The debate over social and economic policy is one that has been disputed ever since the first societies were established.  Most interest groups tend to believe that the government should allow its citizens to run their lives as they please by doing as little as possible.  Others believe that some classes of citizens are deprived of their liberties since capitalists and more powerful groups have economic control over them.  Both sides argue over basic moral values and how its complement contradicts those values.  Two articles from Social Ethics cover the issues of social and economic justice.  John Hospers writes “What Libertarianism Is” in the defense of limited government.  Kai Nielsen, author of “A Moral Case for Socialism” defends the idea of publicly owned sources of production.  Both systems attempt to define what is fair and what values a society should follow.

A libertarian, by definition, is one who believes in limited government and the basic right to life, liberty, and property.  Simply put, one has the right to live how he chooses so long as he does not obstruct the life, liberty, or property of another person (Hospers, 316).  In a libertarian society, all land, labor, and capital are privately owned and must be protected by the government.  More than one class may exist in a libertarian society due to the fact that an individual may be a capitalist and employ working class citizens.  Nielson suggests that in a socialist society, the government is in charge of production so that no more than one economic class of citizens exists (Nielson, 327).

The argument of freedom depends on what one considers “free.”  Hospers, a libertarian, would declare anyone who is not enslaved to be free.  According to him, capitalists who are taxed because of their wealth are not free.  They would proclaim that they are enslaved by their government (Hospers, 316).  Nielson, a socialist would argue that taxation of the wealthy is necessary in order to keep the working class free.  A free person to Nielson is one who is autonomous and self-directed.  In order to be autonomous one needs money.  Those who are under the control of their employers must do as they are told in order to receive the money they need to do as they please (Nielson 329).  Obviously, this creates a problem between certain classes as they argue over who is free and who deserves to be free.  So the question is who deserves to be free?  A supporter of the democratic way would simply say, “The majority.”

Since bureaucrats are a minority, socialism is able to function in a democracy, assuming it can function at all.  Nielson admits early that socialism is a system that may not even work.  It is admittedly utopian ideas and may be weak in its absolute form.  For argument’s sake, let’s assume it is possible to live in such a society (Nielson 329).  The working class majority is easily able to outvote the rich population in order to gain control over the government, thereby making the socialist working class more powerful than the upper-class.  This may seem like the best society since democracy has proven to be a prosperous form of government.  Yet, a prosperous society does not constitute a moral society.  One must consider that just because a majority of citizens vote a certain way does not mean that what they are voting for is the “right” thing.  Despite the fact that most people are working class citizens with limitations on their freedom, they are still committing an act of petty theft in the eyes of a libertarian.  “But we’re doing it for the right reason!” exclaims the common socialist.  If such reasoning exists, why not murder the rich and distribute their assets?  Society would be doing it for the right reason, correct?  Comically, those who are in favor of socialism typically reject the death penalty due to the high rate of minorities that are executed.

Socialism is a form of government that enforces utilitarianism, which, to most of the population, defies common sense.  Utilitarians believe in the distribution of happiness to the most people despite the pain that is inflicted on an individual.  To the unfortunate individual, this is unfair.  One way to spread happiness is in the form of equality, a minimum wage for example, for the oppressed worker (Nielson, 333).  A libertarian would make quite a fuss about this (Hospers, 326).  For example, imagine a small corporation, ACME.  ACME has budgeted $5,000,000 for its employees.  If this company paid each worker $5, ACME would be able to employ one million employees.  Now, if the government set the minimum wage at $10, ACME would now only be able to hire 500,000 workers.  What happened to the other 500,000?  They were simply let go or not hired.  Simple math shows that in a simple situation, minimum wage laws create exactly what no society wishes; it creates unemployment.  To most, a modest living is better than no living.

A libertarian would also support his views by adding that capitalism encourages innovation (Hospers 326).  Money and rewards are the driving force for improvement and production.  Money becomes an incentive for those who are willing to come up with new and improved business techniques.  On the other hand, if an inventor lived in a socialist country, he would have no ambition to share and develop his ideas, even with the company he works for, because the government would pay him a small amount for his ideas.  He would, in fact, turn around and sell them to a capitalist company from another country because he would be able to negotiate a price.  So, if someone argues that a socialist country is capable of developing as fast as a capitalist country, he is wrong.  Nielson suggests that the world is developed well enough now to direct production for the sole purpose of helping humanity (Nielson, 334).  On the other hand, his idea is theoretical and one must not assume the motives of a human being.  Nielson also reminds us that some people are simply incapable of finding a way to make it on their own.  The only way for such people to have the means to be free is to depend on charity, whether it is from the government or from a private organization (Nielson, 333).  Either way, such a person will never be “free.”

In his article, Nielson enforces the importance of giving to the needy (Nielson, 334).  Hospers neglects the point of sharing in his article, but, never condemns sharing.  An extreme majority of people would agree that sharing, giving, caring, and helping are all very important, decent things to do for another person, especially when doing so for a needy person.  Now, one must debate over who is most genuinely in need of such doings.  Even in capitalist societies, people argue over to whom government money is given.  Handing this decision to the government which may be run by special interest groups is a bad idea since so many conflicting views are represented.  So many people want so much money, but who decides who gets what and how much?  This leads to corruption and fighting within a nation.  It is no wonder countries go to war against others and themselves.  In a libertarian society, these money situations would be dealt with by the individual.  This makes some uneasy because money is scarce for some, and one may not rely solely on charity.  It is easy to see how important charity is to individuals when bringing up the thought of taking away government spending.  If charity and helping others is important to them now, why would it be less important to them later?  Many groups are created without the help of the government.  The American Civil Liberties Union is a good example.  Though, one would find it amusing to see such a group vote libertarian despite the fact that they prove this point.  Hospers would agree that if charity is important to a citizen now, it would be just as important later, and with the extra money saved on taxes, more than enough should be available for charity.  In addition, this money would be given to those most deserving to the giver, not an organization funded by a special interest group.  Why not let the individuals decide how much and to whom they should dedicate to the needy?  The answer to this is that some individuals are less giving than others and may not be willing to help the needy.  Well, that is for the individual to decide, not society.

The basis of these two arguments is the decision of whether or not citizens should be legally obligated to help the needy.  In order to make a society free, its citizens must have the means necessary to pursue their desires.  How they achieve such means is what is debatable.  Libertarians would say these means should be attributed to hard work, education, and the desire to succeed.  Socialists would agree that, for some, these means may only come from necessary government intervention.  In the end, each system depends on one or more natural human tendency to make it work.  That’s the reason why no country has discovered the perfect system yet.  Everyone is dependent on the entire society agreeing on the same moral values.  The only perfect society is a unanimous society.

Works Cited

Hospers, John. “What Libertarianism Is.” Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 6 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 319-326.

Kai Nielson. “A Moral Case for Socialism.” Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. 6 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 326-334.

  - Matt