Hospers had some interesting ideas on libertarianism. He says that everyone has the right to act as they want as long as they don't hinder others from acting as they want. This sounded fair enough to me as I read his article, and made me want to read more. Next he goes on to state that the only proper role of the government in our nation is as "protector of the citizen against aggression by other individuals." A minimal "watchman" government sounded great to me. I can think of times that I've seen on the news when the government seems to have crossed this borderline. The idea that the government should only protect people from harm and not interfere in their lives in any way seemed catchy at first thought. Another interesting point that Hospers brings up is the question of why some are taxed to provide for others. If an individual works hard and makes a good living as a result of his work, why should he have to provide for another person? Hospers supports an economic "free-market" system, with little or no government regulation. These ideas, though simple, seemed to make perfect sense.
After discussion in class, a new outlook on these ideas entered my mind. What would things be like in Hospers' world? Right now, the government regulates many different aspects of our lives. Could we possibly survive without all of this regulation? The government regulates roads, water treatment, schools, hospitals, law, and infrastructure, just to name a few things. Without these regulations, I don't think we could possibly be a civil and functioning nation. Having everything privately owned by separate businesses would call for competition and in turn corruption. The government regulates from an unbiased point of view, and if everything were to be privately owned, different intentions of big businesses would be inevitable. The quality of the now government-regulated entities would in turn decrease in an unregulated, capitalistic world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You made a lot of interesting points. I definitely agree that we could not have a civil and functioning nation according to Hospers’ definition of government. We do need government regulation in order to control businesses and international policy among other things. We also need government assistance with infrastructure, healthcare, and education. The only point where I disagree with you on is your closing statement. While the government certainly should function as an unbiased regulator, it seems that business and government are very closely tied. Lobbyists from major corporations and even from non-profit groups have a huge amount of influence over governmental policy. Consider Enron for example. Lobbyists supporting deregulation allowed one of the biggest corporate scandals in history. As a result of capitalism, businesses will have varying intentions regardless of government. A truly impartial government would be a wonderful solution, but the one we have now is far from it. That said, I fully believe that you are right, and without the government regulation that is in place corruption would be a much greater and more dangerous epidemic.
I agree with you that the government interference in many aspects in our daily lives will make our lives better. I have same opinion with you that having everything privately owned by separate businesses would call for the competition among the companies. I truly disagree with Hospers said that the only proper role of the government according to libertarians is protector of the citizen against aggression by other individuals. The first thing that appears in my mind when I read this article was we cannot survive without the maximum functions by the government. Could the ideas of capitalism have the power over and control many aspects in our lives in the future? I think without some regulations organize by government about the social condition and political economy, people having many troubles in their lives in the future. According to the Schweickart, he stated that the capitalism tend to generate large-scale inequalities of income and wealth. I agree with him about there is high level between poor class people and high class people. I think the Economy Democracy which there is some government interference in the economy field is much better to apply because there are some priorities for all class of people to give their opinions and claims. Thus, the right of people will preserve and there will no problems as long as equality between the people exists.
Post a Comment