Week 2 post 2

      

Amongst the many modes of moral and political reasoning is libertarianism. Libertarianism, at its root, is the belief that individuals should have the right to live freely, provided individuals respect others' rights to do the same. It is the concept that individuals own themselves and only themselves and their property. That philosophy itself is one of respectability. However, it is a laissez-faire political philosophy by which it can be questionable to base one's morals on. It is questionable because it is based on three main principles, the third being contentious on its ability to disregard humanity. Those three principles are; Justice in acquisition (initial holdings), justice in transfer (free market), and lastly, no redistribution as forced by the state from the rich to the poor (taxes). Libertarians believe not abiding by these principles is, in its simplest form, coercion. The philosophy to allow people to live freely is widely accepted when it applies to prohibit discrimination based on race or sexuality. However, the idea that there should be zero redistribution by means of the state often loses people. For many, libertarianism only works in hypotheticals because that is the only valid grounds for equal opportunity. In real life, that lack of redistribution gives one group such an amass of wealth and the rest hardly enough to buy food. It is a seemingly good idea to base things off how hard people work, but it loses traction when there is no perfect way of proving true justice in the acquisition of wealth in modern society. There is no right way to say the person who works 15-hour shifts at a fast-food restaurant is not working just as hard as a CEO who might only work 8 hours a day. Which leads to the question, What moral obligations do people owe each other?

     The argument on libertarianism is one of many objections, many of which lead back to what people owe each other on a necessary basis for a stable society. On a psychological level, to live a meaningful life through libertarianism is genuinely complicated. It is complex because, on the base level, freedom to express individuality in the fullest form possible, with no interruption, could be extremely beneficial to living a happy life. Unfortunately, it is not a given that every individual will respect others due to human nature. Then there is the argument that it promotes only materialism, and that working for material goods is the only way to achieve true happiness. However, any entry-level positive psychology will point you otherwise. Materialism is not truly a source of great happiness, and there are psychological dangers to defining that as the quota of happiness. This reaches the idea that when viewing political and moral philosophies such as utilitarianism or libertarianism, they appeal on face value and in other aspects, but they often harbor many faults. This begins to construct the idea that there is possibly no perfect philosophy, and to live only in the name of one fails to assess all parts of life. It fails to make a well-rounded decision. This is why, when considering philosophy, it is essential to dive into the depth of one's values and abide by a multitude of principals depending on the situation.