Should There Be The Benefits Of Libertarianism?
Part of the allure of libertarianism is that it offers a simple panacea for society’s problems. However, once its proposals are evaluated with any degree of scrutiny—namely when contested against egalitarianism—it is quickly revealed how its central claim of personal liberty is simply a facade for selfishness and indolence.
At the core of libertarianism is the belief that personal and economic autonomy are fundamental rights that should not be restricted in any way by any entity. Libertarians posit that government is at odds with liberty; therefore, the only way a society can respect individual freedoms is by limiting government to the point that it represents a “minimal state” (Sandel 60). This minimal state, Sandel explains, is a government …show more content…
While libertarianism argues that we own our talents and abilities and are thus entitled to reap all the benefits they yield, egalitarianism insists the opposite; our talents and skills are the results of no action on our part, thus we have no claim to the benefits they reap (160). Libertarians maintain that individuals deserve whatever the free market values them at, but this argument carelessly conflates someone’s luck with what they deserve. Take television celebrities, for example. While the free market may value them at millions, egalitarians contend that these individuals are simply lucky that they live in a society that prizes them, and are therefore not deserving of their valuation (163). The egalitarian ideology is not naive, however. It acknowledges that inequality will exist within a society. Instead of negligently accepting and ignoring this inequality like libertarianism, it introduces the stipulation of the “difference principle,” the concept that inequality is only permitted if it dually benefits those at the very bottom (152).
While libertarianism claims that its hand-off approach to government ensures liberty, it really does nothing more than perpetuate and even reward inequality while justifying selfishness on the basis of autonomy. Unlike libertarianism, egalitarianism offers a palatable remedy to the organic inequality that arises in a free society, charging those are the top—the ones who would benefit most from their abilities—to use their position of power to uplift those at the
At the core of libertarianism is the belief that personal and economic autonomy are fundamental rights that should not be restricted in any way by any entity. Libertarians posit that government is at odds with liberty; therefore, the only way a society can respect individual freedoms is by limiting government to the point that it represents a “minimal state” (Sandel 60). This minimal state, Sandel explains, is a government …show more content…
While libertarianism argues that we own our talents and abilities and are thus entitled to reap all the benefits they yield, egalitarianism insists the opposite; our talents and skills are the results of no action on our part, thus we have no claim to the benefits they reap (160). Libertarians maintain that individuals deserve whatever the free market values them at, but this argument carelessly conflates someone’s luck with what they deserve. Take television celebrities, for example. While the free market may value them at millions, egalitarians contend that these individuals are simply lucky that they live in a society that prizes them, and are therefore not deserving of their valuation (163). The egalitarian ideology is not naive, however. It acknowledges that inequality will exist within a society. Instead of negligently accepting and ignoring this inequality like libertarianism, it introduces the stipulation of the “difference principle,” the concept that inequality is only permitted if it dually benefits those at the very bottom (152).
While libertarianism claims that its hand-off approach to government ensures liberty, it really does nothing more than perpetuate and even reward inequality while justifying selfishness on the basis of autonomy. Unlike libertarianism, egalitarianism offers a palatable remedy to the organic inequality that arises in a free society, charging those are the top—the ones who would benefit most from their abilities—to use their position of power to uplift those at the