I agree with most of the libertarian point of view. I do believe that we own ourselves, and the choices we make are up to us. If we want to pick the wrong thing to do, then that is on our shoulders. Since we are individual human beings I think that we have the fundamental right to liberty. As Sandel's said, we have a right to live our lives freely as long as we respect other peoples' rights to do the same. When no one else is harmed then why should legislation be involved? Going against the utilitarians, I think that redistribution from the rich to the poor is wrong. The government should not be involved in this. As long as the people got their money fairly, and as long as the distribution resulted from free choice of people buying and selling things, distribution is just. Yes, I think that the rich should provide to charity and donate money because they do not need nearly as much as they have, but they should not be forced to because they have earned it. Since we belong to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong to tax the rich to help in the poor even for a good cause. Libertarians say that this is equivalent to forced labor. Hopefully the rich would provide to the poor and people in need, but taxing them is unfair because it is their money, not the communities. They live in this society and therefore have restrictions, but being in a democratic society, they have certain rights. I agree though that a mother stealing bread for her children is more acceptable than stealing money from the rich.
I, like Emily, found myself agreeing with the libertarian point of view for the most part. We are, as Sandel said, "the proprietors of our own futures." While I don't completely agree that the government should stay out enforcing laws such as seatbelt and helmet laws, my objections are overruled by the fact that everything we do is entirely up to personal choice, whether a rule governing the decision is enforced or not. When it comes to redistribution, I can't help but feel like a hypocrite when I say that forced redistribution is unjust, in my personal opinion. Being a student who receives financial aid from a government-based program, I am an example of someone who benefits from redistribution. However, after listening to Sandel discuss the effects of redistribution, I'm inclined to say that redistribution, in many way, is very unfair to the upper class who worked hard for the wealth they have. As far as the successful population having a debt to society, I agree when Julia says that in some form, the debt to society has already been paid, prompting the reason for the person's initial success. If the rich want to continue to give back to society by helping the poor (such as aiding Hurricane Katrina victims as Sandel mentioned), then it is their personal freedom to do so. There are extreme exceptions where redistribution is acceptable (as Joe said in the lecture), such as a mother stealing bread for her hungry child.
I agree with what both Chelsea and Emily have said for the most part. I believe that in the context of the topic being discussed and ultimately the question being asked, "Is it right?", the libertarian philosophy is morally acceptable. When talking about the wealth of Bill Gates, one must first consider how Bill Gates came upon his wealth. While he may have inherited some or been born into it, Gates earned his money and came upon it fairly. The police system in the US ensures that people do come upon their wealth fairly. However, I do not believe that it is the government’s job to decide how Bill Gates spends even the slightest bit of his money. Taking money from Bill Gates (a man who has earned his money) and giving it to the poor or people who are down on their luck (who did not technically earn it and therefore do not deserve it), is an infringement on his liberty. While this seems harsh, it is important to consider what is being asked (Is it right?). No, it is not right at all. It is theft. I agree that by taking his money from him, you are taking his time and therefore making him a slave to our nation (even though he hardly notices the amount of money he loses to taxes). I believe that in most cases, human nature allows for a conscience (not just knowledge of what is right and wrong, but good judgment to do the right thing), which ultimately would lead a wealthy individual to donate to a charity or send money to one in need. Bad luck and good luck affects everyone, not just Bill Gates and the people suffering from hurricane Katrina. Referencing what Sandel mentioned about the person who steals bread from a wealthier person to help feed his family, I believe that the poor person should talk to the wealthier person and ask if there is something he can do to earn the bread or if the person had a kind enough heart to give it to him so he could feed his family. The biggest problem with handouts and helping the poor and victims of tragedy is that a lot of people like this in America come to just expect the handout and have trouble finding incentive to find a way to make a living. There are many ways around the system as I have seen working at a local pharmacy. I am not a heartless person, but I do agree that people have a right to decide where there money is being spent. As far as payment to live in this society, there are very few things that the government should be in charge of and should enforce payment of. Taxes should cover only payments for basically infrastructure and law enforcement. Most everything else should be left up to the individual. I know for a fact that Bill Gates has donated to multiple charities and that other people in America’s wealthy class have done the same. I know that based on my attitude and opinion towards donations that I am more likely to donate or donate more money to people who haven’t taken money from me in the first place or who are receiving it honestly with a goal to work their way out of their financial crisis. I don’t appreciate having to support people who buy cigarettes and street drugs with their own money and use my money to buy their food. Yes, I believe that is theft.
I agree with most of the libertarian point of view. I do believe that we own ourselves, and the choices we make are up to us. If we want to pick the wrong thing to do, then that is on our shoulders. Since we are individual human beings I think that we have the fundamental right to liberty. As Sandel's said, we have a right to live our lives freely as long as we respect other peoples' rights to do the same. When no one else is harmed then why should legislation be involved? Going against the utilitarians, I think that redistribution from the rich to the poor is wrong. The government should not be involved in this. As long as the people got their money fairly, and as long as the distribution resulted from free choice of people buying and selling things, distribution is just. Yes, I think that the rich should provide to charity and donate money because they do not need nearly as much as they have, but they should not be forced to because they have earned it. Since we belong to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong to tax the rich to help in the poor even for a good cause. Libertarians say that this is equivalent to forced labor. Hopefully the rich would provide to the poor and people in need, but taxing them is unfair because it is their money, not the communities. They live in this society and therefore have restrictions, but being in a democratic society, they have certain rights. I agree though that a mother stealing bread for her children is more acceptable than stealing money from the rich.
ReplyDeleteI, like Emily, found myself agreeing with the libertarian point of view for the most part. We are, as Sandel said, "the proprietors of our own futures." While I don't completely agree that the government should stay out enforcing laws such as seatbelt and helmet laws, my objections are overruled by the fact that everything we do is entirely up to personal choice, whether a rule governing the decision is enforced or not. When it comes to redistribution, I can't help but feel like a hypocrite when I say that forced redistribution is unjust, in my personal opinion. Being a student who receives financial aid from a government-based program, I am an example of someone who benefits from redistribution. However, after listening to Sandel discuss the effects of redistribution, I'm inclined to say that redistribution, in many way, is very unfair to the upper class who worked hard for the wealth they have. As far as the successful population having a debt to society, I agree when Julia says that in some form, the debt to society has already been paid, prompting the reason for the person's initial success. If the rich want to continue to give back to society by helping the poor (such as aiding Hurricane Katrina victims as Sandel mentioned), then it is their personal freedom to do so. There are extreme exceptions where redistribution is acceptable (as Joe said in the lecture), such as a mother stealing bread for her hungry child.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what both Chelsea and Emily have said for the most part. I believe that in the context of the topic being discussed and ultimately the question being asked, "Is it right?", the libertarian philosophy is morally acceptable. When talking about the wealth of Bill Gates, one must first consider how Bill Gates came upon his wealth. While he may have inherited some or been born into it, Gates earned his money and came upon it fairly. The police system in the US ensures that people do come upon their wealth fairly. However, I do not believe that it is the government’s job to decide how Bill Gates spends even the slightest bit of his money. Taking money from Bill Gates (a man who has earned his money) and giving it to the poor or people who are down on their luck (who did not technically earn it and therefore do not deserve it), is an infringement on his liberty. While this seems harsh, it is important to consider what is being asked (Is it right?). No, it is not right at all. It is theft. I agree that by taking his money from him, you are taking his time and therefore making him a slave to our nation (even though he hardly notices the amount of money he loses to taxes). I believe that in most cases, human nature allows for a conscience (not just knowledge of what is right and wrong, but good judgment to do the right thing), which ultimately would lead a wealthy individual to donate to a charity or send money to one in need. Bad luck and good luck affects everyone, not just Bill Gates and the people suffering from hurricane Katrina. Referencing what Sandel mentioned about the person who steals bread from a wealthier person to help feed his family, I believe that the poor person should talk to the wealthier person and ask if there is something he can do to earn the bread or if the person had a kind enough heart to give it to him so he could feed his family. The biggest problem with handouts and helping the poor and victims of tragedy is that a lot of people like this in America come to just expect the handout and have trouble finding incentive to find a way to make a living. There are many ways around the system as I have seen working at a local pharmacy. I am not a heartless person, but I do agree that people have a right to decide where there money is being spent. As far as payment to live in this society, there are very few things that the government should be in charge of and should enforce payment of. Taxes should cover only payments for basically infrastructure and law enforcement. Most everything else should be left up to the individual. I know for a fact that Bill Gates has donated to multiple charities and that other people in America’s wealthy class have done the same. I know that based on my attitude and opinion towards donations that I am more likely to donate or donate more money to people who haven’t taken money from me in the first place or who are receiving it honestly with a goal to work their way out of their financial crisis. I don’t appreciate having to support people who buy cigarettes and street drugs with their own money and use my money to buy their food. Yes, I believe that is theft.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in madipakkam