Arguments Against Libertarianism

Therefore, although I may agree or disagree with what the question said then, when put to discussion I may change my stance on the topic affected by opinions that varies from mine, ultimately convinced by that opinion. For that reason I prefer to leave some space to do so by answering agree or disagree, therefore there is no surprise that I am rather on the center for left wing, right wing. As for the questions that locates people between authoritarian and libertarian, I am not surprised to see myself on the libertarian side compared to the middle indicating the center for authoritarian/libertarian, since I feel strongly about my rights and freedom. Now, for the conflict. Attending the school that I go to means that we have to accept diversity in all means and trying to put ourselves in other's shoes as best as we can, and we are trained to do precisely on daily basis.

However, this statement is not entirely true, if one mixes what one owns with what one does not own, it does not create self-ownership. Locke’s state of nature is then tainted and no longer includes equality and commonality among mankind. Locke repeats himself often in his arguments. He refers to his belief of natural reason and God’s words to deliver his theory of private property. He begins his discussion of property in the state of nature (Locke 6 sect.

Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others. She thought on the fact that your interest is yours is not relevant to their importance relative to the importance of the interest of others. So, it is a mistake to treat your own interests as if they are more important than the interest of others. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand’s view supporting ethical egoism. I’ve realized that I only do whatever I choose to do for my own self benefit and self-interest.

The South produced cotton, which remained its main cash crop and countless Southerners knew that hefty reliance on slave labor would damage the South ultimately, but their forewarnings were not regarded. The South was constructed on a totalitarian system. Constitutionally the North preferred a loose understanding of the United States Constitution, and they sought to grant the federal government amplified powers. The South desired to reserve all vague powers to the separate states themselves. The South trusted upon slave labor on behalf of their economic wellbeing, and the economy for the North was not

Blacks in the novel are portrayed as superstitious and gullible and it is understandable that many readers are offended by these stereotypes. However, in contrast to these stereotypes, Twain gives us Jim the runaway slave. Jim in many ways contradicts these racial stereotypes: he is resourceful, clever, compassionate, and friend to Huck. When it comes time for Huck to consider telling Miss Watson that her slave has been captured, Huck finds himself in a dilemma. Does he do what he views as “right,” turn Jim in, or does he do the “wrong” thing: helping a slave and true friend who has sacrificed and genuinely cared about Huck’s wellbeing throughout their river raft adventure?

The fact of the matter is yes, we can imagine such a device but yet, we do not have it. Why would God have it? We humans do a lot of things that are not completely ethical particularly when a lot of people is involved in the situation and yet end up choosing the most moral under the circumstances but not necessarily the most ethical because that is how we have agreed to live our lives. Licon says “The freewill defense cannot explain why God didn’t take such basic preemptive measures” referring to the device and the freewill defense does explain it, just as it explains why such device is nonexistent. His conclusions lack good support: “Freewill defense places too much weight on freedom, and not enough weight on the lives and wellbeing of innocents” (4) Wrong, freedom is and it is absolute.

Uproar and protest bubbled over in the states after Scott’s failure to obtain his freedom. His case also fueled the North in their battle with the South, since the big topic of the century was “slavery”. They wanted justice for Dred Scott, to rightfully place his ownership in his own hands, to grant him the freedom to live however he pleased and to not have to walk in shackles. Any human should have that basic right, as it says in the constitution. This landmark of a case stood as a breaking point for social reform; motivation to stop the discrimination that ran throughout the country.

Private nuisance likewise is a tort which manages question between contiguous landowners. It includes drawing a harmony between the privilege of one individual to utilize their property in whatever way they wish and the privilege of their neighbor not to be meddled with. It is unlawful impedance with a man's utilization or pleasure in area, or some directly over, or regarding it. A nuisance which comprises of impedance with a privilege in area is managed in area law under the heading of bondages. In spite of the fact that a man who has an enthusiasm for area can do whatever he wishes on his property, his exercises however should not bring about disadvantage or harm to someone else who comparably as an enthusiasm over his territory.

Advancements are made through negotiations and other forms of protest rather than the destruction of property. The right to protest is one that is a basic human right ;however, the right to protest does not allow for the destruction of property. As Martin Luther King Jr. states in Letters from Birmingham City Jail, I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (King 197). Arguments because destruction of property brings awareness to the protest s cause are not defensible and merely trite excuses for illegal behavior. The need for destruction only brings forth flaws in the movements.

Locke’s assumptions that humans are rational and led by reason, and the abundance of resources allowing private ownership of land, give a higher purpose to the government in a society than just physical security. Government, on all its levels, is protecting individuals’ property and creating and enforcing laws that will apply to everyone, even the sovereign. The “levels” of government embody a new idea proposed by Locke – the separation of powers. He argues that in order for the government not to be corrupt, it has to have separated legislative, executive and juridical powers which operate independently from each other’s influences. Therefore, he directly opposes Hobbes’ argument for absolute power: an absolute monarchy would be worse than the State of Nature since the sovereign holds the whole power of the people and now it is impossible to defeat him as an individual, which would not be the case in the State of Nature where everyone was equal.