The idea of socialism and communism may be slightly unrealistic and challenging to implement but in a utopian society, Marx’s view of the political structure is ideal. Arendt argues that there is no place for poverty in politics but Marx makes the point that poverty must be eliminated first so that politics can flourish. The only way to eliminate poverty is through the political system and the overthrow of the elite. As long as there is economic oppression, freedom is not attainable for every citizen. The separation of economics and freedom is unrealistic because money controls the actions of the people.
One could accumulate more than he could use without spoiling. At the same time, since money cannot spoil, people could sell excess goods without anything going to waste. It also introduced a market economy beyond bartering. This weakens the limits to Locke’s appropriation of property and people could have unlimited ownership. However, since not all are able to appropriate property, some people would sell their labour for wages and labour becomes a form of property.
Zinn believes the collective efforts of individuals alone, without a huge income motivating them would be efficient enough and would work well. He argues that there is no real proof that incentives are even necessary, therefore not needed. Zinn would agree with the philosopher and socialist St.Thomas Aquinas in the sense that Aquinas believes man can unselfishly work towards a goal together because everyone is willing to fulfill their own specific duties. This parallels with Zinn’s belief that people do not need huge incomes to incentivise them. On the other hand, Zinn would disagree with Adam Smith in his belief that man “seeks self interest in competition”.
James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.
They makes us conform to the standards and ideologies that are reinforced in society. Ideology is part of a system of belief that a culture produces in order to function is a certain way. They are produced and affirmed through the social institutions in a given society Cavallaro (2001:76) says that ideology can be defined in 2 ways; neutrally, as ideas without political connotations; and critically, as ideas in which people categorise each other within a socio-historical and economic
He goes on to explain that we should be neither for, nor against this. That we as individuals are caught in a bound economy where we do not know where our food, or any products come from. It is not as if we do not care, but rather we are obviously to what is happening around us. He exams some of Milton Friedman’s writings on freedom. He shows some problems with ideology, but there is no point in rejecting the free market.
Which in turn means that everyone in a capitalist system, be it organizations or individuals are driven by self-interest. Hence it shouldn’t come as a surprise that larger objectives like social and environmental issues have been treated less important to the pursuit of profit. It might be argued here that this conclusion is not new. True. But the point I am making is that economic theory, regardless of the ideology, supports the profit motive as the foundation for an enterprise operating in the capitalist system on the contrary there is no economic theory that supports the argument that pursuing social good or the modern day CSR, is a key aim of an organization in the capitalist
McCloskey argues that Slavery and imperialism had little effect on the worlds wealth disparities, especially that of west, however this essay will argue against this theory by stating that slavery generated money which boosted not only the economy but the rich, without the labor of slaves the industrial revolution would not have begun and a lot of what was developed on today would not exist as a result. The contributions slavery made provided a better standard of life of Europeans the group that stands out the most are the rich, the rich became richer whilst the poor were been exploited which contributed to wealth inequalities and the cycle of poverty which the effects are still seen today. Imperialism did in fact influence today’s economies
A just allocation of enhancement technology occurs when individuals use their own money to augment themselves; the poor would simply be unfortunate and their rights haven’t been violated because they have no right, no claim, or entitlement to enhancement technology and society has no duty to provide it to them. However, being a citizen of a state and simply wanting enhancements may be all that is required to have a right to enhancement technology depending on the particular conception of justice one
Which means that private association cannot get all the benefits of the public goods which they have manufactured, there would be no influence for them to intentionally produce public goods; customers can take benefit of public goods without coterminous appropriately to their production. This situation can construct disorganization and a resulting market