This
week in class we read three possible perspectives. The three perspectives are libertarianism,
political liberalism and liberation theory (eek all the libs…so confusing…).
The
first perspective is libertarianism. Libertarians do not accept force, as a
viable means of getting what a person wants. They believe all people and entities
should be held to this standard (so far so good). However, they then go on to
claim that taxes are coercion and thus forceful, this would then mean that no
people should have to pay taxes. To me, this is a very selfish view. According
to the libertarian stance a person should be able to do as they please.
However, what does this actually mean? Can we allow all types of behaviors, who
is responsible for deciding what is moral and what is not? Libertarians
apparently want no government interference, except when they need something. I
believe that they are not concerned about the greater good rather the
individual. They say that it will benefit the whole but I fail to see how. It seems to me that the libertarian view is
that of protecting the elites. For instance, in class we discussed public
education. The elites may be able to pay
for education of their children, but my parents were not. Thus I depended on
the public education system to be educated. If we did away with it (or even
structured so you could choose to pay for it, because let’s be honest, if you
aren’t using it you probably won’t pay for it, which is likely to defund the
system) then I would not have freedom. In fact I would have a lack of freedom
because I have a basic right to a good education. The right to a good education
should not be predicated on how much money my parents make, in fact, no primary
right should only be given to the elites.
The
next view is political liberalism. Political liberals ask them self the
question, If I didn’t know who I was going to be (what skills I have, what race
I am, what religion I am, ) what would I want? What would be equitable and fair
and just? The author of this article outlines that reasonable would want
primary rights, which consist of equitable rights and also basic needs such as
food, water and shelter. He then argues that it would be okay if people got
ahead, or make more money because people would have special skills, or a particularly
good work ethic. Everyone also must have equal opportunity to get ahead. Also,
the money a person earns must be subjected to taxation that would redistribute wealth
and help to poverty. This is necessary because it is what is right for the
greater good. There are some problems. One issue is that we are supposed to be
able to accept everyone truths. This sounds good except that everyone has their
own truth, and it can be very difficult to accept that other’s truths are just
as truthful to them. It can be very hard to accept other people’s truth. I
suppose in a just world this would not matter, but we are not dealing with a
just world we are dealing with our own world. Because of this flaw it seems
that political liberalism may be unpractical, at least for now.
The
final theory is liberation theory. Liberations at the most basic premise
believe that God will always stand with the oppressor, and so must Christians.
I don’t understand how liberations view sin. It is communal. What happens if a person commits a terrible
crime?
No comments:
Post a Comment