In this essay I am going to explore the libertarian standpoint on justice, and consider the objections to such a rights based view of justice. Furthermore, I am going to examine how a just libertarian society would function, and consider the value of justice in comparison to the political virtues of liberty, and equality. Libertarianism promotes justice in two ways; it ponders the moral duties we have to others, but also the moral constitutional duties we have. At the crux of libertarian ideology is the belief that humans, as autonomous beings, have self-ownership, and a right to individual liberty. This motivates libertarians to believe that a minimal state is preferable to the present type of government, but also affirm that the current
…show more content…
According to Nozick, the state as it stands interferes too heavily within our lives, violating our individual liberty, thus not upholding justice. He explains, in place of the system of government we have today, there should be a minimal state. This minimal state plays three key roles; the enforcing of contracts, maintaining harmony and the provision of a dominant protection agency. The dominant protection agency being like a “night watchman,” keeping citizens from crime, such as theft or murder, and investigating such cases. In addition, Nozick believes that a minimal state would restore a “state of nature,” where human rights are paramount. Antithetically, sceptics believe that a society centred on libertarian justice may result in a Hobbesian state. Primitive human instincts may take over, causing people to become entirely self interested. Ideologies, such as helping those in need, which are upheld and enforced by systems like the welfare state, may filter out, and be replaced with the notion that, as long as our rights are not being violated, it does not matter. Nozick, defends libertarianism against this view by saying that philanthropic charities would still exist, but they would be voluntary, as opposed to the state forcing the responsibility to look after others upon
According to Nozick, the state as it stands interferes too heavily within our lives, violating our individual liberty, thus not upholding justice. He explains, in place of the system of government we have today, there should be a minimal state. This minimal state plays three key roles; the enforcing of contracts, maintaining harmony and the provision of a dominant protection agency. The dominant protection agency being like a “night watchman,” keeping citizens from crime, such as theft or murder, and investigating such cases. In addition, Nozick believes that a minimal state would restore a “state of nature,” where human rights are paramount. Antithetically, sceptics believe that a society centred on libertarian justice may result in a Hobbesian state. Primitive human instincts may take over, causing people to become entirely self interested. Ideologies, such as helping those in need, which are upheld and enforced by systems like the welfare state, may filter out, and be replaced with the notion that, as long as our rights are not being violated, it does not matter. Nozick, defends libertarianism against this view by saying that philanthropic charities would still exist, but they would be voluntary, as opposed to the state forcing the responsibility to look after others upon