Have you ever wondered what could happen, if countries around the world had no institutions that oversee the state of their security? What if a person considers taking the laws in his or her hands? Could there be peace which is an essential aspect in business today? The idea of subjecting an individual to natural rights within his or her environs is what defines the term libertarianism.
These natural rights include property rights, an individuals self rule and making use of neglected resources. There are two versions of libertarianism which include:
Total libertarianism
Individuals, especially those involved in businesses should be permitted to do their tasks freely for their businesses to expand beyond borders. By this, the version emphasizes the idea that the government should consider coming up with rules and regulations that protect the right of an individuals set of properties.
This means that it should not meddle with any individuals modes of trade, thus an indication that one can opt to dominate in the market since he or she is protected by laws that do not permit other individuals from interfering with his or her properties.
Total libertarianism ensures that a force from any existing government institution, theft, and fraud do not exist in the world of business. The strongest part of this version is that it allows an individual to exploit his or her potentials, therefore, enabling the business to grow. The worst part of this version is that it does not give an individual a chance to share ideas with other institutions because of the liberty subjected to him or her.
Moderate libertarianism
Having some set of rules and regulations that protect a business from free market is an important aspect because it encourages the process of sharing business ideas with business oriented people. It is also a reasonable version since it ensures that there is equal and free market competition among different countries that share trading ground. This ensures equal distribution of resources because goods and services will be flowing from one country to another.
Moderate libertarianism is also important because it encourages the development of various places where the trading activity takes place. The problem with this version is that free market will encourage production of counterfeit goods and services which are harmful to a consumer. Another problem with this version is that the rates of taxation will increase no matter how hard the prices of various commodities are reduced since the government depends on its own economy.
Moderate libertarianism is a free market philosophy which should be considered because it encourages the involvement of government in the line of trade between different countries. A government that protects its business institutions by creating rules and regulations ensures that the business is smoothly run, thus it advocates for
No monopolizations in free market, and
No oligopolies between businesses in the market
This means that the rules put in place will ensure that free competition is well protected as per the governments limits. This can be done on matters such as the central banking which will ensure that the economy of a state is properly taken care off.
Others include construction of roads which will oversee the process of transportation and importation of goods and services that take a shorter period of time. The issue of unequal distribution of resource can be eradicated if this version is considered by individuals from all over the world since the rate of currency circulation will not be limited to one country.
The word libertarianism comes from the word liberty. It is a political philosophy advocating for liberty, freedom, voluntary and peaceful association of individuals without any form of coercion. Believers in libertarianism appreciate and try as much as they can to see that all human beings maximize their various opportunities to attain their goals in life. They argue that, human beings should be left on their own to do what they desire without coercion or intimidation.
Those in this paradigm shift agitate or rather advocate for a society that is self-governed or to be governed by a small government. This is because every human being has his own life to live as well as property and therefore, society should respect this by leaving everybody to determine the course of his life. Everybody in the society should show respect to one another. They therefore believe that every individual has freedom to do what they feel but not to infringe on the rights of others.
Libertarianism is therefore a combination of liberty, responsibility and tolerance. Liberty implies the freedom to live ones life in peace as one chooses, responsibility implying not to use force against other people except when defending yourself and tolerance implying that one should honor and respect the peace of other people.
The strides that the world has made today can be attributed to the liberty people have been provided. For instance, liberty has contributed to respect of civil liberty, free markets and self-ownership. Without liberty, many people would still be prisoners of others. Furthermore, without liberty, the notion of free markets could be non-existence and therefore people could not be able to sell their products across their boarders.
The proponents and historian also had their thoughts about libertarianism. Libertarianism was also viewed by historians such as Woodrock as the means through which revolution and reformation was to be achieved. This implied that the society was to be reformed through democratic means, consensus and not dictatorship. Likewise, other philosophers understood libertarianism as a form of governance whereby the center of power was to be decentralized to individuals. Individuals were to take control of their lives and not the government.
Therefore, in conclusion, it is imperative to note that the proponents and philosophy of libertarianism meant or advocated for liberty and freedom of the people. Society has no obligation to be governed by an authority but people are supposed to enjoy their freedom as well as respect others rights.
Total libertarianism is an ideology that makes people give up their dignity and let administrations take full control of their actions and lives. This form of libertarianism deters the citizens from gaining wealth at their own speed.
It has further been associated with full government intervention in all dealings that should be done by individuals. Such an approach advocates for zero competition and aggressive search for wealth and recognition.
It, therefore, promotes quiet and calm society where every action is governed by the regulations of the state.
The moderate libertarianism, on the other hand, advocates for moderate government interference in the dealings and businesses of the individuals and firms.
This form of libertarianism promotes peoples engagement in competitive activities. Aggressive search for wealth is allowed under the legal framework of the country through this form of libertarianism.
Body
The major strength of total libertarianism approach is that it prevents social evils and public wrongs. Civil wrongs are referred as torts while the public wrongs or the wrongs against the state constitute crimes. A crime is punishable by law.
Another strong point of the total libertarianism approach is that it recognizes the deficiencies of human beings. It, therefore, requires that human beings are being controlled by some external authority to monitor and govern their relationships and conducts.
The major shortcoming of this approach is that it discourages self reliance and individual autonomy. This kills the self-esteem of the individuals in question. It also creates a miserable society that requires government involvement in order to survive.
At this point, it is worth noting that a government may be the root cause of crimes and social evils by embracing this libertarianism (Shaw, William and Vincent 501).
The major strength of moderate libertarianism, on the other hand, is that it recognizes the importance of self-esteem and self-reliance. This approach recognizes that every individual is anxious to be independent so as to determine his future and destiny.
The second strength is that this approach is both realistic and practicable since it eliminates excessive dependence on the government. This eliminates un-called-for bureaucratic procedures that govern business activities within jurisdiction.
This approach allows people to work without the inefficient and subjective decisions of the government. The major shortcoming of this approach is that it may, to some extent, encourage crime.
This is because, in the absence of the government agencies, people may engage in crime so as to get rich. This approach, if not well managed, may cause disparities and imbalances in regional development (Shaw, William and Vincent 330).
Total libertarianism is not reasonable and is in fact not practicable in the real world. It is an idea that critiques have termed as wishful thinking considering the fact that the average human being seeks to acquire wealth through all means.
It, therefore, follows that a human being has to be given some form of independence and self-reliance in order to achieve his desired objectives. The moderate approach is more reasonable since not all human beings work at the same pace (Shaw, William and Vincent 456).
Conclusion
Total libertarianism reflects a socialist economy while the moderate approach reflects an imperialist economy. Socialism in the present times is not reasonable at all. The moderate libertarianism approach is effective in ensuring equal distribution of resources.
This approach helps individuals achieve fair distribution of resources by discouraging such inefficient systems as monopolies that are exploitative in nature.
By discouraging monopolies, the legal framework places all individuals at a flat platform as far as wealth accumulation is concerned.
A system that advocates for total government control leaves the duty of distribution of wealth to the subjective and politically modified decisions of the government.
Works Cited
Shaw, William H, and Vincent E. Barry. Moral Issues in Business. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
The doctrine of libertarianism entails that people have inherent or natural rights. These rights should not be taken away (Shaw and Vincent 15). It is an immoral act for anyone or for the governments to deny people their rights.
Examples of these natural rights include the right to own property, the right to personal autonomy and the right to use unused resources.
According to this school of thought, the society can cooperate and coexist well when people respect their natural rights. The paper delineates the two versions of libertarianism namely total libertarianism and moderate libertarianism.
Total libertarianism
According to this version of libertarianism, people are protected by the government. The government has the obligation of ensuring that all the rights of people are protected.
The government needs to formulate rules that ensure individuals are well protected. Therefore, the citizens should be protected from activities like breach of contracts, fraud, theft and any subjection of force.
Moderate libertarianism
This version of libertarianism ensures that the government protects free and fair competition in the markets. People should be allowed to carry on with their businesses and other activities without restriction provided they are not violating the rights of others.
For instance, there should be no monopolies, oligopolies and integrations in the market. The market should be free to allow people make progress in their duties without restrictions.
Strengths of total libertarianism
One of the strengths of total libertarianism is that it ensures that people are protected from mistreatment. People have equal rights and nobody should violate them. Further, it ensures that people coexist well in a society.
It fosters transparency and honesty in the society as people respect each others rights. For instance, no person should steal someones property as this would amount to violation of natural rights.
Weaknesses
One weakness is that it is difficult for human beings to govern themselves. Therefore, a government should be formed to ensure that these rights are practiced.
Further, the government, which is bestowed the responsibility of ensuring the protection, may not have the right mechanism or may be biased in its decisions, hence can have negative impact on the process.
Strength of the moderate libertarianism
This ensures that people cooperate and coexist with one another without restrictions or limitations. It enhances unity in the society.
Moreover, it promotes the spirit of togetherness and discipline in a society as people make decisions at free will.
Weaknesses libertarianism
This form of government poses a risk of exploitation, especially in situations when it does not participate in decision-making. For instance, it leads to monopolies that may exploit innocent people.
People may take the law in their hands and cause harm to others due to the absence of a body like the government to monitor their moves.
Of these two free market philosophies, total libertarianism makes more sense. It ensures that the rights of an individual are fully protected. No person is supposed to be deprived of such rights.
Therefore, this allows people in a society to respect and coexist with one another well. This philosophy best addresses the current unequal distribution of wealth. The society is required to use what they have and assist one another.
It is the right of every individual to own property and use available resources to uplift his/her life. Therefore, total libertarianism gives an equal opportunity for every member of the society to use resources to amass wealth.
There is no restriction, hence it can help to alleviate unequal wealth distribution facing the world today.
Works Cited
Shaw, William, and Vincent Barry. Moral Issues in Business. 12th ed. Paperback, 2012. Print.
Libertarianism holds the view that an individual has the right to live his life as he chooses as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others. Amongst these rights are the right to liberty, life and own property.
In regards to libertarianism, human relations are treated as voluntary. Moderate libertarianism is the act of supporting minimum regulations by the state when dealing with issues of human rights.
Total libertarianism promotes democracy where individuals maximize their rights as they strive to minimize the role of the state.
Total Libertarianism
Total libertarianism enables democrats to support the majority of issues and the majority of positions in the Democratic Party. One of its strengths lies in the fact that it supports individual freedoms.
As much as the total libertarianism is widely supported, it may collide with important issues that are deemed important in the society.
For instance, the government involvement in issues of consumer protection, anti-trust laws, health care reforms and workers unions are affected to a great extent.
Moderate Libertarianism
Moderate libertarianism gives some room for the state to regulate issues of human rights. The strength here lies in cooperation that individuals offer by their free will.
However, moderate libertarianism has often been criticized for not being quite assertive since the government is seen to take advantage hence preventing people from living their own lives to the fullest.
This has been noted to result in the loss of independence and self-reliance that total libertarianism enjoys. Moderate libertarianism unlike total libertarianism suffers interference from the government.
Moderate liberalism is viewed as a cause for more problems, but to some extent it helps bring order in regards to how people should live.
If people are given freedom to exercise free will, the chances are very high that law and order will be jeopardized.
The most Preferred Philosophy
Judging by the two philosophies, total libertarianism gives much freedom to individuals rendering the state with less effect. Although people are to live in a democratic society, human rights should have limits.
This is not quite achieved if people would prefer to do things on their own. With laws, it is easier to exercise human rights without favor as in the case with total libertarianism.
Moderate libertarianism gives room for the government to exercise law and order. This may not necessarily mean that the government deprives people of their natural rights.
Minimal regulations mean that the government is given the mandate of ensuring equal distribution of resources. This is a way of eliminating bias in the society.
Moderate libertarianism seems to be the best option for dealing with issues that the society face.
Conclusion
Libertarianism is deemed important in honoring human rights issues. Individuals have the right to exercise democracy, however, people should be responsible. It is notable that the government is significant in enforcing laws.
These laws assist in maintaining the efficiency of human rights, however, government functions should be limited to maintenance of law and order. Moderate libertarianism seems to give people a better option in exercising their liberties.
It takes the effort of both democrats and the government in exercising libertarianism in a transparent and accountable manner.
People are expected to honor their liberties as much as they value order in the society. This includes what is right without infringing on other peoples rights.
Libertarianism is a philosophy that embraces freedoms in the choices and pursuance of issues in all the realms of society. Within the philosophy of libertarianism lies the question of moral responsibility and moral justice for the actions of individuals or states when looked at from a broader perspective. One of the areas where this philosophy has been applied in the field of politics, especially the area of foreign policy.
Proponents of libertarianism also referred to as libertarians, argue for the free will of states when it comes to the development of policies that guide their interaction with other states.
This paper presents a supportive argument of the philosophy of libertarianism, especially its application to the field of foreign policy. The paper argues that the libertarians present a desirable framework on which the foreign policy grounds are supposed to be established in international relations.
Overview of libertarianism and foreign policy
As observed in the introductory part of this paper, libertarianism is a political philosophy that puts liberty at the center of interaction in all the realms of interactions between states on the global scene. Liberty, as used in the postulation of the arguments in the libertarian school of thought in the field of political science, means action based on the free will.
It also means that individual actors do not have to be interfered or forced to align with a certain cause that they deem unfavorable or unfit for their choices. Libertarianism, as applied in the foreign policymaking process, is based on the assumption that individual countries have a right to do whatever they want as long as their decisions and practices do not infringe on the rights of other states (Buley 222).
According to Duncan and Machan (3), libertarianism is the basis on which the principles of liberalism in the contemporary global political economy are rooted. Libertarianism is widely referred to as classical liberalism. Thus it argues for the openness in conducting affairs for the sake of the collective benefits of actors and those who are affected by the actions.
Opinions and theses by libertarians on foreign policy
One of the arguments that are inherent in the opinions that are raised by the supporters of libertarianism about foreign policy is that states take protectionism approaches when it comes to the development of decisions that guide their interactions with other states in the world.
The central issue that comes out when it comes to foreign policy choices by states is the issue of national security and the role of the government in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizenry. However, it is important to observe that libertarianism reiterates the observance of the principle of mutual respect, even as states seek to attain their national goals in international relations.
Whether this can be attained is an issue that is debatable. Nonetheless, the most critical thing is that libertarianism provides a framework that guides the cooperation of states when it comes to the development of relations and the enhancement of objectives (Huebert 190).
Huebert (190) observes that the proponents of libertarianism support the principle of non-intervention. According to the principle, nation-states are independent entities and the activities that go on within a country immensely lie within the jurisdiction of that state. This further implies that the continuity and affairs of individual states can only be best dealt with by that state without the generation of external pressure from other states or players in the word.
The proponents further put forward an argument about the question of interests and the issue of interference in the affairs of individual states by other states. Perhaps, the pace at which several states in the world, like the United States, directly interfere or intervene in the political developments of other states through its foreign policy choices needs to be explored here.
What makes a lot of people to support the philosophy of non-intervention is that other nation states take advantage of other states when it comes to direct intervention. For instance, the United States often brings out the issue of national security and the universal protection of the rights and freedoms of all people in the world as supportive evidence for their direct actions in other states.
The resultant development of these kinds of interventions is the subjugation and worsening of the state of security and humanity, as well as the undermining of the supremacy of other governments and political regimes (Huebert 190).
Therefore, most people find it worthwhile to side with libertarianism because it is vital for the protection of the interests of individual states from the foreign policy choices that are made by other states in the global political arena. According to Daddow and Schnapper 330), non-intervention is in most cases seen as the route towards the establishment of a fairground on which governments take actions.
In most cases, the citizenry of any nations suffers from the direct consequences of the actions that are taken by their governments, especially when the governments do not pay attention to the principle of non-intervention as proposed by the proponents of libertarianism. An example that can be given here is foreign policy choices by the United States to advance military interventions in several countries across the world.
It is critical to understand that in as much as libertarianism does not support the principle of interference it does not support the issue of total isolationism either, meaning that intervention can be done in a limited way. Indirect intervention is critical in promoting the cause of humanity across the world. Libertarianism does not back the issue of isolation, but it supports steps towards cooperation for mutual gains.
Opposing foreign intervention is in itself not a reason enough to argue that the proponents of libertarianism support the principle of isolationism in international relations. On the contrary, the proponents of the liberal principles largely argue against isolationism when pursuing matters of international interest. They support the formation of bonds in international relations.
Such bonds are critical in attaining solutions to common problems that face humanity across all nations in the world. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the perspective from which the supporters of libertarianism support and oppose different aspects of isolationism in international politics and relations (Buley 222).
Duncan and Machan (5) observe that the use of force is justified when it comes to the pursuance of a cause that can help to foster the existence of civil society. This observation is critical in creating a distinction between the term coercion and the term force, which are often confused by the critics of libertarianism.
Buley (1) observes that the issue of global responsibility is also important when arguing about the issue of isolationism and participation to gain order, which is important in attaining a civil society. An observation of the developments in the world denotes the presence of actors from different inclinations.
There are those actors who are cooperative and easily work with other actors to foster international security, while there are rogue actors. In such a case, nations have to act in the spirit of supporting the common cause of promoting humanity through intervention. This is critical in securing the rights without imposing violations on certain rights.
The pursuance of the defensive foreign policy by the proponents of libertarianism only applies to certain scenarios like the protection of the citizens from the impending dangers of pursuing open policies. Foreign policy cannot be pursued on an open basis when the rights and freedoms of the citizens of a given state are at stake. An example that fits this observation is the question and the threat of terrorism.
When it comes to the incidences of terrorism, there is a higher probability that the security of the citizens of a given country can be put in jeopardy based on the terror threats that emanate from other countries. In this case, libertarians can be highly conceived from the defensive sense (Buley 222).
The other important thing that is brought out in libertarianism is the idea of civil society. In the real sense, most people desire to have a society that embraces respect for all people; a society that is free from subjugation, conquest, oppressive acts. According to the proponents of the philosophy, most of these acts reflect a non-human society that does not pay attention to the principles of civilization.
The questions that come into mind when talking about civil society is the issue of liberty and the rights of individuals within the context of pursuing foreign policies that do not interfere with the internal affairs of other states.
Here the argument that comes out strongly is that the rights and freedoms of individuals must be protected at all costs, meaning that libertarianism leaves an open environment for the embrace of humanity through supporting intervention in areas where the actions of political authorities infringe on the rights and freedoms of people.
A government that poses a threat to the rights and existence of its citizens and the citizens of other states has to be checked through foreign intervention (Duncan and Machan 91).
Conclusion
Libertarianism is an old political philosophy that supports the freedom of states to determine their existence by choosing to pursue causes as long as these causes do not interfere with the rights and abilities of other actors to develop themselves. From the discussion presented in this paper, it can be concluded that libertarianism is the main basis on which the principle of liberalism is developed and enforced in the contemporary political economy.
The proponents of libertarianism support that the principles of foreign policy have to be considerate of the questions of rights and abilities of states to promote their interests, as well as the interests of other states through limited intervention in the causes that are undesirable in the global stage.
Libertarians support the free will to pursue causes, but they do not allow the pursuance of causes that are damaging to other states and people. This is the foundation on which the philosophy is highly backed in the development and implementation of foreign policy goals and objectives of the states.
Works Cited
Buley, Taylor W. The Fresh Politics Reader: Making Current Events and Public Affairs Relevant to Young Americans. Los Angeles, CA: Silver Lake Pub, 2006. Print.
Daddow, Oliver, and Pauline Schnapper. “Liberal Intervention In The Foreign Policy Thinking Of Tony Blair And David Cameron.” Cambridge Review Of International Affairs 26.2 (2013): 330-349.
Duncan, Craig, and Tibor R. Machan. Libertarianism: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.
Huebert, Jacob H. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2010. Print.