Justice @ Rhodes

Libertarian ideology leaves it susceptible to criticism based on the idea of social interconnectedness. In that no man can be understood outside of his or her historical and social context, we must also accept a certain relationship between man and society. Just as society is responsible to man, man is responsible to his or her society. My actions will inevitably affect the lives of other human beings, whether it be friend, foe or unrelated individual, possibly in the future. The degree to which libertarian thought promotes the minimal state is contradictory to the extent of human interaction. While it is feasible to suggest that positive interaction should not be infringed upon, even understanding a minimal state only correcting negative effects of social interaction would be far more extensive than any feasible state. Thus, libertarian though must define the level of infringement, or negative impact, individuals can have on others, or society as a whole, before intervention is justified. Such a definition would itself be subjective- In that there is evidence for smoking, or littering, or cursing can negatively affect other health or wellbeing, yet we don’t consider them rights the government need to intervene to secure. While libertarian ideology is structurally sound, the system must be emplaced upon a society, and the society itself will ultimately decide where lines are drawn- and in a democratic society, there is potential for disagreements over the nature of rights that libertarian thought has no means by which to resolve.

In the example of the differences between soldiers going to war, a man selling a vital organ, and a woman dying for her child, the necessary minimum intervention that I would propose would be the prevention of the taking of a life except in circumstance of necessity, as provided in situations where a life will be lost regardless of the choice of action taken. I think it is critical to establish the value of life as equal to all other human lives and separate from the free market. While soldiers are rewarded for their choice of profession with financial compensation, the understanding of service is that it is a choice to defend the country from enemies that would otherwise take the lives of many other civilians- it is not an equal distribution in that the weight placed on military service is not only the potential to lay down your life, but also to commit acts in the defense of a society to save many more lives than those that would be lost, up to and including your own. Compensation is a practical necessity for soldiers to be members of society, and to provide some semblance of gratitude, but it is not seen as a profession generally chosen for purely selfish reasons. Obviously the reality of any motivation is that it can be dissected as selfish, and members of any profession will have made choices that benefit themselves,  but in its purest form, it isn’t always possible to rationalize the choices made in sacrifice as self-interested.