But democrat and republican were not the only two political stances we discussed in class. On Wednesday, Dr. Johnson also mentioned libertarianism. This employs the logic of "don't tread on me". It believes that the government should stay out of people's business both socially and economically. This idea does not fit nicely at one point on our political spectrum. It finds itself economically on the far right and socially on the far left. We continued this discussion today when we examined the political theories of philosopher Robert Nozick.
Nosick challenges the question of equal distribution in a society and replaces with another question - are people entitled to what they have? If a society is given an equal distribution of goods and wealth and then left untouched for a period of time, wouldn't the natural inclination be for the society to gravitate towards inequality? Nozick believes that as long as the society abides by his entitlement theory, the inequality in said society is not unjust.
The question I ask is not whether Nozick's philosophy is right or wrong, but that if it is employed, would it make for a better society? If there is little to no government interference, can the inequalities that result be tolerable for a society, or would chaos ensue? Say we do take away welfare, taxes, the health care act, all social prohibitions on marriage and drugs, and any other laws that do not directly deal with protection of one's rights. Though in theory it might sound good, would a society like this hold up? I speculate that it would could turn into a downward spiral that starts off great, but in the end crashes and burns. Rules and regulation for societies are as old as time. Take most of these rules away, and you might end up with a Lord of the Flies part two. But the topic is up for debate.
I think you pose a good question. I don't think Nozick is an anarchist, and I think he realizes that a society simply cannot function without sacrificing some liberties to the government (yay social contract), but, like you said, he wants to limit government's interference as much as possible. I keep thinking that if there are no attempts to "raise the floor" with social programs, and especially if inheritance is considered a just transaction, Nozick's society will quickly be one in which great numbers of citizens cannot afford to provide for themselves. There will be a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals, and the rest may not make subsistence. This seems to me to be doomed to fail.
ReplyDeleteYou both make good points--even Nozick might concede this. I think his response, though, can be found in our discussion from class. He might say that forced regulations don't respect the individual's status as a free and rational being, and a stable society in which all citizens are forced to live in a particular way isn't to be desired. He might not say that the society those rules are intended to shape are bad, but the act of forcing people to create said society in a less-than-free manner makes the end result less substantive. What good is a society if we're restricted from expressing our basic human characteristics?
ReplyDelete