the basic feature defined when it comes to living in a society. For well being it is a basic principle. Morality as defined by the libertarianism is the view that no harm is done to anyone without having any body which is above all in it i.e. God. According to Dostoevsky (1981, p.70), if there is no God then everything is admissible but libertarians reject this thought by setting up a moral or political system which emphasizes on “not harming others”. This contradicting system of theirs generates resistance towards libertarian position in a welfare state. Part. 2: Welfare state and Libertarianism A welfare state is the one that works for and thinks for the well being of the people who live in it. Libertarianism is not chaos but there are some flaws in it which I have discussed below. Moreover, libertarianism is something that deals with majority but people who reside in a state need rights individually. There are times in life when morality according to the libertarians cannot be exercised. A welfare state should exercise philosophies which are beneficial for all the people residing in it and not only segments. 2.1: Rights of ownership: Libertarianism and Welfare State According to Daskal (2010, p. 23-24), libertarianism are principles which are used to conclude about questions related to justice and is used to conclude about private properties. Libertarianism’s framework involves two fundamental ideas. The first one is that there is natural or “full self-ownership” and the second is that justice to the social institutions which are required for the natural ownership rights of an individual. Daskal (2010, p.21-22) also states an example that if someone has the rights of his property and wealth and does not distribute it to anyone then it is not just to the poor people in the state hence the state puts tax on the people. This taxation in libertarian approach is similar to theft or slavery. As the person who has the possession of his property does not have full control and command over his assets. The adaption of libertarian framework constrains the set of admissible redistribution regarding the social institutions. Machan (1997, pp. 134) discussed that Sterba’s point of view in this regard. According to her if full ownership exists in a state then it is not a welfare state in nature because welfare states work for the benefit of the whole society and not for majority. For example taxation is a good thing as government collects money to invest on other institutions, it benefits poor as well by giving them fixed amount of money or charity. The fundamental ideas of libertarianism are criticized by philosopher Nussbaum that dependency in human life is apparent even at infant level. Humans are social beings and they cannot live separated by their surroundings. According to Nussbaum the start of the libertarian approach is not correct as one cannot be thought of an independent agent because humans depend on one another for living life (Daskal, 2010, 20). In welfare state rights of ownership do not reside with the individual. Different institutions work for the society. People do have right over some property but government also has right over other properties, by using them they can also give space to the poor to live in and support other welfare programs. 2.2: Types of Libertarianism Libertarianism is a mixture of left libertarianism, right libertarianism and classical libertarianism. There are people who support “left -libertarianism and right-libertarianism” in which the left libertarianism deals with the democratic or free libertarianism. This perspective generates the “global distribution” of resources (Daskal, 2010, p.26). Daskal (2010, p.32-40) discusses the Lockean Proviso which is a term used by Noziak and based on ideas of Locke, people have right of charity over “other’s plenty”. One cannot have complete command over the resources; he can claim its share in resources only if some effort is put into its development by him (Philosophy, 2011). People have right to attain property but they should leave some for others as well. There are people in the society who need to have full share over their property. It becomes essential in cases of poor people. They should have something which they can call their own. According to Gaus (2000, pp. 33-38), the classical liberalism and libertarianism’s relation is complex one. Both of these theories say that certain amount of income should be made compulsory for everyone. This makes the society we live in a “Great” one. According to Mill guaranteed incomes should only be given when one works for it, moreover he thinks that the forced transfers are not an element of classical thought but it is surly a libertarian commitment. Lomasky said that there should be fixed amount given to the poorest in the society but Machan who was a libertarian himself rejected this thought as “undermining the integrity of free law” (Gaus, 2000, pp. 35). Liberalism is not something similar to chaos, they believe in liberty but it is difficult to draw conclusions out of it for every problem to get the real soul of welfare state. 2.3: Around the world: Libertarianism and Welfare States According to Machan (1997, pp.131-148), USA is associated with classical libertarianism. The politics and laws in the west are also highly influenced by it. There is a lot of differences in actual political history and that of libertarianism but still it has now become an evident part of American political system. Division can be found within libertarianism hence for a welfare state to help society in segment is unjust. Machan (1997, pp. 134) discussed that Sterba argued on the fact that libertarians should allow some people in society to have a right to “welfare”. For example if there are poor people who are not been given enough money to live with, they should have the right to gain the “surplus wealth of the rich”. There are times in lives of people where they cannot make decisions according to morality and where the libertarian approach fails. If the poor does not have enough resources he has to gain something in order to survive rather than not having anything. The libertarian approach to liberty is said to be “negative liberty” by Machan (1997, pp.135). To transform a state into welfare one it is essential to think about well being of people who are living in it. Unjust distribution of resources and rights of ownership makes the societies setup unmerited. Morality is an essential part of the human life no matter what type of theory or philosophy is used to live life. There are times in life of humans when demands have to be fulfilled without thinking about morality. For example if there is a hungry man he will try to get food one way or the other and will not think about that he does not have the right to ownership etc. 2.4: Real Spirit of Welfare State Welfare state is the one which works for the benefit of the people who live in it. for this purpose different institutions work under administration for the benefit of society. Libertarianism focuses on self ownership which is that no one should harm anyone and the rights of property resides with the majority. This is not applicable in the real world. There are some phases in life when one has to think about his survival. For this reason he should have resources owned by him only. The poor sometimes cannot think about morality because he needs money to attain the basic necessities of life. Moreover, Fried also rejects libertarianism by stressing on the fact that it provides less theoretical points to draw conclusions and matters of justice in it are different from that of the real world. Daskal (2010) states that the libertarian framework makes one get the feel of a state which is generous enough to make “productive labor possible”. This requires funds generated by public employment programs. It is something related with welfare benefit on the whole. But we find it unvoiced regarding the details of the state functions. Part. 3: Conclusion Welfare states work for the benefit of the society as a whole. They cannot think about society or state in segments. There should be equal distribution of resources. In welfare state there are institutions set up by the government who work for the benefit of the society. The welfare state cannot have morality as defined in the libertarian position. Morality is the basic feature which defines any society and its set up. Human beings have to live with morality. They cannot live alone as individuals, they need to live in societies. Libertarian approach stresses on the “self ownership” and taxation is similar to theft or slavery. But in the real world there is a demand to generate taxes for the well being of the members of the state. With the help of taxes government can help give subsidies and funds to people in need. The libertarian approach, its different types, Lockean Proviso and libertarianism is disscused in different perspectives in this essay. They all make me conclude that libertarian position in welfare state is hindered by morality as morality defined for both are different. According to Wordpress (2011) humans are born with there rights, they are “gift” to him by God. The libertarians instead imply that human rights are part of humanity. The states as welfare in nature should not use libertarian approach in their framework. If they do include it, then they should emphasize on the things beneficial for the society on the whole. The demands of all individuals in the society should be focused and morailty should be treated not as strictly as described in the libertarian approach. Part. 4: Works Cited Daskal, S. "Libertarianism Left and Right, the Lockean Proviso, and the Reformed Welfare State", Social Theory and Practice, (2010): 36.1, pp. 21-43. Social Science Module, ProQuest. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. Dostoevsky, I., D., S., “Dostoevsky studies: journal of the International Dostoevsky Society”, IDS by Institute of Slavic Studies, (1981): 2-6, pp.60, journal of the International Dostoevsky Society. Gaus F., G. “Criminal Justice Ethics”, New York (2000):19 (2), pp. 32-43. ProQuest. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. Howard, C. “The welfare state nobody knows: debunking myths about U.S. social policy”, Princeton University Press (2007): 1, pp. 73-80. Machan, T. "Does libertarianism imply the welfare state?" Res Publica, (1997): 3.2, pp.131-148. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Philosophy, Political. “The Lockean Proviso.” (2011). Web. 12 December 2011 . Wordpress. “A critical review of libertarianism”. (2011). Web. 12 December 2011 Read More