In Hospers article he is defending the core ideals of libertarianism. One of which I am going to be arguing against is the “appropriate function of government is to protecting human rights.”
Reading the article it is understood that Hospers believes that each person control’s their life. Thus, it is up to the person to act their life out. The individual cannot control (influence) another’s life. Their life is their responsibility and therefore if they infringe on other peoples life the government steps in and act in accordance to this belief. Meaning that the government should be some form of security, which is the only role the government should hold, in Hospers belief.
This belief within libertarianism is not valid in that the government should provide security while upholding a free-market capitalistic society, which Hospers believes is the economic answer to freedom. If capitalism is a system where profit making is the initiative then personal interference with another’s life is inevitable. Morality in a capitalistic system does not exist. It is what is beneficial to the individual. Therefore, such current government restrictions placed on corporations such as quality control would not exist. Government is a necessary function that maintains our economic and our morality. Also, as we move into a hypermobile capitalistic system, capital is taking other forms in non-U.S countries. With a system of government only providing a “nightwatchmen” form of security, there is no unifying system that controls those corporations that outsource their commodity. Thus government is a necessary system that must stretch beyond protecting human rights in order to support our capitalistic way of life.
2 comments:
The Libertarian ideal of allowing the economy to govern itself in complete autonomy is admirable, but implausible. Recent events speak to the flaws in believing that any market existing entirely outside the realms of regulation could function as Hospers believes. Even with our considerable government regulation (as Hospers would view it), the avarice of man succeeded in destroying two of the largest business entities in the world – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although both explicitly declare in their charters that their liabilities "are not guaranteed by, and are not debts or obligations of, the United States or any agency or instrumentality of the United States," the government felt compelled to offer the equivalent of a bailout. Without this federal assistance, the repercussions would be of unthinkable magnitude. Had one or both of the organizations failed, the supply of mortgages in the market would have quickly evaporated, given the absence of a powerful backer. The consequent reduction in availability of mortgages would have annihilated the housing market, prompting recession and likely deflation. Though Hospers' regulation-less state may appear credible, modern market conditions disallow his idealistic notions.
According to the post titled Libertarianism, I argue that morality in a capitalistic system does not exist because without the morality any organization cannot run in a proper way and can gain a greater profit like capitalism does. As we know, capitalism is a large well known economical company. Capitalism tends to conquer world's economy. In order to conquer the world's economy and free market, capitalist should have well morality to ensure all of their strategies and effort to earn profit go into the right track. If there is no morality that exists in a capitalistic, for sure they could not be able to create and develop such a great economy cables as they do today. However, I can say that, even though they have the morality in their work, but there are still not enough as they do not treat the workers like it is supposed to be, such as cutting workers' incomes, overtime work and so forth. Capitalism has to maintain their morality performance in their work as there are more competitive economy develops. This is vital in order to ensure the continuity of profit making.
Post a Comment