According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. Libertarians think that many kinds of laws violate people’s rights. Whenever the government prohibits a self-endangering activity—like driving without a seat belt—it is being unacceptably paternalist. Whenever the government prohibits deviant but harmless behavior—like nonstandard sexual practices—it is being oppressive. Whenever the government taxes people for redistributive purposes, it is stealing from them and forcing them to work for the benefit of other people.
Must the government stop trying to make poor people less poor, and sick people less sick, and so on, or is it possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting people’s liberty to do what they want with what they own?
Even if it’s not possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting liberty somewhat, are Libertarians right to think that people should have the liberty to do whatever they want with the things they own?
Pick one of the following (ok you can do more if you like :>) and argue pro or con. Remember to let us see you reasoning please.
Is it permissible for the government to regulate market transactions with an eye on the effects they have on the participants and other people?
Is it permissible for the government to pass laws against price gouging in the wake of a natural disaster?
Is it permissible for the government to regulate employment contracts? Are minimum wage laws really unjust?
Is it permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards in workplaces?
Is it permissible for the government to block companies from forming a monopoly?
As mentioned in a later post, since I believe that Captialism is inheirently exploitative (and it gets worse the farther removed the employer and employee are) it seems perfectly reasonable that the government, in its role as protector of peoples life and liberty, regulate the conduct of business. This doesn't mean that I think government should tell us everything we can and can't do, only that it work to create an 'even playing field' so that everyone has the ability to reap the rewards of their labors. Collective bargining rightes, minimum wage laws, work place hours and conditions, and a host of other issues seem to fall with this perview and seem legitimate functions of government.
ReplyDeleteTo pass laws against price gouging:
ReplyDeleteMy views here are that it not only is permissible, but it is a necessity in todays world of corrupt and unethical people. It is too bad that all men/women don't have compassion that is needed in todays cut throat world to do what is best for mankind not just their pocketbooks. It has been shown time and time again that man will take advantage of their fellow man in times of natural disasters. So we must have ways of preventing this, thus the need for laws and severe consequences for those who prey on us in time of need.
Regarding health and safety standards in the workplace, I think it is appropriate and desirable to have government regulations. What immediately comes to mind are those occupations where exposure to radiation, pathogens, violence, toxic gases, and/or environmental extremes are part of daily activities. Others benefit from employees' efforts . . . employees would not have ready access to fume hoods, stun guns, gas masks, etc. . . . so I think the "others" must be accountable for providing a safe, healthy environment. I wonder if even a libertarian would agree with this, since overall health and safety is for each individual. If an individual resisted government involvement, I would encourage that individual to seek other employment.
ReplyDeleteI would like to address not one of your questions, but something we are all familiar with – child labor laws. The rest of your questions all seem to revolve around the assumption that some group of people is incapable of standing up for themselves, so I am taking the liberty of adding a questions to your list.
ReplyDeleteThe government has multiple laws that apply to working children. What age they can begin to work, who has to give permission for them to apply for a job, what hours and how long they can work in a day, week, etc. Obviously, the government assumes: that parents/guardians are either unable to direct their children, the parents do not have any commonsense, the children would be exploited if the rules were not in place or maybe the parents/guardians just don’t care.
After working with a variety of parents at WHS, I do feel that several parents I have met would fall into the above description. I also feel that teens do not always make the best decisions and, therefore, employers could take advantage of them. For this reason, I do feel that the government has the obligation to make rules and regulations that oversee teens and employment.
My daughter was in a situation when she worked at Whitey’s when she had just turned 16. They had a mandatory meeting at midnight on Sundays. During the summer I thought it was inconsiderate, but since she was often closing the store I let her do it. She was, however, required to quit when school started. I know of other students that are working similar hours and there has been no parental intervention – the students just don’t come to school the next day. Since my daughter was 16, she was not covered by “the law”. Fifteen year-olds were, and they did not have to attend. Should the law be extended to cover all teens? As I said above – where are the parents? Can the law ever cover every situation? The law should be general enough to cover most things, but not micromanage everything.
Laws are not walls. They're more of a picket fence. You can see the other side. You can even get through to the other side. The good law is a reference point for judging bad deeds or for deterring those with bad intentions. In this way the good law restricts the liberty of individuals with bad intent.
ReplyDeleteBut to individuals who love good, the good law provides security and freedom. Like children playing ball on the roof of a 30 story building, without a fence they fear the fall. But with a fence they can run right up to the edge and look down without fear.
The problem with the utilitarian or libertarian humanists is that they have a shifting basis for determining a good law from a bad law. As Ann pointed out earlier, there’s an irrationality when today’s good becomes tomorrow’s bad. To say that everything changes is irrational. To say that there are no absolutes is stating an absolute in the negative and is a self defeating premise. It is, however, a rational endeavor to seek out those truths which are absolute and unchanging. In other words, who makes the laws for the lawmakers?
The framers of our society understood that freedom and liberty will only work for a moral and self controlled people. Ultimately it is individuals who must learn to seek after higher good and to be self controlled.
In an unjust society the only place for a good person is in its prisons.
Nearly 2700 years ago the prophets Micah and Isaiah tried to teach a wayward people the good law. In Micah 6:8 he wrote, “God has shown you what is good. And what does God require of you? Seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” In Isaiah 58:7 God is saying, “Is this not what I ask of you? Share your food with the hungry, shelter the poor wanderer, clothe the naked, do not turn away from another’s needs.”
These are the higher laws to which we must compare our laws to determine if they are good or not.
It is therefore my opinion that workplace safety, price gouging and monopoly regulating laws are usually good. Minimum wage laws are not often good.
Yes, it is permissible for the government to pass laws forbidding price gouging. This is unscrupulous behavior, one person or group taking advantage of another's misery. It is not right that someone would benefit from another's bad fortune, especially if the misfortune is not caused by that person. If someone is a victim of a tornado, hurricane, or other weather event, for example, why should someone take advantage of this. The law should be that it is unfair to charge exorbitant amounts for services rendered in times of disaster, especially during natural weather events.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it is permissible for the government to impose health and safety standards on companies. Don't they do that now with OSHA and other regulations for safety. Otherwise, companies would have people working in unsafe environments and not be responsible for correcting them. This would be for the common good of the people and protecting their right to a safe environment.
Is it permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards in workplaces?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe it is permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards. Often, employees need to be protected from their employers. If there weren't any regulations, many employers would/could have their employees working in unsafe/unhealthy conditions. Clothing sweat shops are an example. OSHA would then be consider part of the "greater good".