Pros And Cons Of Libertarianism

1291 Words6 Pages
Libertarianism and economic liberalism postulate an original right to freedom and property maintaining Lockean stream. Thus they (e.g., Nozick , Hayek ) argue against redistribution and social rights and for the free market. According to them, the relation between equality and freedom is antagonistic. Freedom can never be limited with the possible exception of foreign and domestic peace. That’s why libertarians maintain public order as the state’s only legitimate duty. Will Kymlicka objects against libertarian approach of equality by saying that its interpretation of Lockean proviso – one’s situation should not be worsened through a primary possession of property – leads to an excessively weak requirement and is thus unacceptable. Economic…show more content…
Ranged against welfarism and designed to avoid its pitfalls, they incorporate the powerful ideas of choice and responsibility into various, improved forms of egalitarianism. Such approaches are meant to equalize outcomes, insofar as they are the consequences of causes beyond a person’s control (i.e., beyond circumstances or endowment), but to allow differential outcomes in so far as they result from autonomous choice or ambition. But the approaches are also aimed at maintaining the insight that individual preferences have to count, as the sole basis for a necessary linkage back to the individual perspective: otherwise, there is an overlooking of the person’s…show more content…
The idea is that there is no injustice in Jill earning $300,000 and Jack earning $30,000, as long as Jack had his chance to be where Jill is today. Suppose that the difference in income is due to the fact that Jill is a doctor whereas Jack is a farm worker. This would be acceptable if Jack had the same opportunity as Jill to be a doctor, and this is taken to mean that Jack was not kept out of medical school because of his race or religion or a disability that was irrelevant to how good a doctor he would be – in effect, if Jack’s exam results had been as good as Jill’s, or he had satisfied other criteria relevant to being able to practice medicine as well as Jill had, he would have been able to study medicine, become a doctor and earn $300,000 a year. Life, on this view, is a kind of race in which it is fitting that the winners should get the prizes, so long as all get an equal start. The equal start represents equality of opportunity and this, some say, is as far as equality should go.
He also rejects this approach because “equality of opportunity is not an attractive ideal. It rewards the lucky, who inherit those abilities that allow them to pursue interesting and lucrative career. It penalizes the unlucky, whose genes make it very hard for them to achieve similar
Open Document