Libertarianism Vs Egalitarianism

Reading Question 1: Friedman says the central question of political philosophy is "How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom?" What does he mean by this? What is the promise of government? In what ways might government be a threat to our freedom?
The question of how can we benefit the promise of government while avowing the threat to freedom is a mind provoking questions that Freidman asked. He means that the government is there for the people as it is developed by the people. However, the government has the capacity to destroy the freedom that the people want. The government must be limited in uhsing the power, dispersed by going to other states, and decentralizing the poser. With this, the government is responsible for protecting, balancing, providing, and maintain the rights of the people.
The promise of liberty, equality, justice, and freedom are central to the people. The problem is that this very government can also disrupt the freedom that each individual person has a right to expect. When political members make decisions about the people it threatens the freedom. Freedom of religion can be threated when considering how people practice a religion. If the practice entails breaking laws, then the government has the right to stop the practice.

Reading Question 2: How would you describe the disagreement between egalitarianism and libertarianism?
There is a disagreement between egalitarianism and libertarianism.
It can be described as equality versus liberty. In egalitarianism, the goal is to have the people equal in the living experience. This means that every person is entitled to the same programs based on needs. The central theme is to equalize the income, opportunity, and responsibilities to the society. The thought is that we are all in this process together; therefore, we should all be treated the same. Egalitarianism is based solely on the person rather than family wealth. This has the best outcomes for society. In libertarianism, the goal is based in having the freedom to operate has desired. This means that every person is entitled to act as he sees fit. Each person must act in a way that is beneficial to the society. It is left up to the individual as opposed to a government which can limit opportunities to prosper in society. They do not support the laws, statues, or restrictions that undermine freedom of operations. Essentially, the disagreement is based on individual needs which is egalitarianism or based on individual ability which is
libertarianism.

Reading Question 3: In your own words, summarize Nozick’s theory.
Nozick’s theory can be described based on his three principles for the distribution of goods which essentially means property, items, or things. Firstly, a person who has acquired something is entitled to have it. This is true only is if the principle of justice in acquisition as occurred which means that the item as not stolen, illegitimate, or acquired using injustice. It was morally obtained by the person. Secondly, the person can give the object to another person only if the transaction occurred in justly. The person should feel free to pass the item on to another as long as it was legitimately obtained. If the item was stolen, then it is not justice to give it to someone else. Thirdly, if the item as obtained unjustly, then transferred to someone else justly, then no one should have the item. To distribute items, they must be morally obtained. In this case, there is a need for restitution or compensation for the victim. For these past injustices, the principle of rectification is necessary to obtain justice for the transaction.

Reading Question 4: Describe why Nozick’s rectification principle is problematic.
The rectification of principle is problematic. For people involved in the transaction, it might violate the rights of the third parties. Sometimes injustices are not disclosed early on when it can be rectified. After passing it on to others, it might violate the rights of the third party. Historical justification are harder to rectify than recent ones. It is difficult to untangle the occurrence; furthermore, the account of the event maybe inaccurate. Once the occurrence has been substantiated, it is necessary to determine whether the person is in a better or worse position than if the event had not occurred. More importantly, what would be the appropriate compensation for an injustice? It is a challenge to determine the amount that would need to be computed. The rectification principle is problematic; however, it could be accomplished when these measures are addressed.